A Hilltop Too Far
Campaign finance reform advocate Gov. Steve Bullock accused of illegal campaign coordination
Democratic Montana Gov. Steve Bullock has led the fight to undermine the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC, which struck down efforts to regulate the political speech of nonprofit groups, corporations, and labor unions.
According to a complaint filed March 13 with Montana’s Commissioner of Political Practices, Bullock’s gubernatorial campaign illegally coordinated with a host of independent expenditure groups through the shadowy Democratic consultancy Hilltop Public Solutions.
Hilltop was highly active in both the Montana governor’s race and last year’s Montana Senate race, in which Hilltop helped Sen. Jon Tester (D) win reelection.
Legal experts say Montana’s campaign finance laws are vague, but that the complaint may have enough merit to justify a more extensive investigation into the allegations.
“Given the breadth of Montana’s definition of coordinated expenditures, there is enough for the commission to work with for an initial investigation,” said Benjamin Barr, legal counsel for the Wyoming Liberty Group and a former special counsel for the Federal Election Commission.
Hilltop held a series of conference calls with Bullock’s campaign and subsequently coordinated independent expenditures for labor unions, environmentalist groups, and other left-wing organizations in support of the campaign, according to the complaint.
Additionally, the alleged coordination involves six different liberal advocacy groups; local, state, and national divisions of the Democratic Party; and five different vendors with ties to Hilltop.
“Given the inter-related activities of the participants through use of common vendors (Hilltop) and political affiliations it is difficult to comprehend how these parties maintained the separation necessary to avoid coordination of their campaign efforts,” wrote Billings, Mont., resident James Scott Pennington, who filed the complaint on Friday.
Hilltop did not return an emailed request for comment.
“I feel that the only logical conclusion, based on the preceding law and evidence, is that coordination occurred between the governor and supporters during the 2012 election, and that a substantial penalty by your office is warranted,” Pennington wrote.
Pennington says he was not active in politics before filing the complaint. He describes himself as a “concerned citizen.”
He told the Washington Free Beacon that he solicited legal counsel to file the complaint but has not received any information from the commission beyond confirmation that the complaint was posted on its website.
He suggested that Bullock’s zealous campaign finance reform position is hypocritical. “You hear the rhetoric and you hear how they speak about it, as if it’s everybody else’s problem,” he said.
Asked whether he thought the commission would act on the complaint, Pennington said, “it may get some traction, it may not.”
Montana law defines an “independent expenditure” as “an expenditure for communications expressly advocating the success or defeat of a candidate or ballot issue which is not made with the cooperation or prior consent of or in consultation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or political committee or an agent of a candidate or political committee.”
A “coordinated expenditure” under Montana law can be made in cooperation or consultation with a candidate or committee but must be reported as an in-kind contribution.
Pennington’s complaint alleges that Bullock’s work with Hilltop, its related vendors, and their clients amounted to coordinated expenditures but were not reported as such.
Barr, who also filed a brief in Citizens United, said an investigation would be needed to determine conclusively whether a violation took place.
“If it could be shown through an investigation, for example, that substantial discussions occurred about campaign advertising between agents of Bullock and other entities or that the candidate or his agent was materially involved in decisions about the content for advertising by third groups or timing, then there’s a better chance for a finding of coordination,” Barr said.
An investigation may take place, but the political practices commission must first give Bullock the opportunity to respond to the allegations. Respondents typically make their case to the commission within 20 to 30 days of the filing of a complaint, according to Mary Baker, the commission’s program supervisor.
After the commission receives the response, it will decide whether to dismiss the case, pursue an investigation, or prosecute the respondent immediately.
The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Bullock spearheaded Montana’s effort to undermine Citizens United through a state law that prohibited corporations from spending money on political advertisements. Bullock defended the law as Montana’s attorney general before the United States Supreme Court, which eventually overturned it.
Bullock railed against the supposedly corrupting influence of free speech rights for corporations in his first State of the State address.
“We have seen the rise of so-called ‘dark money’ groups that target candidates yet refuse to tell the voting public who they really are and what they really represent,” Bullock said.
“Montanans deserve better,” he added.
