Common Sense Pt.2: The "Not-So-United" States of America

Bryan Baumgart – 3/3/2014

Earlier this year, Walter Williams posed a question in an editorial titled “Parting Company” on Townhall Daily that I believe will be asked more and more by Americans in the future.

“If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people's lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group?”

Williams went on to answer his question:

"I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative."

Williams isn’t alone. Calls for secession are becoming more and more frequent with each passing day.

On April 9, 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry joined other states such as Oklahoma, Indiana, and South Dakota in publicly endorsing a resolution affirming the sovereignty of their state under the 10^th Amendment. One could argue these resolutions are merely public objections to federal overreach, but they also lay the groundwork as legal platforms for future secession.

Perhaps former KGB member and Russian academic Igor Panarin should be credited with US secession predictions as early as 1998. Panarin based his predictions on classified data supplied to him while he worked for the Russian “National Security Agency” (FAPSI). Panarin claimed that by 2010, economic, financial, and demographic trends would provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. and that the wealthier states would withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. He predicted that social unrest up to and including a civil war would follow and the US would split along ethnic lines.

Of course three years have since passed since the end of 2010 and Panarin’s predictions have not come true. That doesn’t mean they won’t, and if they do play out…Panarin’s scenario makes the most sense.

Panarin’s “wealthier states” (the states most likely to become fed up and make the first move) are the states with more to lose than gain from being part of the union. Economically self-sufficient states such as oil and gas giants like Texas, Alaska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the Dakotas are a few that fit the bill.

Critics will point to the fact that Texas actually receives more in federal revenue than it sends to DC in taxes or that blue states such as New York or California pay more in federal taxes than they receive. While this is true and serves to appease states like Texas, those red states still have a tipping point in regard to federal interference in their state’s Constitutional rights. Thus states like Texas reaffirming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.

There is an important difference between self-sufficient states accepting more federal funds than they contribute out of choice, and states that do so out of necessity. Of course, any state that isn’t inhabited by a majority of voters supporting a giant welfare state could be self-sufficient (most red states). Independence directly correlates to personal responsibility.  

As the largest and most independent, Texas is likely the state to lead the charge after extending an invitation to the other “red” states to join the effort. States could refuse to contribute to federal coffers, choosing instead to hold on to their revenue and take care of their own or to join in union with other like-minded states.

Next comes the push from “red” counties in blue states to split from their respective states.  These efforts are already picking up steam. After President Obama’s reelection, symbolic petitions to secede were filed in more than 30 states. These petitions held no teeth, but have already turned into real movements such as the ongoing effort in California to split into six states or the five Colorado counties that voted to secede and form their own state. These counties could very well be accepted into neighboring “red” states.

The country could find itself split down the middle; a strategic advantage for the secession movement. The economic advantage then lies with those “red” self-sufficient states. Their tax climates will attract businesses (and job seekers) from the “blue” states which equates to increased revenue. In a classic repeat of the Cold War and collapse of the USSR under the weight of its own misguided ideals, the “blue” states find themselves starved of jobs, opportunity, and necessary revenue.

Which begs the question…what kind of opposition/response would spring up from the federal government? Up to this point, the secession has been a peaceful revolution. Would the president turn the military on a large number of states? If so, what orders would be issued? Should elected leaders be arrested it could spark rebellion from the armed citizenry of those states, sparking a civil war as Igor Panarin predicted.

The president’s latest move should come as no surprise then, as pointed out by Texas Governor Rick Perry. The president is once again attempting to gut the Army and National Guard; the branch of military under authority of the Governors. This move lends credence to the belief that the president is proactively working to gut the military forces that could be used in opposition and attempting to make the states more dependent on the federal government in cases of emergencies and defense.

Patriots best be vigilant.

Nebraska Public Service Commission…Necessary or Nuisance?

Bryan Baumgart - 2/28/2014

 

A seat at Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has become a highly coveted position.  

“It is not a high-profile job, but it's described by some as one of the best elected positions in state government. It comes with a $75,000-a-year salary. And if history is any indication, the job could turn into a lifetime gig.” –Robynn Tysver, Omaha World Herald, 1/19/2014

The PSC is a constitutionally created executive body established under Article IV, Section 20 of the Nebraska Constitution.

