The main reason I'm a Democrat is that Republicans have a sorry record on education.  I'm a teacher candidate at the University of West Georgia and teaching has been a passion of mine for a long time now.  With all this talk about Sen. Obama's "wealth redistribution" tax plan I can't help but think of Sen. McCain's own plan to redistribute wealth:  vouchers.  Vouchers are when the government gives YOUR tax dollars to someone so they can go to a private school, completely unaccountable to you, the taxpayer.  While this is just one of the many flaws of No Child Left Behind (which Sens. McCain and Chambliss support) it's obnoxiously hypocritical for someone to complain about wealth redistribution while at the same time supporting vouchers.

There's more...

Barack Obama has a solid progressive legislative record, which is enough to make me think his occasional use of right-wing talking points when talking about domestic programs like social security and health-care is an electoral ploy. But then he comes out with this.

Senator Obama said this week that he is open to supporting private school vouchers if research shows they work.
"I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn," Mr. Obama, who has previously said he opposes vouchers, said in a meeting with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "We're losing several generations of kids, and something has to be done."

Education analysts said Mr. Obama's statement is the closest they have ever seen a Democratic presidential candidate come to embracing the idea of vouchers.

Vouchers, taxpayer-funded scholarships that allow families to opt out of public school and use their government-allotted education dollars to attend a private school instead, has been a major right-wing policy objective for years. From the National Education Association:

Despite desperate efforts to make the voucher debate about "school choice" and improving opportunities for low-income students, vouchers remain an elitist strategy. From Milton Friedman's first proposals, through the tuition tax credit proposals of Ronald Reagan, through the voucher proposals on ballots in California, Colorado, and elsewhere, privatization strategies are about subsidizing tuition for students in private schools, not expanding opportunities for low-income children....In the words of political strategist, Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."

Bush has been a particularly strong advocate of vouchers, pushing a federally funded voucher program on the citizens of the District of Columbia and in his 2009 budget proposal proposed $300 million for national private school vouchers.

Obama would likely argue in his defense that he is only considering vouchers, and that his openness on the issue will be popular with independents and moderates who are frustrated with the pace of change in our public schools. But as Ruy Teixeira pointed out in a survey of voters' attitudes about public schools:

Despite criticisms of its current performance, the public's views on educational reform start with strong support of the public school system--particularly as it functions for low-income students. The public wants that performance improved, starting with higher standards, and is willing to tolerate fairly strict guidelines and testing regimes to accomplish this goal...The data also indicates that the public is far more interested in implementing more accountability in public schools and providing more resources to the public school system than in moving to a voucher-based system. Indeed, vouchers tend to lose badly today when in political propositions precisely because they are perceived to be in conflict with the public's commitment to adequate resources for public schools.

In 2006, voters in the reddest of red states, Utah, delivered this message loudly when they defeated by a 62% to 38% margin, a referendum which would have confirmed a law passed by the legislature to create the most comprehensive education voucher program in the nation.

The question is why Obama, who is now the Democratic frontrunner, decided to flirt with a program that is not only unpopular with the party's base, but with the nation at large and whose biggest proponents are to be found working for the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

There's more...

I use a term to describe my politics and my blog as newliberal.

Basically the newliberal approach starts with a fundamental love of the USA, the greatest country ever created. Starting from there, we should use our God-given talents to solve problems to the best of our ability based on facts and logic.

You might think most people do this, but in fact many approach politics from an emotional vantage point, while others are purely ideological. Much of Senator Obama's support is based in emotion. While much of John Edward's support is ideologically Left wing. In both cases, the person has a strong pre-disposition and then seeks out facts to confirm and bolster their conclusion.

Newliberals will start with as much an open mind as possible, study all relevant facts, and come to a conclusion that is best for America.

That is why, I support Hillary Clinton for President because on balance she is the most qualified to lead this nation going forward.

As an aside, I personally like her, and admire her willingness to truly fight for what she believes in.

Overall I probably agree with Hillary and most Democrats about 60% of the time on issues.
I wish she and other democrats believed in many ideas that are truly "progressive" and newliberal as I coin them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/washin gton/29educ.html?_r=1&ref=us&ore f=slogin

Last night President Bush offered "Pell Grants for kids" to offer school choice to struggling families. It is not only the right thing to do policy wise, but politically it would be a benefit to the African American community.

