Candidate Review - Higher Education - Senator Joe Lieberman

Here are comments by a Lieberman staffer, as previously discussed.

"Joe Lieberman believes that to honor the basic promise of equal opportunity, we have an obligation to confront this problem with clear and honest answers. That means helping more disadvantaged students enter college in the first place--and setting high standards and providing strong support so that they graduate on time with a degree.

Joe Lieberman's College Opportunity Plan sets a bold goal: that by the year 2020, at least 90 percent of the students with a high school degree go on to the military, college, or vocational school; and that at least 90 percent of the students who start college finish with a bachelor's degree within six years or an associate's degree within three years.

Lieberman's blueprint for getting there is built on three pillars: resources to bring college within the reach of all Americans, improving the readiness of students for postsecondary education, and a new focus on results to ensure that students are equipped to get and keep the new jobs of the future."

Candidate Review - Higher Education - Representative Dennis Kucinich

This is from a speech to the Urban League, National Committee Pittsburgh, July 28, 2003.

"Finally, on the issue of college. Do you know that there are 12 million young Americans who attend public institutions, colleges, and universities. They pay an average of four thousand dollars a year. Now, you multiply that, it’s 48 billion dollars a year.

This take cut of the President’s amount to 155 billion dollars a year. For less than a third of the present tax cut you could have universal college for our young people. It’s time to make education a priority.

One final word. When I walk up to vote every day in the House of Representatives, there is a statue of a woman whose arm is outstretched, and she’s protecting a child who is blissfully sitting on top of a pile of books. And the title of that statue is called, “Peace Protecting Genius.”

Not with nuclear arms, but with the arms of love is the child, Genius, protected. We need to work for peace. And as we do that, that is the path to restoring this country to a new era where we have health care for all, education for all, jobs for all, and hope for all."

Candidate Review - Higher Education - Senator John Kerry

Once again I must content myself with an anonymous staffer's depiction of Senator Kerry's Plan. On the other hand, I like how this staffer ties the revenue problems facing states to peoples lives.

"John Kerry’s “Service for College” initiative will offer Americans the chance to earn the equivalent of their state's four-year public college tuition in exchange for two years of service. Kerry will set a goal within the next decade of enlisting 500,000 young people a year in Service for College."

and

"The Bush economic policies have left states with nearly $90 billion in budget deficits, and have forced cuts to higher education budgets, resulting in higher tuition, increased class sizes, and cuts to counseling, tutoring, and remedial coursework. Rising tuitions often mean that students have to drop out and others cannot afford to come. As part of his “State Tax Relief and Education Fund” Kerry will help states struggling to bridge deficits resulting from Bush’s economic policies with $50 billion to stop the education cuts and tuition increases across the country. The additional resources Kerry is proposing will be conditioned on better and smarter use of the higher education money. Kerry believes that colleges and universities should work to make the higher education system more efficient, without sacrificing quality, by streamlining services and reducing duplication. For example, if state colleges and universities banded together to make bulk purchases of things such as health care for employees, energy, supplies, and other services it would save millions of dollars annually."

Candidate Review - Higher Education - Representative Dick Gephardt

Once again I face the problem that the most accesible words on the the Dick Gephardt Website are those of the campaign staffer who runs the website. So we present the Dick Gephards program for higher education and Teacher Corps from thew view point of one of his staffers.

"That is why, as president, Dick Gephardt will increase the accessibility and affordability of college for all Americans. As a first step, he will work to protect affirmative action programs that ensure access to higher education for well-qualified, but disadvantaged students. President Gephardt will also expand federal grant and loan programs to keep up with the rising costs of college tuition, increasing the eligibility for financial aid among middle-class families and making the first $10,000 of higher education costs tax-deductible."

and

"As we value our military by investing in the training of its soldiers through invaluable programs such as the ROTC, so must we value our teachers by investing in a similar effort to train and prepare them for the classroom.