The PSC was initially created by the Legislature in 1885 to regulate railroads. In 1906 a constitutional amendment made the Commission a three member elected Railway Commission. Membership was increased to five Commissioners in 1964 and the state was divided into five districts, each to elect a commissioner.

The Commission could be described in three words:

Regulation: 

Today the Commission regulates telecommunications carriers, natural gas jurisdictional utilities, major oil pipelines, railroad safety, household goods movers and passenger carriers, grain warehouses and dealers, construction of manufactured and modular homes and recreational vehicles, high voltage electric transmission lines, and private water company rates. The Commission also oversees and administers several statutorily created funds with specific legislative purposes and goals including the Nebraska Universal Service Fund, the Enhanced Wireless 911 Fund, and the Nebraska Telecommunications Relay System Fund.

High Salaries:

The $75,000-a-year-salary makes the position one of the highest paid government positions in the state, just below those of the state auditor and state treasurer and considerably higher than the $12,000 paid to state senators making laws for the entire state. While the gig is considered fulltime and members are prohibited from engaging in other occupations, admittedly the duties are less than time consuming.

“While the position is intended to be full time, there have been times in the past when there were commissioners who were not as active or dedicated to the job.” --Current PSC Chairman Frank Landis.

Cronyism:

Commissioners have become a prime target for lobbyists, pulling in 76 percent of campaign contributions from the industries they regulate. That doesn’t look to change anytime soon. Under legislation passed in 2011 the PSC is granted the authority to approve major oil pipelines. With possible decision making authority over the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline, expect the PSC to be targeted heavily by lobbyists on both sides.

The question that remains…

Is the Public Service Commission a necessity any longer or is it an unnecessary expense to Nebraska taxpayers? Could the duties better be handled by other entities? With over $27 million dollars spent by special interests lobbying Nebraska lawmakers in 2013 alone, is the Commission prone to corruption?

Could Nebraska’s taxpayers be better served by ending the PSC through a Constitutional Amendment?

I think it’s time for a serious discussion.

Is the Time for Secession Now?!

"I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative." - Walter Williams
 

Parting Company

Walter E. Williams | Jan 01, 2014

 

Here's a question that I've asked in the past that needs to be revisited. Unless one wishes to obfuscate, it has a simple yes or no answer. If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people's lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group? Yes or no. My answer is no; they should be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways.

The problem our nation faces is very much like a marriage in which one partner has an established pattern of ignoring and breaking the marital vows. Moreover, the offending partner has no intention to mend his ways. Of course, the marriage can remain intact while one party tries to impose his will on the other and engages in the deviousness of one-upsmanship and retaliation. Rather than domination or submission by one party, or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage where vows are broken, our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. These constitutional violations have increased independent of whether there's been a Democrat-controlled Washington or a Republican-controlled Washington.

There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways. You say, "Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?" Let's look at the magnitude of the violations.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is there authority for Congress to tax and spend for: Medicare, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and thousands of other activities that account for roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to citizens about what type of health insurance they must purchase, how states and people may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps, and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do just about anything for which they can muster a majority vote.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." Our founder's constitutional vision of limited federal government has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Americans have several options. We can like sheep submit to those who have contempt for liberty and our Constitution. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and Constitution. A superior alternative is to find a way to peaceably separate into states whose citizens respect liberty and the Constitution. My personal preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation. 

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/01/01/parting-company-n1769958

Poverty is Winning the War on Poverty

We have spent $15 trillion “fighting” poverty since 1965 and we are currently spending $ 1 trillion a year ― an amount equal to about $22,000 per poor person or $88,000 for a family of four. Yet our poverty rate today (16%) is higher than when we started (14%)! If there has been a War on Poverty, poverty won.

Is it not obvious that we are subsidizing and enabling a way of life? To put it bluntly, we are paying young women to have children out of wedlock. We are paying them to be unemployed. And we are paying them to remain poor.

Is Poverty Really The Result Of Bad Luck?

Move upMove down

President Obama's Health Reform Will Shred The Safety Net John GoodmanContributor

Obama's Shameful Calculated Deception Deceives America Over Obamacare Peter FerraraContributor

As Obamacare Unravels Before Our Eyes, It's Time To Craft An Alternative Capital FlowsContributor

Obamacare's Insurance Exchanges Will Foster A Race To The Healthcare Bottom John GoodmanContributor

 

On Thanksgiving eve, a Nicholas Kristof editorial instructed us on how to think about poverty in The New York Times. The main reason there is poverty, he tells us, is bad luck.

