On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Haim <email@example.com> wrote: > So, according to David Denby, the leader of the Democratic Party and the most socialist President of The Republic in living memory conspires with the "conservative wing" of the Education Mafia, exactly to what end is not clear. They are aided and abetted by governors (among whom are many Democrats) and mayors (almost all of whom are Democrats), and the Republican Party is at the bottom of it all, never mind that NCLB was written almost single-handedly by a lion of the Democratic Party and a champion of the Education Mafia, one Senator Ted Kennedy, RIP. >
This is just yet more fact-denying mythology hatched in the pit of economic conservatism.
NCLB was actually mostly written by Republicans associated with the Bush. Here is some proof:
Quote: "(By the way, if anyone wonders, I was not an architect of NCLB. I wasn't involved at any point in writing it. That distinction goes to Sandy Kress, Margaret Spellings, Education Trust, and maybe even Rod Paige, who was Secretary of Education.)"
Although Kennedy is listed as one of the four legislative authors of the bill, there are two Republicans listed as authors, John Boehner and Judd Gregg, and it was Bush's first main legislative push, one of his personal babies.
In fact, corporate interests were behind the creation and writing of NCLB - in the following article, just look at the long list of corporate crony Republicans and business groups involved, based on the Republican and conservative "outcome-based education":
"The architect of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), President Bush's first senior education advisor, Sandy Kress, has turned the program, which has consistently proven disastrous in the realm of education, into a huge success in the realm of corporate profiteering. After ushering NCLB through the US House of Representatives in 2001 with no public hearings, Kress went from lawmaker-turning on spigots of federal funds-to lobbyist, tapping into those billions of dollars in federal funds for private investors well connected to the Bush administration.
A statute that once promised equal access to public education to millions of American children now instead promises billions of dollars in profits to corporate clients through dubious processes of testing and assessment and "supplemental educational services." NCLB-the Business Roundtable's revision of Lyndon Johnson's Education and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)-created a "high stakes testing" system through which the private sector could siphon federal education funds. The result has been windfall corporate profit. What was once a cottage industry has become a corporate giant. "Millions of dollars are being spent," says Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy, "and nobody knows what's happening."
The wedding of big business and education benefits not only the interests of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of over 300 CEOs, but countless Bush family loyalists. Sandy Kress, chief architect of NCLB; Harold McGraw III, textbook publisher; Bill Bennett, former Reagan education secretary; and Neil Bush, the president's youngest brother, have all cashed in on the Roundtable's successful national implementation of "outcome-based education." NCLB's mandated system of state standards, state tests, and school sanctions has together transformed our public school system into a for-profit frenzy.
Kress, former president of the Dallas School Board, began "A Draft Position for George W. Bush on K-12 Education" as early as 1999. Working successfully with then-Governor Bush in Texas for years, the Democrat bolstered bipartisan support behind the compassionate marketing promise to "leave no child behind" through the adoption of high state standards measuring school performance. Signed into law in early 2002, NCLB dramatically extended the federal role in public education, mandating annual testing of children in Grades 3 to 8, providing tutoring for children in persistently failing schools, and setting a twelve-year timetable for closing chronic gaps in student achievement. Having then crafted the legislation, Kress transitioned from public servant to corporate lobbyist, guiding clients to the troth of federal funds. By 2005 he had made upwards of $4 million from lobbying contracts.
While the Business Roundtable maintains that the high-stakes tests administered nationwide hold schools accountable to "Adequate Yearly Progress," NCLB has instead benefited the testing industry in the amount of between $1.9 and $5.3 billion a year. NCLB requires states to produce "interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports," all of which are provided at a price by members of the industry. Among these are the top four or five players in the textbook market, including the Big Three-McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, and Harcourt General-who have, since the passage of NCLB, come to dominate the testing market. Identified by Wall Street analysts in the wake of the 2000 election as "Bush stocks," all three represent owners like Harold McGraw III, who has longstanding ties to the Bush administration and the lobbying efforts of Sandy Kress.