A Gephardt Administration will launch a Teacher Corps, with the goal of recruiting two and a half million new teachers by the end of the decade. Much like the ROTC, participants in the Teachers Corps will receive scholarship assistance in return for their commitment to teach for five years and to be held to high standards of performance.

Obviously the Teacher Corp idea has implications on elementary education as well, but it is presented here for its impact on those who want to go to college on the Government Dime.

Candidate Review - Higher Education - Senator John Edwards

John Edwards gave this speech at a state that is not New Hampshire, but is in fact Maryland (College Park) on November 21, 2002.

" But preparing young people for college won't make a difference if they can't afford to go. Student aid has steadily eroded over the past two decades. Students and their families are paying an ever-higher share of college costs and student loan debts are skyrocketing. States are trying to help, but in these hard times they're falling behind.

Research shows that because tuitions are so high and students are expected to take on so much debt to pay for college, many kids who ought to go and want to go don't even try, because they believe they can't afford it.

So today I am offering a simple proposal that I call College for Everyone. We are going to provide states with the resources to offer a new deal to students: If you are willing to take responsibility for your education, the first year of tuition at every community college and public university in your state is free.

Providing a free year of college tuition will eliminate the sticker shock that scares off so many kids. It will simplify a financial aid process now so complex that getting a student loan can be tougher than getting a small business loan. After students get through that first year, which is the toughest, they'll know financial aid is available, they'll know student loans are an investment worth making, and they'll have access to people who can help them pursue both. Perhaps more important, if they work hard, they'll know they can succeed in college.

But if we're going to make this deal with students, we're going to have to ask something from them in return. We'll say to students: You'll have to come to college academically prepared, and finish the college prep track in high school. You'll have to work hard in school, pass your courses, and stay out of trouble. You'll have to take responsibility for your community and your own education, by spending an average of 10 hours a week in work-study, service to your community or your school, or a part-time job. The research shows that part-time work on campus helps students perform better in college. For myself, there was no way I was going to waste my education when I was paying for it by doing things like unloading trucks and working on road crews.

We also need to make sure College for Everyone expands opportunities for students who attend private universities.

We should strengthen the foundation of student aid, the Pell Grant, whose steady erosion in value over the last two decades is a national embarrassment. And we should consolidate and simplify the messy array of education tax credits, each with its own rules, its own requirements, and its own definitions. Instead, we should have a single education credit with a single set of definitions that every family can understand and use.

Finally, we should tap the patriotism and determination of America's youth by creating four-year scholarships for students who commit to working for five years after college to address America's homeland security needs. Our country still has extraordinary safety needs that are not being met and that energetic and patriotic young people can meet better than anyone else.

Even as we work to open the doors of college to everyone, some young people are going to choose careers that don't require a college degree. In our society, teachers and doctors aren't the only people who do essential work; so do mechanics and factory workers. We have to value these workers and their work and make sure they are prepared to compete and succeed in this century.

Some of the nation's fastest-growing occupations are in fields like health care, computer technology, hospitality, and public safety, where you don't need a college degree to land a good job. Today young people get training for these jobs wherever and however they an but their opportunities are limited, especially if they live in rural or low-income communities.

We need to expand these training opportunities, strengthen partnerships between high schools and community colleges, and modernize our vocational high schools so students get the training they need for the good jobs where skilled workers are in short supply today. These investments are ambitious, but they are critical. "

Candidate Review - Higher Education - Former Governor Howard Dean

Howard Dean revealed his plans for higher education at a speech at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire on November 13, 2003.

Today’s higher education system simply doesn’t work because our political process has stopped working for all Americans.

To pay for his reckless tax cuts, President Bush administration had to cut Pell Grant funding for 84,000 students. Hundreds of thousands of students will be getting smaller grants. It under-funded financial aid by $1.4 billion. And the administration cut funding for AmeriCorps, giving students even fewer opportunities to pay for higher education.

When he signed the Higher Education Act of 1965, Lyndon Johnson said, “A high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or university in any one of the 50 states and not be turned away because their family is poor.”