Bullock is an ally of his predecessor of Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D), who is also vocally opposed to free speech rights for corporations.
Schweitzer also appointed Jim Murry, Montana’s current political practices commissioner.
Murry has been an advocate “for fair campaign practices laws,” Schweitzer said after his appointment. Prior to his career in government, Murry was the executive secretary of the Montana AFL-CIO, which runs one of the political groups that allegedly coordinated independent expenditures with the Bullock campaign.
Murry will recuse himself from the commission’s work on the complaint against Bullock due to the potential for a conflict of interest. Baker said deputy political practices commissioner Jay Dufrechou will adjudicate the case instead.
http://freebeacon.com/a-hilltop-too-far/
It's Interesting What Survives Sequestration
Isn't it interesting what has survived the budget cuts of sequestration? Here are but two (of many) programs that have survived: food stamps and foreign education. While two does not make a pattern, one has to wonder what the objectives are here. Could the objectives be "vote-buying" and "Muslim influence"? Judge for yourself.First, there is the fact that food stamps for illegal immigrants from Mexico are still plentiful; they have not been cut. It appears that Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama "... continues to pursue a 'partnership' with the Mexican government to 'raise awareness' about food stamps among immigrants from that country." Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee protected the program despite a Republican who proposed ending funding for it.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a very vocal critic of the program, said that he believes that the public will eventually demand an end to the program. But the Democrat-controlled Senate Budget Committee allowed it to continue in the vote last week.
Second, the Obama administration is currently funding education aid to Pakistan while cutting tuition assistance for U.S. soldiers. Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) is asking why the funding continues.
On Monday, March 18, 2013, Poe said:
Why are we funding education programs for our Benedict Arnold ally when we can't fund - or don't fund - the education for our military? And to Pakistan of all places, where hatred for America is at its highest. Washington should watch its spending and prioritize. It's time, Mr. Speaker, to sequester Pakistan.
And that's not all. Since the sequester, the administration has approved $37 million in foreign aid to Pakistan.
According to Poe, the cost of the military education program is 0.1 percent of the Defense Department budget, yet it has helped 50,000 military soldiers graduate.
This goes on while White House tours are suspended and USDA food inspectors are furloughed.
Sequestration? What sequestration?
Now Obama targets your FedEx, UPS packages
Shipper warns move 'has potential to threaten privacy of all
The Obama administration is demanding the nation’s two biggest shipping companies police the contents of Americans’ sealed packages, and a FedEx spokesman is warning that the move “has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages.”FedEx and UPS are in the Justice Department’s cross-hairs for not flagging shipments of illegally prescribed drugs the companies say they had no way of knowing were in their possession.
Criminal charges could be coming against the carriers, even though the government has not alleged any deliberate wrongdoing by the companies.
FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald said his company has a 40-year history of actively assisting the government crackdown on any criminal conduct, but he told WND this probe was very different from the start.
“What is unusual and really disturbing is it became clear to us along the way that FedEx was being targeted for some level criminal activity as it relates to these medicines that are being shipped from pharmacies, and we find it to be completely absurd because it’s really not our role,” Fitzgerald said. “We have no way of knowing what is legal and not within the packages that we’re picking up and delivering in this situation.”
“At the heart of the investigation are sealed packages that are being sent by, as far as we can tell, licensed pharmacies. These are medicines with legal prescriptions written by licensed physicians. So it’s difficult for us to understand where we would have some role in this. We are a transportation company that picks up and delivers close to 10 million packages every day. They are sealed packages, so we have no way of knowing specifically what’s inside and we have no interest in violating the privacy rights of our customers,” Fitzgerald said.
In addition to the unrealistic expectation that the federal government seems to have for the companies to know what’s in every package, Fitzgerald said protecting the rights of customers is paramount and the issues go hand-in-hand.
“They clearly are attempting to put some responsibility for the legality of the contents of these packages. That’s why for us it goes far beyond even just the online pharmacy situation. This really has a chilling effect. It has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages via FedEx because the government is assigning a role on us as law enforcement or taking on their role in a way that is not appropriate,” Fitzgerald said.