We don’t choose our parents, after all. Or the household or neighborhood we are born into. Here are a few of his observations, with my emphasis added:

 

“As Warren Buffett puts it, our life outcomes often depend on the ‘ovarian lottery.‘

 

[T]he difference between being surrounded by a loving family or being homeless on the street is determined not just by our own level of virtue or self-discipline, but also by an inextricable mix of luck, biography, brain chemistry and genetics.

 

[S]uccess in life is a reflection not only of enterprise and willpower, but also of random chance and early upbringing.”

So what’s the solution to this problem? It is apparently very simple: All we need is love. (Kristof’s column is actually titled “Where Is the Love?”) And just in case you are not motivated in that way, Kristof draws on the work of Harvard professor John Rawls to give a rational philosophical reason to spend more on welfare programs.

But before getting into that let’s pause for a moment. Is being born really a matter of luck? Doesn’t that take willful activity on the part of two parents? And is the inability of parents to support their children really a matter of luck? Or is it the result of bad habits and undisciplined behavior?

Let’s grant that some people do have bad luck. But bad luck usually strikes randomly. Absent hurricanes and tornados, we don’t expect misfortune to befall entire neighborhoods ― to say nothing of entire cities.

Kristof’s particular focus is on Food Stamps, given the debate in Congress over whether to cut spending on the program. So let’s concede that misfortune can cause some people to be hungry. But does that include the entire city of Dallas?

Every single child attending public school in Dallas, Texas is getting a free lunch and a free breakfast. The reason: There are so few children who don’t qualify for free or subsidized food that it made administrative sense just to give free meals to everybody. And as I wrote previously, the trend around the country these days is to add a free supper as well. So the only time kids will need Food Stamps is on weekends.

By the way, Dallas is not like Detroit. The economy is booming. As Texas Governor Rick Perry is fond of pointing out, Texas has created almost half the new jobs in the entire country over the past decade. So why, in the midst of all this growth and prosperity, is every school child in the city living in a home where the parents cannot afford to put food on the table?

At some point you would think that even New York Times editorial writers would come to suspect that the welfare state is not relieving poverty. It is creating it.

We have spent $15 trillion “fighting” poverty since 1965 and we are currently spending $ 1 trillion a year ― an amount equal to about $22,000 per poor person or $88,000 for a family of four. Yet our poverty rate today (16%) is higher than when we started (14%)! If there has been a War on Poverty, poverty won.

Is it not obvious that we are subsidizing and enabling a way of life? To put it bluntly, we are paying young women to have children out of wedlock. We are paying them to be unemployed. And we are paying them to remain poor.

Now let’s turn to the rational (non-emotional) argument for the welfare state. Kristof writes:

 

“John Rawls, the brilliant 20th-century philosopher, argued for a societythat seems fair if we consider it from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ — meaning we don’t know whether we’ll be born to an investment banker or a teenage mom, in a leafy suburb or a gang-ridden inner city, healthy or disabled, smart or struggling, privileged or disadvantaged. That’s a shrewd analytical tool — and who among us would argue for food stamp cuts if we thought we might be among the hungry children?”

 

Warren Buffett, by the way, makes a similar argument.

And in both cases, it’s a surprise that these two very intelligent men cannot think of any other policy options. Remember, behind the Rawlsian veil of ignorance you don’t have to worry about what is politically practical. You can choose any public policy you like.

So wouldn’t a rational person ask how public policy could be changed so that fewer children are born to alcoholic mothers who don’t read to them or encourage their mental development?

It appears that government doing nothing would have vastly decreased the odds of being born as a child of such mothers. During the Reagan years the Council of Economic Advisors tracked the reduction in Post-World War II poverty as a function of economic growth. The conclusion: if there had never been a War on Poverty, the poverty rate by the mid-80s would have been significantly below where it actually was.

Bringing those estimates forward, if there had never been a welfare state, economic growth alone should have virtually eliminated poverty by now.