Other Kress clients, including Ignite! Learning, a company headed by Neil Bush, and K12 Inc., a for-profit enterprise owned by Bill Bennett, tailored themselves to vie for NCLB dollars.
Under NCLB, as school districts receive federal funding they are required by law to hold 20 percent of those funds aside, anticipating that its schools will fail to meet its Annual Yearly Progress formula. When that "failure" is certified by test scores, the district is required to use those set-aside federal funds to pay supplemental education service (SES) providers. Ignite! has placed products in forty US school districts, and K12 offers a menu of services "as an option to traditional brick-and-mortar schools," including computer-based "virtual academies," that have qualified for over $4 million in federal grants. Under NCLB, supplemental educational services, whose results are being increasingly challenged, reap $2 billion annually.
Nationally, there are over 1,800 approved providers of supplemental educational services, but little in the way of regulation. To the contrary, Michael Petrilli, former member of the Department of Education, purports, "We want as little regulation as possible so the market can be as vibrant as possible." To that end, Kress is currently lobbying on behalf of another bipartisan coalition to win reauthorization of NCLB for another six years."
As for Obama being the most socialist president in US history - not even close. He is LESS progressive than even Clinton, and less socialist than our Founding Fathers.
Obama's health care bill is essentially the 1993 Republican Bob Dole and Company health care bill put forth as an alternative to the more progressive Clinton health care bill. And Obama dumped one of the most important things to true progressives, true government-financed health care like traditional Medicare Part A and Part B called the public option. He dumped it in private negotiations with the drug companies and the for-profit hospitals, trading it for their promise to not campaign with their massive deep pockets against whatever was left. Thus, by these measures, Clinton was much more progressive than Obama.
Obama is against the Clinton tax rates for all income below a quarter million per year. A measure of progressivism is how far one is willing to go to see government revenue as a percentage of nominal GDP match the levels of the Scandinavian countries, the most prosperous countries in the world (outside of Switzerland and a few city-states like Luxembourg) as measured by per-capita nominal GDP. Obama's stimulus bill was 1/3 tax cuts and there were other tax cuts of Obama's like the payroll tax holiday and the 2010 extension of all the Bush tax cuts (that are costing the US Treasury about 3% of GDP per year, about a half trillion per year). Clinton cut no taxes but instead just raised taxes (the biggest tax increase in history that not only did not cause a recession but instead contributed to one of the greatest expansions since WWII). The Clinton taxes caused US government revenues to steadily increase during his presidency to levels roughly equivalent to the highest levels in terms of percentage of GDP (low twenties) since shortly after WWII. Thus, by these measures, Clinton was much more progressive than Obama.
In terms of how they economically governed, democratic presidents have become steadily less progressive since FDR, the most economically progressive President in history. Going back to the fact that one of the ways to measure progressivism is what they do to get government revenues up as a percentage of GDP (as well as what they do in terms of having social programs being purely government programs - and federal and not state programs - and not merely subsidies to private interests through such as vouchers or corporate middlemen - see Social Security and Medicare Part A and Part B), FDR raised tax rates such that the top brackets reached over 90%, and even capital gains taxes were higher - there was more than one rate and some were very high. He understood the need to finance Big Government of one was to have Big Government. And consider again his Second Bill of Rights - here is part of what this decent man said in 1944 during WWII when the outcome hung in the balance a half a year before D-Day, in his last State of the Union address, delivered as one of his fireside chats:
There is video of FDR giving this Second Bill of Rights - it was found by Michael Moore during his research for his movie on the obscene, ruthless, bloodthirsty horror devoid of all conscience that unregulated big corporate capitalism has become in the US (think of Romney's company - see the below). It is shown in this Wikipedia page - - press the right-arrow to see it. See many versions of it also at You-Tube by entering "Second Bill of Rights".
