Score One For The Kids: Washington And Georgia Produce An Election Night Highlight

by Austin Hill
You’ve probably seen the post-election headlines: private sector employers in the U.S. have begun slashing jobs, attributing their economic hardship to President Obama’s healthcare and environmental policies. But did you hear how some Americans actually voted for some really good things – things that can make for a brighter future?

It’s sad to see what our country has chosen. Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry (if you don’t believe me watch the video on Youtube), and the Obamacare taxes and fees levied against healthcare technology companies are downright onerous. So once it was evident that we chose “more of the same” last Tuesday, it was not surprising to see both the coal energy and healthcare technologies industries announcing thousands of layoffs – they simply can’t afford to continue operating at the same pace, given the President’s policies.

But the good news on election night came from the states of Washington, and Georgia, where residents voted to expand educational choices for children. This is to say that a state which overwhelmingly voted to re-elect President Obama (Washington), and a state that overwhelmingly voted to replace the President with Mitt Romney (Georgia), actually both agreed that increasing kids’ education options by expanding the number of charter schools is an across-the-board good thing.

Charter schools, if you are unfamiliar, are k-12 schools that are partially funded with taxpayer dollars (and partially with private donations), but are usually managed by private individuals and organizations. While each state has their own precise rules, generally speaking charter schools can reach beyond the bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all constraints of the local school district and customize their educational content and approach.

That’s why many charter schools offer academic specialties. Got a kid with an interest in engineering? Some charter schools offer an emphasis in science and mathematics. Does your son or daughter want to be a film maker? A charter school with a fine arts concentration might be a good choice.

The important point is that kids and parents should have these choices available. Charter schools allow people’s tax dollars to be put to use in ways that address the unique needs of students and parents, first and foremost, and in ways that the often self-serving established public schools don’t. Fortunately, Georgians and Washingtonians voted last week to allow even more of these options to flourish.

However, not every good effort to ensure wise use of educational tax dollars was rewarded last week. In Idaho, Indiana, and South Dakota, voters lashed out against state policies that forced local school districts to be transparent with how they spend taxpayer dollars and negotiate labor union contracts, and which provided educational technology in public school classrooms. Initiatives like these may seem like good ideas- and objectively they are-but if you’ve got enough money to spend on advertising, you can successfully portray them as evil.

Who, really, wants to argue that educational tax dollars should be spent on things that don’t benefit students? And who, really, wants to argue against government transparency?

Nobody would try to campaign on these points. But if you’re the AFL-CIO and your teacher’s union members are vested in the status quo, then you want nothing to do with transparency in government, and you certainly don’t want your union members to have to adapt to the “change” of using more computers.

So big labor spent millions in advertising dollars demonizing the education reform laws in Idaho, Indiana and South Dakota, while trashing the policy makers that brought them about. Scrutinizing the negotiation of labor union contracts was equated to “hating teachers,” while using online computer technology was characterized as “trading teachers with laptops” - and the costs of the computers were allegedly going to bankrupt the respective states, according to the teachers’ union’s advertisements.

A quick price comparison between an inexpensive laptop computer purchased in bulk (with enough digital space to store several digital textbooks) and a single hardbound text book suggests that school districts could actually save money with more computers. And expanded internet access can allow kids in the most rural of regions to connect with world class educational content from top universities. But neither of these realities mattered. This wasn’t about the kids, it was about the labor unions – and on election night voters in all three states chose the union’s agenda.

Both the expansion of charter schools, and enhancing transparency and technology in traditional schools, are fundamentally economic agendas: both initiatives have to do with a more efficient use of taxpayer money, and spending money for its intended purposes (improving kids’ education).

Yet one agenda was embraced (by both a “red” and “blue” state), and the other was rejected. The charter school movement has become so successful and popular that even the AFL CIO usually can’t stop it (although unions generally hate charter schools because they produce better academic results while spending less money). But scrutinizing - let alone “changing”-conventional public schools is apparently too uncomfortable. So in three relatively “conservative” states, voters chose with education reform like a majority of voters around the country chose for presidential leadership: they opted for “more of the same.”

Let’s hope that government transparency (even for school districts), and a respect for private enterprise, can become acceptable agendas like charter schools – so more Americans will stop choosing “more of the same.”


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.

With 2008 Enthusiasm Gone, Obama Will Lose

 by Idaho Conservative Blogger (ICB)
I’m a gut instinct kinda person. My gut told me George W. Bush would win his elections for President. My gut told me to be worried when John McCain won the Republican Nomination for President. My gut tells me Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States.

Now don’t get me wrong. Losing to Obama in 2008 was not entirely McCain’s fault. There was strangeness in the air. Hope and Change was resonating with many Americans. Many who don’t normally vote or first time voters saw something in Obama that was appealing. The problem: It was all style over substance. It was being able to feel like a part of history. The ability to say, “I voted America’s first black president.” We showed the world despite our history of slavery and racism, we have finally moved past that nasty time. The election of Barack Obama proves it. The Problem: As noble as the idea is, he was completely unqualified. The color of a man’s skin should not determine a vote. I don’t care if the candidate is male, female, white, brown, black, yellow, or green. I want the most qualified person for the job to win.

Obama promised to bring all of American’s together and end partisan bickering. The Problem: His rhetoric has divided us more than ever while the President Plays class warfare and passed Healthcare reform without one Republican vote. The President said many times to Republicans in his first year. I won you guys lost.

Mitt Romney has much going for him. He has performed well in two debates against Obama. His qualifications and experience speak for itself. Bigger than both of those things is the Obama 2008 enthusiasm gap is all but gone. Poll after poll shows Republicans have the edge in enthusiasm. Many Obama supports that were all excited and hopeful last time around have abandoned him and those who haven’t are defensive and scared.

The 2008 Obama voters who support Romney today are angry with Obama. They will not necessarily vote FOR Romney but rather AGAINST Obama because he let them down or even stronger, they think he lied to them.

Hispanics primarily are feeling lied to by Obama. Recently on Univision he was drilled with questions on fast and furious and his lack of immigration reform.

"I think up to 100 Mexicans might have died (in Operation Fast and Furious) and also American agent Brian Terry,There's a report that 14 agents were responsible for the operation, but shouldn't the attorney general, Eric Holder, ... have known about that and if he didn't, should you fire him?"

"Why don't we have ... an independent investigation that is not done by the Justice Department?"

"You promised that (reform), and a promise is a promise, and with all due respect, you didn't keep that promise."

Many others feel let down on the economy and high unemployment. He promised to fix both and failed. He promised to cut the national debt and he raised it. These things have not gone unnoticed by many former Obama voters.

Former Obama supporters are simply disappointed that he presented himself as a different kind of politician and has shown he is the worst kind of Politician. Chicago thuggery and all talk with no results.

These moderate democrats and independents who voted for Obama in 2008 but wont in 2012 have enthusiasm, enthusiasm to make up for their mistake in 2008. They will vote in droves for Mitt Romney and help secure his place as the next President of the United States.


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.