But that vision is far from fulfilled. If we stay on our present course, we’ll soon reach a point where only the wealthiest will be able to afford college.

. . . That is why I am proposing a new initiative that I’m calling the College Commitment to give every child the opportunity to go to college.

We will start early with a fundamental promise to every 8th grade student:

If you agree to prepare for college and graduate from high school, we’ll guarantee that you will have access to $10,000 a year in grants and loans for college.

After you graduate, you’ll never have to pay more than 10% of your income on loan repayment.

And by the end of 10 years of work, your loans will be paid in full.

Those students who enter public service will get an even better deal. If you become a teacher, a nurse, a police officer, a firefighter, or go into another high-need public service field, you’ll never spend more than 7 percent of your income on loan payments. I’m calling that the “Public Service Corps.”

Students who aren’t choosing a public service career because they’re worried about paying off their loans will now be able to follow their dreams after college. And we’ll address the pending shortages in nursing and teaching by giving kids an incentive to enter these fields. "

Candidate Review - Higher Education - General Wesley Clark

Since many of my readers are likely to be college students, here are the Democratic Candidate's positions on Higher Education.

This is from a speech given on December 10th, 2003, coincidentally enough in New Castle, New Hampshire. Funny how the candidates seem to talk so often in New Hampshire and Iowa.

"A college education is the foundation of the American dream. And it pays off. Not just in knowledge, but in dollars. Studies show that for each additional year of higher you get, you earn 5 to 15 percent more. That's more than the average returns on stocks and bonds.

So today, we should be making it easier-not harder-for our kids to get the education they need to succeed in the 21st century economy.

Unfortunately, too many young people don't even consider going to college because it's just too expensive.

. . . My plan has four parts.

First, we will provide $6,000 a year for the first two years of college to any student whose family earns $100,000 or less. That's double the federal grant students currently get -- and it covers more than 100 percent of the tuition and fees for the average four-year public university.

Second, we've got to make it easier for student to apply for financial aid. I'll streamline the application process, so students only have to fill out one form for Pell Grants and Hope Scholarships.

This will make it much easier for more students to get the aid they need.

Third, we have to help cash-starved states with tuition costs. Right now, President Bush's tax cuts have put states in the red, forcing them to raise tuition prices just to stay afloat. That's why state tuition increases are twice as high as private ones.

My plan sends state and local governments $40 billion to help fix their fiscal crises, and get tuition costs under control.

Finally, my plan helps working families save for college by giving tax credits to working families, those who have the hardest time putting money away."

End of Year Stats

For those curious, here is a list of those commentators who have appeared since the website opened, actually. So it includes more than this year. Also Brandy is an actual person, and so might not fit in with all these others--but she did comment pretty regularly, so I'm putting her on.

1. Rush Limbaugh - 54 Times (14.59%)
2. Ann Coulter - 24 (6.49%)
3. David Limbaugh and Ben Shapiro - 22 (5.95% or 11.89% cumulative)
4. Cal Thomas - 20 (5.41%)
5. Paul Krugman - 14 (3.78%)
6. Jonah Goldberg - 13 (3.51%)
7. Mona Charen, Thomas L. Friedman, and Robert Novak - 11 (2.97% or 8.92% cumulative)
8. Walter Williams - 10 (2.70%)
9. Brandy and Dennis Prager - 9 (2.43% or 4.86% cumulative)
10. Brent Bozell, Suzanne Fields, and Frank J. Gaffney - 8 (2.16% or 6.49% cumulative).

Happy New Year

To each and every one of you.

Later on we'll be doing our review of 2003, so look forward to that.

Your Weekly Rush

Rush, of course, is on vacation, so he has a sit in guy doing it today. I caught just a few moments of the show, but it was on the flight deck landing. Apparently the way the media and the left have spun that story is disingenious and an attack on American Troops. Yep, it's an attack on American troops to suggest that Karl Rove and President Bush might have manufactured that story out of whole air.