FedEx sought to diffuse the standoff by offering to stop doing business with any pharmacies that the government suspected to be involved in illegal activities. The Justice Department declined, citing the potential for the pharmacies to sue over a lack of due process.
“If the government were to come to us and give us the name of a customer that’s engaged in some level of illegal activity, we can immediately stop shipping for that customer. We will not tolerate any illegal activity within our networks,” Fitzgerald said. “What we want here is a solution that will apply for the entire industry and serve the public’s interest. That’s why we find it completely absurd and, to a large degree, stunning that the government is not working with us on that solution as they have with other problems in the past. As long as they’re not doing that, there’s really no solution even if they were to pursue an investigation or criminal charges against a specific company. There needs to be an industry-wide solution that will put a stop to this problem.”
That leaves FedEx and UPS with the task of stopping illegal shipments from sources the government will not divulge.
“The comparison that we’ve made is a no-fly list. It’s as if the government were to go to major commercial airlines and accuse them of some level of criminal activity if they were to allow somebody on the no-fly list onto one of their planes without providing them a no-fly list,” Fitzgerald said. “What we want here is the no-fly list for online pharmacies. If they are aware of some level of illegal activity by some number of pharmacies, simply provide us that list and we will stop providing service. It’s a very simple solution.”
Fitzpatrick said no other private carriers are being targeted by the Justice Department, and he has no evidence to suggest this probe is designed to boost the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service at the expense of private competitors.
UPS is currently negotiating a settlement with the government, but FedEx is fighting this all the way.
“Settlement is not an option for us when there’s no illegal activity on our part,” Fitzpatrick said.
A Chicago Fat Cat for Commerce Secretary?
Penny Pritzker is an Obama crony who has benefited from numerous questionable deals.
Will
President Obama really nominate billionaire Chicago gal pal Penny
Pritzker to head his Commerce Department? “It’s a done deal,” according
to a White House source close to the Chicago Tribune.
As further confirmation, Pritzker resigned abruptly from the Windy
City’s school board late last week. The crony fix seems to be in.
Most notoriously, Pritzker headed up subprime lender Superior Bank. Even after it went under in 2001 and left 1,400 mostly poor and minority customers destitute, Pritzker was pushing to expand its toxic subprime-loan business. As I’ve reported previously, Pritzker and her family escaped accountability by forking over a discounted $460 million settlement over 15 years after the bank collapsed.
One of the Obamas’ oldest Chicago friends and an intimate confidante of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Pritzker served as a top national finance chairwoman and bundler for the 2008 presidential campaign. She is an heir to the Hyatt Hotel and Pritzker family fortunes. According to Forbes, her grandfather and his sons also created the industrial conglomerate Marmon Holdings, which the family sold to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway for $4.5 billion.
To protect her family’s multibillion-dollar fortune, Pritzker’s enterprises park their money in the very same kind of offshore trusts Obama attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney over. But Obama lapped up nearly $800 million in campaign and inaugural funding raised by Pritzker. A former Pritzker tax lawyer pioneered tax-avoidance strategies for the family, which allowed them to pay $9 million in taxes instead of $150 million in estate taxes after patriarch A. N. Pritzker died. As Forbes notes: “There are now 11 Pritzkers on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans.” Nice lawyering if you can get it.
Exempted from Obama’s poisonous class-warfare demagoguery, Pritzker also chaired Chicago’s failed Olympic Village Subcommittee while serving as president of Pritzker Realty Group, a top Illinois mega-developer that would have reaped untold millions in project work if then Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley and the White House had secured the 2016 Olympic bid.
Former Pritzker executive and Obama campaign treasurer Martin Nesbitt also served on the Olympic committee, while holding the chairmanship of the Chicago Housing Authority under Daley — brother of former Obama chief of staff William Daley. Cronies of a feather.
One of the most lucrative schemes milked by these developers and perfected in Chicago is a mechanism called tax-increment financing. When I worked in Seattle covering corporate welfare and city government, I became strange bedfellows with a diverse alliance of libertarians and Ralph Naderites who rightly oppose “public-private partnership” deals between developers, statist Democrats, and corporate-welfare Republican politicians. These “public-private partnership” scams inevitably involve tax-increment financing gimmickry to siphon off tax dollars to subsidize developers/builders/contractors, who then reward politicians with big campaign donations.
