Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (13222)	8/13/2007 9:38:04 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

tehehe.."fatally flawed" is an understatement it is an understatement ... but publicly, it is nobless obliged ... Karl still has to stick to protocols ... in locker room it will be different language for the witch of NY

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (13222)	8/13/2007 10:43:33 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Hillary's Finest Hour August 13, 2007; Page A14 Hillary Clinton has been catching heat for refusing to swear off campaign cash from lobbyists, with critics accusing her of being a stooge of corporate and special interests. We'd say she deserves some credit. online.wsj.com At last week's YearlyKos event, former Senator John Edwards stooped for an easy applause line by challenging his fellow candidates to refuse donations from "Washington lobbyists." Mrs. Clinton refused to take the sound-bite bait. When asked if she'd continue taking such cash, she replied: "Yes I will because, you know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent social workers. Yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people." Her answer was met with jeers, but what Mrs. Clinton was daring to tell her left-wing audience is that lobbyists are an essential means by which average Americans transmit their political concerns to Washington, and in turn hold their elected Representatives accountable. Not everyone in America can afford to trek to D.C., or has the clout to demand an audience with a Senator. Lobbyists represent the collective voice of groups with shared ideals, whether they be gun owners, union workers, corporate employees or the pro-choice movement. One reason Mr. Edwards and Illinois Senator Barack Obama have been so cavalier about shunning "lobbyist" donations is that they know it means nothing. While neither man may take money directly from federal lobbyists, both have raked in cash from other interest groups and from people who work for lobbyists. This is an old ploy, but precisely the kind of phony liberal symbolism that the Kos crowd would fall for. Before Mrs. Clinton faints dead away at our editorial support, we should add that she also voted for the McCain-Feingold bill that has shown again how foolish it is to try to restrict money in politics. The underlying premise of all such reform is that money in politics corrupts absolutely, which may be why the New York Senator is now having to insist that she can accept lobbyist money and still be uncorrupted

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (13222)	8/13/2007 10:47:52 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

Clinton's Hostile Preschool Takeover By DARCY OLSEN AND BRUCE FULLER \| Posted Friday, July 20, 2007 4:30 PM PT Sen. Hillary Clinton ignited few fireworks, speaking before the nation's largest teachers union over the July 4 holiday. But one proposal is proving explosive: state-run preschool for all families. Clinton's proposal — introduced Thursday in the Senate — would give states $28 billion over five years to incorporate the nation's 120,000 preschools now run in firms, churches and storefronts into a government-run system. The former Goldwater girl has come a long way from the western ways and neighborhood values she once embraced. Her universal preschool idea is sparking heated debate over the back fence and in policy circles. The question is basic: How much control should the government have in raising and teaching our young children? It's Clinton's sharp tack to the left, arguing that government should take over small, independent preschools that make this super-nanny proposal reminiscent of her ill-fated single-payer health plan. Most Americans would agree that every child, not just children whose parents can afford early education, should have the same chance to succeed. Clinton's plan, still sketchy in design, could usefully reach blue-collar families who can't afford preschool — but it delivers a brave new world to already overburdened school systems. It also threatens to provide welfare to the well-off, subsidizing parents who can afford preschool. Over two-thirds of the nation's 4-year-olds already attend preschool. Clinton's blueprint draws from a California initiative, crafted by Hollywood activist Rob Reiner; more than 60% of his $24 billion proposal would have gone to subsidize comfortable families. It was voted down by a 3-2 margin last summer. Clinton now risks a hostile takeover of the $48 billion early education industry — a colorful, mixed-market blend of local centers, from Montessori programs to preschools run inside large companies. Instead, she prefers to let a thousand flowers wilt. Her new bill would allow governors to move three-quarters of the funding through public schools which, in turn, could run effective nonprofit preschools into the ground. Clinton's blueprint plays fast and loose with the facts, claiming that preschool would pay for itself through fewer high school dropouts and rising wages. But this promise stems largely from Michigan's Perry Preschool, a 1960s experiment that enrolled 61 severely disadvantaged children in an intensive program that bears little resemblance to today's lively preschool market. Three recent studies, conducted with national data on more than 22,000 young children, have shown significant benefits from preschool for poor students, especially those who find their way into higher quality elementary schools. But cognitive gains from preschool quickly fade out for middle-class children; social development slows for those spending long days in centers. Clinton's bill would direct governors to require that all preschool teachers acquire four-year college degrees. But this symbol of quality is empirically unrelated to children's developmental growth, according to eight recently published studies. Almost three-quarters of young parents say that one parent at home is the best arrangement, according to a Public Agenda poll. Rather than taking over the preschool industry, government should empower families and companies. Nearly half of all employers already offer pre-tax dollars to help pay for child care, and a fifth of all large firms operate a preschool on-site or nearby. Corporate efforts and tax policies that build from parents' preferences are essential. Government might also strengthen parents' purchasing power with stronger child-care tax credits. Low-income families would benefit from expansion of portable grants to choose from a variety of options. The key is to enrich the assortment of preschools and healthy competition among them, to match the variegated ways of raising children held by America's diverse families. As many Democrats now support charter schools — to move away from a one-size-fits-all system — Clinton now sides with those who would standardize childhood. After inching toward the political center, Clinton now veers back to the left, ignoring the neighborhood roots of child care in America. Strengthening families, work-balance initiatives and the mixed market of preschools are key steps, not a state takeover of early education. Olsen is president of the Goldwater Institute, a think tank. Fuller, a Berkeley sociologist, is author of "Standardized Childhood" (Stanford University Press).