Finally, consider this fact: In terms of the power of central government - federal government - the Founding Fathers were the most liberal and progressive and even socialist bunch in US history. In going from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution, they implemented the biggest expansion of the size and scope and raw power of the federal government in US history by far. And in terms of government owning and operating business, they were our first socialists by far and in a big way - see the fact that the US under several presidents back then practiced raw socialism in terms of US government owned and US government operated public banking:
"Financial socialism is not evil as conservatives would have us believe - it was even practiced by the US government early in its history, via government-created private banks that gave the US government access to its profits so as to fund government via significant other sources than taxes:
"The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States, which had previously been thirteen individual states with their own banks, currencies, financial institutions, and policies.
Officially proposed by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, to the first session of the First Congress in 1790, the concept for the Bank had both its support and origin in and among Northern merchants and more than a few New England state governments. It was, however, eyed with great suspicion by the representatives of the Southern States, whose chief industry, agriculture, did not require centrally concentrated banks, and whose feelings of states' rights and suspicion of Northern motives ran strong.
The bank's charter expired in 1811 under President James Madison. The bill to recharter failed in the House of Representatives by one vote, 65 to 64, on January 24, 1811. It failed in the Senate when Vice President George Clinton broke a tie vote that February 20. In 1816, however, Madison revived it in the form of the Second Bank of the United States because of rising debts from the War of 1812 and ineffective state banks."
"The Second Bank was chartered by many of the same congressmen who in 1811 had refused to renew the charter of the original Bank of the United States. The predominant reason that the Second Bank of the United States was chartered was that in the War of 1812, the U.S. experienced severe inflation and had difficulty in financing military operations. Subsequently, the credit and borrowing status of the United States were at their lowest levels since its founding.
The bank had a unique relationship with the federal government that gave it access to substantial profits. Its role as the depository of the federal government's revenues made it a political target of banks chartered by the individual states which either objected to, or envied, the B.U.S.'s relationship with the central government. Partisan politics came heavily into play in the debate over the renewal of the charter.""
And consider the only place in the US that practices the socialism of true government ownership and control of banking, the state of North Dakota. The Bank of North Dakota was co-founded by an American socialist. Read:
It is very interesting that, during this almost world-wide recent recession, the only state in the US and the only economically advanced country in the world whose economies kept growing like wildfire and whose governments kept doing just fine financially, not experiencing the financial crises of other state and national governments, were the only state in the US that practices the socialism of government ownership and control of banking and the only economically advanced country in the world whose government owns and controls essentially all banking in the country - North Dakota and China.
What so many brainwashed against any and all socialism don't realize is that true government ownership and control of banking yields results in an economy that just cannot otherwise occur.
One would be more loans to credit-worthy business than would other occur, causing more economic activity than would otherwise occur and therefore more job creation and, yes, more tax revenue than would otherwise occur even with the same tax rates.
Another would be, via the central planning of where newly created money in the central banking system goes and does not go, more growth without inflation with larger expansions of the money supply than would otherwise occur. Compare and contrast the central planning of where all that newly created money goes and the lack of such central planning: In the large money supply expansion in the US in the 1970's, where the free market and no central planning was allowed to decide where all that extra new money went, essentially 0% of that extra increase in the money supply became extra growth and essentially 100% of it became extra inflation. But in China, for about the 30 years since about 1980, there has been the same large year after year increase in the money supply but with the opposite result that essentially 100% that extra increase in the money supply became extra growth and essentially 0% of it became extra inflation. The reason for this opposite result? Central planning by the central government involving the creation, management, and investing of money, including newly created money. This is worth noting because the Chinese central government has for about three decades done something never before done - achieved growth in an economy that is orders of magnitude greater than that of the West but with essentially no more inflation than that of the West.
Maybe those in the West who think public banking - government ownership and control of the creation, management, and investment of money - is oh so bad need to rethink things.
Google the paper "Is Government Ownership of Banks Really Harmful to Growth?" by Svetlana Andrianova, Panicos Demetriades, and Anja Shortland. They show that if anything, government ownership of banking is associated with higher growth.
Google the article "The Secret of China's Miracle Economy: the Government Owns the Banks Rather Than the Reverse" at thewebofdebt.com website, taken from "list of articles" - also click the "public banking" link.
In this light, it is good to remember my points in