TIF schemes totaling hundreds of millions of tax dollars were at the heart of the Obama/Daley/Pritzker Chicago Olympics bid. And a huge franchise of Pritzker’s Hyatt Hotels Corp. was the beneficiary of a $5.2 million TIF subsidy approved by Chicago Dems last year. It’s part of a massive redevelopment project with the Obamas’ hometown University of Chicago that robs local schools to subsidize well-connected corporations.
Don’t take my word for it. As a radical left-wing local activist put it: “It’s not fighting economic blight; it’s a way of taking from everyone and giving to the 1 percent.” From Chicago to Chicago on the Potomac, it’s dirty statist business as usual.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343424/chicago-fat-cat-commerce-secretary-michelle-malkin
PK'S NOTE: OK, this is needs to be looked at. Perhaps time limits?
US still making payments to relatives of Civil War veterans, analysis finds
An Associated Press analysis of federal payment records found that the government is still making monthly payments to relatives of Civil War veterans — 148 years after the conflict ended.
At the 10 year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, more than $40 billion a year are going to compensate veterans and survivors from the Spanish-American War from 1898, World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the two Iraq campaigns and the Afghanistan conflict. And those costs are rising rapidly.
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray said such expenses should remind the nation about war's long-lasting financial toll.
"When we decide to go to war, we have to consciously be also thinking about the cost," said Murray, D-Wash., adding that her WWII-veteran father's disability benefits helped feed their family.
Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator and veteran who co-chaired President Barack Obama's deficit committee in 2010, said government leaders working to limit the national debt should make sure that survivors of veterans need the money they are receiving.
"Without question, I would affluence-test all of those people," Simpson said.
With greater numbers of troops surviving combat injuries because of improvements in battlefield medicine and technology, the costs of disability payments are set to rise much higher.
The AP identified the disability and survivor benefits during an analysis of millions of federal payment records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
To gauge the post-war costs of each conflict, AP looked at four compensation programs that identify recipients by war: disabled veterans; survivors of those who died on active duty or from a service-related disability; low-income wartime vets over age 65 or disabled; and low-income survivors of wartime veterans or their disabled children.
—The Iraq wars and Afghanistan
So far, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the first Persian Gulf conflict in the early 1990s are costing about $12 billion a year to compensate those who have left military service or family members of those who have died.
Those post-service compensation costs have totaled more than $50 billion since 2003, not including expenses of medical care and other benefits provided to veterans, and are poised to grow for many years to come.
The new veterans are filing for disabilities at historic rates, with about 45 percent of those from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking compensation for injuries. Many are seeking compensation for a variety of ailments at once.
Experts see a variety of factors driving that surge, including a bad economy that's led more jobless veterans to seek the financial benefits they've earned, troops who survive wounds of war and more awareness about head trauma and mental health.
—Vietnam War
It's been 40 years since the U.S. ended its involvement in the Vietnam War, and yet payments for the conflict are still rising.
Now above $22 billion annually, Vietnam compensation costs are roughly twice the size of the FBI's annual budget. And while many disabled Vietnam vets have been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder, hearing loss or general wounds, other ailments are positioning the war to have large costs even after veterans die.
Based on an uncertain link to the defoliant Agent Orange that was used in Vietnam, federal officials approved diabetes a decade ago as an ailment that qualifies for cash compensation — and it is now the most compensated ailment for Vietnam vets.
The VA also recently included heart disease among the Vietnam medical issues that qualify, and the agency is seeing thousands of new claims for that issue. Simpson said he has a lot of concerns about the government agreeing to automatically compensate for those diseases.
"That has been terribly abused," Simpson said.
Since heart disease is common among older Americans and is the nation's leading cause of death, the future deaths of thousands of Vietnam veterans could be linked to their service and their benefits passed along to survivors.
A congressional analysis estimated the cost of fighting the war was $738 billion in 2011 dollars, and the post-war benefits for veterans and families have separately cost some $270 billion since 1970, according to AP calculations.