First of all, I think we should have universal vouchers for everyone. I reject the notion that the government should determine whether a school is good for or failing a child. The parents should determine whether a school is proper for their child, and demonstrate their preference by spending their money there. I explain my education position at:

newliberal education plan
http://craigfarmer.blogspot.com/2007/12/ democrats-should-support-vouchers.html

The reason we as democrats don't support choice in education is because of the Teacher's Unions' support of our party. They don't want choice because it would threaten both their job tenure and the nature of their work. There are various other arguments used against vouchers that don't make sense coming from Democrats like: vouchers would "take resources away from other children". If we can spend billions in Iraq, we can spend billions on our children. If there ever was a reason to run a deficit, it would be to invest in our children.

Even if we have a period where we fully fund the current system, and give vouchers on top of that it still wouldn't be that expensive relative to other government programs.

Almost everyone I know in the African American community supports vouchers. It is not a terribly complicated scenario. If the school they are attending is great, they would give the voucher to that school. If they want something different like more or less discipline, more or less arts, more or less diversity, more or less politics, or whatever, this can be better acheived in a free market. The problem with have the government run schools nationwide is that it is impossible to please millions of people, so we wind up with the least offensive choices that are acceptable to the masses.

It's sad to say that an idea where we guarantee a quality education to everyone, and give everyone a voucher to find what they want is radical change for the Democrats.

YOU MIGHT THINK SOMEONE WHO OFFERS REAL CHANGE WOULD SUPPORT VOUCHERS? Hello, Obama? Hello, Edwards?

I won't let my opinion of what's right for America be changed to support a special interest group in our party.

I'm against the death penalty as of now ,because after I studied it, that is the right positioin.
I'm against the war in Iraq because after I studied it, that is the right position.
I'm prochoice on Abortion rights 100% because it is the right position.
I'm also pro-choice on Education.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

There's more...

cross-posted at Daily Kos

Some important news from Keith Fitzgerald for State House

Out-of-State Pro-Voucher Group Enters District 69 Race

All Children Matter Sends Benson Mailer

Last week, a Michigan-based special interest group called All Children Matter (ACM) paid for a mailer to State House District 69 voters promoting the campaign of Laura Benson. ACM is a pro-voucher organization whose major funders include the families of the founders of corporate giants Wal-Mart and AmWay. Based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, ACM operates through a network of Political Action Committees and Electioneering Communications Organizations in states across the country.

Read more about ACM after the jump:

There's more...

The partial privatization of Social Security pushed by the Bush administration and the Republican Congress failed miserably last year, failing to really even get off of the ground as a result of widespread public disapproval. Stymied on that front, the White House and it's GOP allies in the Congress are now turning to another government program, public schools, for another effort at partial privatization. Diana Jean Schemo has the story for The New York Times.

With Education Secretary Margaret Spellings joining them in a show of support, Congressional Republicans proposed Tuesday to spend $100 million on vouchers for low-income students in chronically failing public schools around the country to attend private and religious schools.

As The Washington Post's Lois Romano notes, it's not even clear that a partial privatization scheme for our public schools would result in an improved education for students.

The proposal comes four days after the independent research arm of the Department of Education issued a report showing that public schools are performing as well as or better than private schools, with the exception of eighth-grade reading, in which private schools excelled. The results prompted questions from foes of vouchers about why taxpayer money should go toward private schools instead of toward improving public schools.

George W. Bush and the Republican Congress are going off of the same playbook they have been following for years. Whenever any questions emerge about a public program, privatization is their answer.

The Social Security trust fund might run empty in 35 years... partially privatize it. Want to add a prescription drug program to Medicare... partially privatize it. Want to make the War in Iraq seem less expensive... partially privatize services (to Halliburton and others). Public schools are underperforming because of budget cuts... partially privatize them through vouchers.

The American people do not want to see their necessary services farmed out to corporations or private institutions, but Republicans nevertheless continue in their effort to sell off massive chunks of the American government like it was a business they just bought with junk bonds. Oh, Republicans will use terms like "vouchers" or "personalization" to make their plans more palatable to voters, but no one should mistake what their real intention is: negating America's promise to this generation and future generations by systematically privatizing public programs.

There's more...