It's an attack on American troops to report that the U.S.S. Lincoln was directed back out to see so as to mandate President Bush taking a Jet out there. Whoever is hosting Rush's show today correctly stated (I assume) that in order to fly that type of jet, you have to wear a jet suit. But what he ignores is that the flight by Jet was unnessecary. Instead he could have allowed the Lincoln to continue it's voyage home and flown out by Helicopter.

It's an attack on American troops to report that the Bush Administration provided the "Mission Accomplished" banner that hung over his shoulder (although, of course, Mr. Bush did not actually utter the words "Mission Accomplished.").

Seems like any criticism of President Bush is an attack on our troops. Be hard to run a campaign that way.

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams, with whom I haven't checked in with for quite a while, writes this week on the sanctity of the market.

"I don't know about you, but I always try to get the lowest prices for what I buy and the highest prices for what I sell, and that includes my labor services. Is such a practice immoral? Nobody is forced to sell me anything at my preferred price, nor are they forced to buy from me at my preferred price. If we indeed transact, the only thing a third party could conclude is that we both saw ourselves as being better off than our next best alternative, or why would we have voluntarily transacted?

You say: "OK, Williams, you're right. But where are you going? How many times have we heard the accusation that a corporation moved overseas to take advantage of lower-priced labor or hired cheaper-priced Indians with HB-1 visas to replace higher-priced American high-tech workers? You'd think that a desire for lower prices is somehow immoral. Why should a preference for low prices be OK for you and me, and not so for CEOs?"

You might say, OK, Gries, why are you wasting my time with Walter E. Williams? Because he is so enamored of the argument that money is the only true sign of value that he over steps boundaries other, more temperate writers do not. In this case, he makes it clear that the only questions a consumer should ask when approaching a product are monetary. Is this a price I am willing to pay or should I wait for a lower price.

What Mr. Williams seems not to understand is that there are prices beyond the obvious monetary ones. For example, in the case of the employer who moves as much of his company as he can over seas, he will get some short term Monetary Gain, but at the cost of hurting his employees. This has been described as a Job-less or even a Job Loss recovery. If the American working class and middle class are stretched tight, who will they buy Mr. Employer's products?

Beyond which there are moral costs. Surely the most efficient work force would be an enslaved one. In such a scenario all the employer is paying for is the bare necessities for his workers. An enslaved work force would be much much cheaper than almost any alternative (assuming you could keep the enslavement quiet). So what would keep a business person from creating an enslaved labor force?

The Economy

Paul Krugman's latest article is pretty telling, in the face of a thousand chattering Republicans chanting that the economy is in recovery (or, depending on how much egg nog they consumed, the economy is the strongest it's ever been)

"It was a merry Christmas for Sharper Image and Neiman Marcus, which reported big sales increases over last year's holiday season. It was considerably less cheery at Wal-Mart and other low-priced chains. We don't know the final sales figures yet, but it's clear that high-end stores did very well, while stores catering to middle- and low-income families achieved only modest gains.

Based on these reports, you may be tempted to speculate that the economic recovery is an exclusive party, and most people weren't invited. You'd be right."

Obviously I hope (and I presume Mr. Krugman shares this hope) that the economic growth some quarters have been experiencing continues and spreads to all parts of the economy; but I have to assess that President Bush's policies make long term recovery unlikely.

Full Scale attack on Howard Dean

We have articles by David Limbaugh, Rich Lowry, and Cal Thomas on Dean. Limbaugh and Lowry take him to task on his foreign policy (largely). Lowry repeats every scurrilous attack on Dean in the form of a question, which is always nice.

Cal Thomas, on the other hand, attacks Dean on religious grounds. Apparently Howard Dean is a Northeastern Congregationalist and his faith, as a Democrat, is suspect. As we all know, anybody who really loves Jesus will automatically support President Bush. Therefore Dean's faith must be all pretense and deception, designed to fool the South (where belief in Jesus is common). Limbaugh gets most of his information from a Boston Globe Article which is fractionally more fair minded than he is (that damned liberal media), but still castigates Dean and presents him pretty badly.