—World War I, World War II and the Korean War
World War I, which ended 94 years ago, continues to cost taxpayers about $20 million every year. World War II? $5 billion.
Compensation for WWII veterans and families didn't peak until 1991 — 46 years after the war ended — and annual costs since then have only declined by about 25 percent. Korean War costs appear to be leveling off at about $2.8 billion per year.
Of the 2,289 survivors drawing cash linked to WWI, about one-third are spouses and dozens of them are over 100 years in age.
Some of the other recipients are curious: Forty-seven of the spouses are under the age of 80, meaning they weren't born until years after the war ended. Many of those women were in their 20s and 30s when their aging spouses died in the 1960s and 1970s, and they've been drawing the monthly payments since.
—Civil War and Spanish-American War
There are 10 living recipients of benefits tied to the 1898 Spanish-American War at a total cost of about $50,000 per year. The Civil War payments are going to two children of veterans — one in North Carolina and one in Tennessee— each for $876 per year.
Surviving spouses can qualify for lifetime benefits when troops from current wars have a service-linked death. Children under the age of 18 can also qualify, and those benefits are extended for a lifetime if the person is permanently incapable of self-support due to a disability before the age of 18.
Citing privacy, officials did not disclose the names of the two children getting the Civil War benefits.
Their ages suggest the one in Tennessee was born around 1920 and the North Carolina survivor was born around 1930. A veteran who was young during the Civil War would likely have been roughly 70 or 80 years old when the two people were born.
That's not unheard of. At age 86, Juanita Tudor Lowrey is the daughter of a Civil War veteran. Her father, Hugh Tudor, fought in the Union army. After his first wife died, Tudor was 73 when he remarried her 33-year-old mother in 1920. Lowrey was born in 1926.
Lowrey, who lives in Kearney, Mo., suspects the marriage might have been one of convenience, with her father looking for a housekeeper and her mother looking for some security. He died a couple years after she was born, and Lowrey received pension benefits until she was 18.
Now, Lowrey said, she usually gets skepticism from people after she tells them she's a daughter of a Civil War veteran.
"We're few and far between," Lowrey said.
A Stark Choice for America's Budget
For the first time in four years, the U.S. Congress is engaged in a full-throated budget debate. Take a moment for at least a quiet “Hurrah!” The federal government has at last embarked on its most basic responsibility. This was the price exacted by House Republicans from Senate Democrats for raising the debt ceiling in February. So far, so good.Congress has four distinct budget plans to compare and contrast, and eventually on which to base its decisions. Two are from Republicans and two are from Democrats, each competing to be the guiding vision of America’s fiscal future.
President Obama is the only one still missing in action as he, in direct contravention of the law, is late in producing his own budget—not by days or weeks, as is his habit, but by months. The nation still awaits the release of the foremost governing document by the newly reelected commander in chief.
None of the congressional budgets offered to date is without blemish. But of the two budget committee plans, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “Path to Prosperity” is by far the more sensible, more credible, more responsible, and least gimmicky.
The Ryan budget would repeal the spending elements of Obamacare (notably the $1.8 trillion in new spending from the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies), reform Medicare, and slow the growth in spending overall. As importantly, the Ryan budget would balance the budget in 10 years. The notable blemish on the Ryan budget is that, while it repeals the spending elements in Obamacare, it also retains the revenue from its tax hikes.
The leading alternative to the Ryan budget is the offering by Senate Budget Chairman Patty Murray (D-WA). The Murray budget differs from Ryan’s in many respects, but the details are all reflected in these observations:
- The Murray budget reaffirms that Democrats are the party of tax and spend, and it reflects the President’s stated disregard for balancing the budget.
- The Murray budget would raise taxes by another $1.55 trillion over the next 10 years, and yet would still never balance.
Murray claims, for example, $1.85 trillion in total deficit reduction over 10 years. She also claims to have eliminated the across-the-board spending cuts from the sequester that went into effect March 1. However, as discovered by the minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee, Murray doesn’t replace the sequester savings and then offer $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction. The deficit reduction is the replacement for the sequester, meaning that even by her own numbers Murray only reduces the deficit by $700 billion, despite massive tax hikes.
