SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (3225)7/7/2003 4:24:25 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793721
 
The only studies that show any benefit from this program were funded by the program, or other Ed types making a buck off of it. The continued Elementary disaster proves it is worthless. Send it to the states and then defund it.

Bush Calls for Revamping of Head Start Program
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS - NEW YORK TIMES

LANDOVER, Md. (AP) -- President Bush called Monday for improvements in the 38-year-old Head Start program, declaring it vital to the country's future that 1 million 3- and 4-year-olds from low-income families have the learning skills necessary for school.

Head Start efforts are ``working OK,'' but ``we want them to work better than OK,'' the president said at a Head Start center at Highland Park Elementary School in this Washington suburb.

The school event was Bush's only public appearance before his departure Monday evening on a five-country trip to Africa. With his re-election campaign formally under way, Bush has sought to keep a focus on domestic issues such as welfare reform, Medicare and Head Start, juggling foreign policy priorities like his trip to Africa and Iraqi reconstruction.

Evidence shows children in the program do better in school than other poor children, but not as well as their more affluent peers.

Supporting proposals that are drawing some controversy, Bush and House Republicans want to give a handful of states the option of taking over Head Start programs now directed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The idea would be for the states to blend such programs with existing state-financed preschool programs.

``We want Head Start to set higher standards for the million children it serves,'' said Bush. ``No one wants Head Start to change; we just want additional focus.''

``In my line of work, you see a problem, you address it,'' he added.

Critics fear a declining federal role will result in a lowering of standards and they say the program would lose its comprehensive mission of health, nutrition and parental involvement. Opponents also worry that states would use the federal dollars to cut state preschool funding.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer dismissed criticism of the president's proposal as coming from ``a very small but liberal faction.'' Fleischer said the administration's proposals have bipartisan support from the nation's governors.

Some tensions stem from the divide between a conservative administration directing the program from Washington and the many liberals who operate individual centers under government grants. The nonprofit groups that run the programs are closest to Head Start, but they could lose their centers if the Bush plan goes through and states are free to contract with whomever they choose.

Almost 70 percent of children enrolled in Head Start are minorities, including about a third who are black.
nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (3225)7/7/2003 8:53:48 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793721
 
Aren't the surprises of life just so much fun. Next we'll hear you have just read the most recent Edward Said piece in the London Review of Books and agree, completely.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (3225)7/8/2003 3:42:30 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793721
 
Damn! Steyn can really write. He will be a major columnist for a long time.

Democrats are turning to ... this guy?

July 6, 2003

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

It's always slightly discombobulating when someone you've known for years and always written off as a mediocrity with no talents suddenly leaps to phenomenal success. In my line of work, it's usually some fellow hack whose first novel gets optioned by Miramax for Cameron Diaz. But right now it's happening on a much larger scale to someone called Howard Dean. If you've never heard of him, don't worry. You'll soon be never hearing of him ever again. But just for the moment he is, improbably, the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. As another famous Dean once sang, "Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime," and Howard Dean's sometime is now. Go, Deano!

So who is Howard Dean? According to whose spin you buy, Howard Dean is either the new John McCain--a scrappy insurgent who's not afraid to speak his mind, etc.--or the new Bill Clinton--the successful Democratic governor of a small state whose winning charm makes voters swoon, etc., etc. Neither of these incarnations bears much resemblance to the Howard Dean I've been watching on my local news in New Hampshire every evening for over a decade. Because of the way the mountains bounce the signals around, I can't receive any Granite State TV stations, just Vermont's WCAX Channel 3, so I never get any news on what my own governor is up to, just night after interminable night of Howard Dean.

He didn't do much for Vermont. The eastern part of the state, just over the Connecticut River from me, is a patchwork of broken-down farms whose owners pay some of the highest taxes in the Republic and get very little in return, except the sense that they've lost control over their own affairs. But that's not the Vermont that matters. There's another Vermont--the one colonized in the '60s by ponytailed granola progressivism and summed up by a remarkably prescient 1972 article in Playboy: ''Get 225,000 counterculturalists to settle in the Green Mountain State and exercise their franchise--and you've begun a unique social experiment.''

Or more to the point: Just because these ideas are a surefire vote-loser everywhere across the country doesn't mean they won't catch on if enough of the tiny minority that believes in them moves to one small underpopulated jurisdiction. To the starry-eyed Democrat activist, as Vermont goes, so (eventually) goes the nation. In a field split between five lackluster congressional sell-outs and three fringe wackos, he has done a superb job at positioning himself as the heart of the party. As he put it in his craftiest soundbite to date, he's there to represent ''the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.'' These are the people who are fed up being told by the slick consultants that they need to make themselves more indistinguishable from the Republicans, and then they wind up losing anyway, as they did in 2000 and 2002. At least when Bill Clinton sold out the left on welfare and governed as an Eisenhower Republican, he was getting some terrific oral sex in return. The rest of the party feels it's got nothing to show for pretending to be ''centrist,'' and the Howardly Lion is their hero.

On ''Meet The Press,'' the would-be commander-in-chief didn't know how many people were in the U.S. armed forces. Big deal. To his admirers, not knowing how many soldiers America has is a plus. To these guys, a lone GI would be one soldier too many.

But on the issues this crowd cares about, Dean is an expert. The reason he's piling up all the big money from out of state boils down to two words: civil unions. Three years ago, Vermont became the first state in the nation to recognize a form of legal relationship for same-sex couples, and that puts Dean on the cutting edge of the issue du jour. Bringing civil unions to Vermont was ''the most important event in my political life,'' he says, though at the time he was going round the state telling folks he was only doing it because the Vermont Supreme Court made him, and, instead of the usual showboating public ceremony, he signed the legislation behind closed doors. But out in Hollywood all Barbra Streisand and the other high rollers know is that, if gay marriage is your big priority rather than Iraq and national security and all the other trivia, then Dean's your man. In a way, he's the first gay candidate, the first beneficiary of a prominent, organizationally effective, big-money gay bloc in the Democratic Party. This year, gay is the new black.

In fact, though it wasn't designed with him in mind, Dean could have been custom-built for this election's highly compressed primary season. Gay marriage is the perfect issue for long-distance pre-primary fund-raising, where he's managed to do serious and possibly fatal damage to Senators Lieberman and Graham. His general leftishness will play well with voters in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 19, where he figures he can sink Dick Gephardt. His Vermontiness will appeal more to New Hampshire Democrats on Jan. 28 than John Kerry's Massachusetts hauteur. By the time the big cluster of Sun Belt primaries rolls around Feb. 3, Dean reckons he can use his record on gun control (Vermont has none) to ditch the Northeast liberal baggage and sell himself to Southern white males, seeing off his last opponent, North Carolina's John Edwards.

I'd say the South will be a bridge too far for Dean and the Vermontification of the Democratic Party. In electoral terms, Vermont is a polarizing state. It's the Hillary Rodham Clinton of states. It has high negatives. It's not like Kentucky or New Mexico or a gazillion others you've no particular view on. To most people in Bush-voting states, Vermont is a province of Canada, and they don't mean that in a good way. But even if he doesn't get the nomination, in this critical pre-primary summer, Dean's the pacesetter, pulling the party well to the left of where it wants to be. My Vermont pals are stunned at how their hitherto obscure former governor has suddenly gone big-time. Either that, or their party's decided to go small-time.
suntimes.com