Another Opinion on the Military

From the New York Times opinion page.

"Over a third of the Army's active-duty combat troops are now in Iraq, and by spring the Pentagon plans to let most of them come home for urgently needed rest. Many will have served longer than a normal overseas tour and under extremely harsh conditions. When the 130,000 Americans rotate out for home leave, nearly the same number will rotate in. At that point, should the country need to send additional fighters anywhere else in the world, it will have dangerously few of them to spare.

This is the clearest warning yet that the Bush administration is pushing America's peacetime armed forces toward their limits. Washington will not be able to sustain the mismatch between unrealistic White House ambitions and finite Pentagon means much longer without long-term damage to our military strength."

Fortunately since this article appeared in the New York Times, and since we know that the New York Times is, for all intents and purposes, completely corrupted by liberalism (unless they print something that happens to support a conservative position), there's nothing to worry about.

Dean's Chances

From the Rutland Herald (Rutland being in Vermont, apparently), comes an article on Dean's chances in 2003.

"The job in 2003 is different. It is not Howard Dean's task to separate himself from recent Democratic failures, as Clinton needed to separate himself from Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. He has needed to separate himself from the failure of the Democrats to give the voters a credible alternative to George Bush. It is an emperor-has-no-clothes problem. Bush's failures are huge and plainly visible to those who will see. Dean has been willing to help people see.

Dean has now entered a phase during which his opponents and the press are having at him with dangerous vehemence. Dean's inconsistent and provocative statements, combined with his unapologetic and defiant response to criticism, have infuriated his opponents and drawn the wrath of editorialists and columnists, liberals among them. This dynamic is the flip side of one of Dean's assets.

That asset is something Dean shares with Clinton: audacity."

Fighting the last battle again is usually a losing strategy, albeit a popular one.

Rebuilding Iraq

With all the problems that have been largely created or exasperated in Iraq by the incompetence of the Bush Administration, it's easy to believe our troops are passive victims of the logic of empire. They aren't. Some of them are taking smart steps to move the military towards adopting strategies for what, for lack of a better word, we call nation-building.

Evan Thomas, Rod Nordland and Christian Caryl have written an interesting article on the steps some are taking to win this very different kind of war. ". . . the military establishment, especially the Army brass and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have been reluctant to take on the messy jobs of nation-building and peacekeeping that go with stamping out guerrilla movements. In truth, defeating insurgencies is very hard. The preferred method down through the ages has been extermination - genocide and the elimination of whole villages and tribes. Such brutal tactics are not an option for a democratic superpower being closely watched by TV cameras."

Hopefully the administration can wake up to the difficulties of winning against an insurgancy. If they cannot, than maybe the soldiers and their leaders will figure out ways to lessen the body count and increase the potential for success.

Liberal Hate Speech?

Well it's time for Jeff Jacobs annual column talking about Liberal Hate Speech.

The examples he comes up with this time around are pretty weak. A few Nazi analogies, and an NPR "diva" who hoped that General Boykin was not long for this world. She claims she meant that he was not long in his job, Jacobs claims that she was clearly wishing for Boykin's death, and I'm inclined to believe the Diva. He pads the score a bit by including past winners.

He doesn't seem to have a problem with conservative hate speech. He's aware, for example, of Michael Savages exhortation that a caller to "get AIDS and die, you pig." Perhaps he would respond that such comments are obviously detestable, and he shouldn't need to condemn them for us to know he disapproves of them. That may be so, but it is telling when a writer condemns one branch of hate speech and doesn't condemn the other.

On the plus side, he does comment, "Of course this complaint can be taken too far. Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party's chairman, has lately been accusing Democrats of engaging in "political hate speech" when they call Bush a "liar" or a "miserable failure." But there is a world of difference between labeling someone a failure and labeling him Hitler. " Fair enough. And it must be frustrating, assuming Mr. Jacobs really feels this way, to have his justified criticisms of liberal hate speech (and some of them are justified) diluted to include basically all liberal criticisms of the President.

New Quotes

And a new Quotes Page.