And it gets worse. As Rea Hederman and John Ligon of Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis point out, the Murray tax hikes would do real damage to the economy. Economic growth and the revenues it generates is the most powerful tool we have for deficit reduction. Yet Murray would raise taxes, slowing business investment in particular and reducing employment by 853,000 jobs.
By slowing the economy, the actual additional revenues the Murray budget would generate are not the average $155 billion she claims, but about $88 billion a year. Normally, less of a tax hike might be cause for relief, if not jubilation. But in this case the lesser tax hike comes along with fewer jobs and lower wages. When the spending gimmicks and reduced revenues are all taken into account, Hederman and Ligon project that the Murray budget would reduce the deficit by a total of $200 billion. That’s not $200 billion a year—it’s spread out over 10 years.
Therein lies the basic choice facing Congress and the country. The Murray budget raises taxes, allows spending to continue to soar, and would have the national debt continue on its sharp upward path toward crisis. The better choice is the Ryan budget—rejecting new tax hikes, tackling entitlements, slowing the growth in spending, and balancing the budget, and hopefully restoring a culture of fiscal discipline that would prevent the coming debt crisis before it ever really gets started.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/20/morning-bell-a-stark-choice-for-americas-budget/
PK'S NOTE: We got along fine without this department. I say cut Homeland Security dept in its entirety, and the Federal Reserve, along with the Education Dept, the Dept of Interior, Dept of Transportation, etc. Delete them and all their agencies.
Big, Bloated, and Bumbling
Department of Homeland Security scrutinized for bloated size, lack of preparation for sequestration
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held the latest in several hearings to review executive agencies’ implementation of the recommendations by their inspectors general. This hearing focused on the Department of Defense and the Department Homeland Security.
The sequestration cuts loomed over the hearing, even though Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) noted at the outset that the hearing was not about the mandatory cuts that went into effect on March 1. Some congressmen sought to disparage the cuts while others looked to the agencies for better ways to manage the reductions.
Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.) zeroed in on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). He questioned Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management Rafael Borras about the department’s sizable payrolls and asked why it is not shuffling resources around to compensate for the budget cuts. TSA has almost 66,000 employees and 10,000 administrators, he said.
“This is one of the most shameful things I’ve seen any agency do, and you are bloated beyond control,” Mica said.
“We never intended Homeland Security to bloat to this extent,” he said.
Rep. John Tierney (D., Mass.) noted that Congress should have anticipated the massive growth of the TSA, but also said Congress should assume some responsibility. “Congress spends the dime,” he said.
Mica also highlighted wasteful spending in his opening statement. He named several programs, including a $141,000 Chinese research program that “has to be absolutely essential to the continuation of the Republic as we know it.”
The congressmen also questioned Borras over DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s exaggerated statements about the sequester. She claimed that lines at major airports were 150 to 200 percent longer than usual, a claim Borras himself threw into doubt when he said there have not been any major effects of the sequestration thus far.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) questioned Borras about why Homeland Security released 10 “level one” offenders in preparation for the sequestration. Gowdy said it costs the department $122 per day to hold a level one offender, defined as an aggravated felon.
“Could you not find $12,000 somewhere else in the DHS budget other than releasing level one aggravated felons as part of your cost-saving measures?” Gowdy asked. Borras conceded, under pressure from Gowdy, that DHS had sufficient funds to pay for retaining these felons.
“Don’t act as if you didn’t have any choice but to release aggravated felons,” Gowdy said.
The Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) chief told another House committee at about the same time on Tuesday that he could have sought other ways to save money besides releasing over 2,000 detained illegal immigrants, 10 of whom were the level one offenders that Gowdy brought up. ICE is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R. Ohio) criticized Homeland Security’s inadequate preparation for the sequester. The department waited about a year after the sequester became a possibility before starting to plan for it, and it still has not responded to an inquiry from Issa into how the committee and Congress can help the department better implement the budget cuts.