Today, Buffet and Kristof standing behind a veil of ignorance ― about to be born into the United States ― would have a one in two chance of experiencing a birth paid for by Medicaid. Absent the welfare state, their odds of needing charity to be born would have been on the order of two or three out of 100.

Of course now that we have created the welfare state, and the culture that depends on it, it’s virtually impossible to end it and ask everyone on the dole to go cold turkey. But we can do something else. We can privatize it.

More on that in a future editorial.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2013/12/03/is-poverty-really-the-result-of-bad-luck/ 

Designed to Fail - Obamacare Paves Way to Single-Payer

Harry Reid and Tom Coburn Agree: Obamacare Was Designed to Fail, Pave Way for Single-Payer

John McCormack

August 10, 2013 11:54 AM

The Las Vegas Sun reports:

In just about seven weeks, people will be able to start buying Obamacare-approved insurance plans through the new health care exchanges. 

But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot. 

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.” 

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said. 

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.” 

The idea of introducing a single-payer national health care system to the United States, or even just a public option, sent lawmakers into a tizzy back in 2009, when Reid was negotiating the health care bill.

And so we have a rare moment of bipartisan agreement in the United States Senate. Reid now appears to concur with Republican senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who has has been warning for quite some time that Obamacare was "rigged to fail" in order to pave the way for a total government takeover of the health insurance industry.

"More than two years after the passage of Obamacare, the data overwhelming show the law will fail to achieve its core objectives of lowering costs and improving access," Coburn wrote in 2012. "That, ironically, may have been the design. By making private insurance unaffordable for everyone, it will become available to no one. All that will be left is government-centered, government-run, single-payer health care."

As liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein said in 2008, organizations on the left pushing for health care reform were pursuing a "sneaky strategy" to "put in place something that over time the natural incentives ... move it to single payer."

So the big question on the left and right isn't really whether or not Obamacare will eventually fail, but what comes after it fails.

When Obamacare starts to unravel, will the American people really trust the Democrats who designed it to fix it by giving the government more power and more control? Or will Obamacare's failure provide an opportunity to repeal it and replace it with a more conservative, free-market reform?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/harry-reid-and-tom-coburn-agree-obamacare-was-designed-fail-pave-way-single-payer_745908.html
 

GOP’s Winning Strategy: Fund the Government, Not Obamacare

Bryan Baumgart - Chairman, Douglas County Republican Party

October, 8, 2013

It was said it couldn’t be done. It was said it shouldn’t be done. Yet on September 20th, House Republicans set their plan in motion by passing H.R.2682 (The Defund Obamacare Act). A plan that would fully fund the federal government; sparing Americans from both a government shutdown and the impending Obamacare train wreck. In the end, Senate Democrats chose to refuse the funding and allow the government to be shut down.

Today the Republican strategy picks up steam as vulnerable Senate Democrats are placed squarely on the hot seat. After Democrats refused funding for the entire federal government, Republicans responded by passing partial funding bills on popular issues (with bi-partisan support). Senate Democrats have vowed not to negotiate and continue to kill funding for these popular issues such as veterans benefits, cancer research, pay for our National Guard and Reserves, funding for nutritional food programs for low-income women and children, disaster relief, etc.

These are certainly not winning positions for vulnerable Senate Democrats in 2014. You can bet Republicans will continue to push Democrats hard for their refusal to negotiate. Cracks have already begun to surface as an exception was made to unanimously pass the “Pay Our Military Act” to fund our active-duty military as well as civilian Defense Department employees and contractors. It was immediately signed into law by the president.

Working against the Democrat’s strategy to shut down the government is the fact that it hasn’t been particularly painful for American voters. Forbes estimates that only 13% of the government has actually shut down. In an effort to sway public sentiment, President Obama has ordered national parks and monuments barricaded, select government websites shutdown, as well as Amber Alerts and access to the open ocean. A Park Service Ranger was recently quoted as saying, “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.” This order came from the White House. When President Obama forbade priests and chaplains from celebrating religious services on military bases, the House overrode his order by a vote of 400-1 and dared Senate Democrats to side with the president.