“It seems to me if you had 20 months to prepare for this, and the chairman asks you how we can help you better implement it, you should have something to email right away,” Jordan said.
Issa noted that the Department of Defense was the only agency to respond to his inquiry with specific suggestions.
The Department of Defense’s Joint Strike Fighter project also came under scrutiny in the hearing, especially from Democrats. Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings (Md.) expressed indignation that the project would cost more than one trillion dollars over ten years.
Department of Defense Comptroller Robert Hale testified that the fighter is needed to update the military’s aging airplane fleet. Issa encouraged Hale to change the way the military approaches such appropriations in the future.
Hale also said some of Congress’ actions hurt the department’s effectiveness and ability to cut money. Continuing Resolutions prevent money from being appropriated in the right amounts, and Congress has overridden some of the department’s proposed cuts to programs.
The Department of Homeland Security faced scrutiny late last year for bloated and wasteful spending.
http://freebeacon.com/big-bloated-and-bumbling/
The Blob That Ate Children
By John StosellShortly after I did my first TV special on education, "Stupid in America," hundreds of union teachers showed up outside my office to yell at me. They were angry because I said union rules were a big reason American kids don't learn.
The union is a big reason kids don't like school and learn less. Union contracts limit flexibility, limit promotion of good teachers, waste money and make it hard for principals to fire even terrible teachers.
But I was wrong to imply that the union is the biggest problem. In states with weak unions, K-12 schools stagnate, too.
Education reformers have a name for the resistance: the education "Blob." The Blob includes the teachers unions, but also janitors and principals unions, school boards, PTA bureaucrats, local politicians and so on\.
They hold power because the government's monopoly on K-12 education eliminates most competition. Kids are assigned to schools, and a bureaucracy decides who goes where and who learns what. Over time, its tentacles expand and strangle attempts to reform. Since they have no fear of losing their jobs to competitors, monopoly bureaucrats can resist innovation for decades.
As one advocate of competition put it, the Blob says: "We don't do that here. We have to requisition downtown. We got to get four or five people to sign off; the deputy director of curriculum has to say this is OK, etc." Most reformers just give up.
The Blob insists the schools need more money, but that's a myth. America tripled spending per student since I was in college without improving student achievement.
In Los Angeles, they spent half a billion dollars to build the most expensive school in America. They planted palm trees, put in a swimming pool and spent thousands of new dollars per student.
The school is beautiful, but how's the education? Not so good. The school graduates just 56 percent of its students.
Three schools in Oakland that Ben Chavis started aren't as fancy, but the students do better. They get top test scores. And Chavis doesn't just take the most promising or richest students, as teachers unions often claim competitive schools do. Chavis' schools take kids from the poorest neighborhoods.
So what does the education Blob decide to do? Shut his schools down.
School board members don't like Chavis. I understand why. He's obnoxious. Arrogant. He probably broke some rules. For example, he's accused of making a profit running his schools. Horrors! A profit!
If he did profit, I say, so what? He still got top test results with less government money. Good for him!
But the Blob doesn't like success that's outside its monopoly. It doesn't matter that Chavis has now resigned from the school's board. Oakland may still close his schools. Think about that. As measured by student achievement, his schools are the best. But the Blob doesn't care. And the Blob has the power of government behind it.
In New York City, the union teachers protesting outside my office said: "Our rules are good and necessary, and if cities would let us train teachers and run schools, we'd do a great job. ... We have the expertise, intelligence, the experience to do what works for children."
They said if charter schools must exist, the union should run one, and they "would create a school where all parents would want to send their children." So New York City gave the United Federation of Teachers a charter school of its own. The union boss called it an "oasis."
But what happened? Today, the teachers union school is one of New York's worst. It got a "D" on its city report card. Only a third of its students read at grade level. And the school still lost a million dollars.
Yet it's the union's model school! I assume they tried their best, staffed it with some of their best teachers. The union knew we were watching. But with union rules, and the Blob's bureaucracy, they failed miserably.
I really want to ask them why they hate competition, but they won't come on my Fox television show.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2013/03/20/the-blob-that-ate-children-n1538645/page/full/
ALSO READS:
No comments:
Post a Comment