The plan has all but backfired on Democrats as stories surface of World War II and Vietnam War vets facing arrest for viewing their own memorials. Once again, not behavior that vulnerable Senate Democrats want to be associated with, particularly from independents who are undecided about who to blame for the shutdown. The Republicans aren’t shy to shine the spotlight on the issue either. A new website has been set up by Senator Ted Cruz’s PAC called (FundOurVets.com). The site calls for legislation to fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs. If vulnerable Senate Democrats don’t cave and support the funding it benefits their Republican opponents in 2014. If they do cave, the Republican argument becomes: You have voted for funding for our active military and then again for the Department of Veterans Affairs, why are you holding out on funding other important issues such as opening our national parks or feeding the needy?

The Republican strategy remains focused on motivating Democrats to compromise and accept either delays or significant limits on Obamacare. In the interim, Republicans can take solace in knowing that not only has Obamacare not received the necessary additional funding for implementation, but until Democrats are willing to negotiate, some of their key issues remain unfunded such as the Environmental Protection Agency and furloughs at the National Labor Relations Board. In the end, the Republican strategy is likely to end with both beneficial compromise on Obamacare and a significant advantage heading into the 2014 election cycle.

#RepublicanAndProud

http://www.politicalinsidersreport.com/2013/10/08/gops-winning-strategy-fund-the-government-not-obamacare/

The American Healthcare Reform Act

The centuries-old oath taken by health care professionals reads, “Do no harm.”  It is time for Washington lawmakers to take a similar approach when working to fix the problems that exist in our broken health care system.  Simply repealing the President's health care law is not enough—it must be replaced.

Conservatives recognize that patient-centered reforms rooted in free markets are the best way to lower costs and solve problems in our health care system.  That is why the Republican Study Committee (RSC) is proud to bring forward a pragmatic, practical, and portable free-market alternative to the current health care system.  Simply put, our bill is a better way forward. Specifically, H.R. 3121, the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act:

• Fully repeals President Obama's health care law, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs. 


• Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.


• Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.


• Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard deduction for health insurance.


• Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.


• Safeguards individuals with pre-existing conditions from being discriminated against purchasing health insurance by bolstering state-based high risk pools and extending HIPAA guaranteed availability protections.


• Protects the unborn by ensuring no federal funding of abortions.

Repeal and Replace Obamacare: It's Time for Reform 

Obamacare is a train-wreck full of broken promises that is increasing health care costs and interfering with the doctor patient relationship. Obamacare must be stopped. We recently sat down with Americans from across the country to ask their opinions of Obamacare and how it is affecting them in the workplace. 

There is a better way to the one-size-fits-all approach of Obamacare. That is why the Republican Study Committee (RSC) isproud to bring forward a pragmatic, practical, and portable free-market alternative to the current health care system without the unworkable taxes and mandates forced on American families through the President’s health care law.

Video

http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/solutions/rsc-betterway.htm  

Health Stats: Comparing US to Universal Healthcare

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: 

            U.S.                    65%
 
            England               46%
 
            Canada                42%
 

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
 
            U.S.                      93%
 
            England                15%
 
            Canada                43%
 

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
 
            U.S.                      90%
 
            England                15%
 
            Canada                43%
 
 
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
 
            U.S.                      77%
 
            England                40%
 
            Canada                43%
 
 
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
 
            U.S.                      71
 
            England                14
 
            Canada                18
 
 
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
 
            U.S.                    12%
 
            England                2%
 
            Canada                6%
 
 
            And now for the last statistic:
 
 
            National Health Insurance?
 
            U.S.                   NO
 
            England              YES
 
            Canada              YES

*statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization; published by Investors Business Daily.

School Vouchers Equal Better Outcomes for All

from The Platte Institute for Economic Freedom: 7/2/2013

Indiana Leading the Way on Vouchers

In 1875, the Speaker of the House of Representatives James G. Blaine introduced an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the use of state funds at private religious schools. While the amendment failed on the national level, 37 states-including Nebraska-adopted these amendments for their state constitutions.[1] While these amendments have long been an impediment to those who support school vouchers-state-sponsored certificates of specified dollar amounts that parents can use for private school tuition[2]-a recent ruling on Indiana's expansive voucher program indicates that vouchers may not fall under Blaine amendment constraints, which would open the door to vouchers in Nebraska.

The Indiana Supreme Court case examined whether Indiana's voucher program, which is available to low and middle-income families, was constitutional. The court held that it was, as the state funds "do not directly benefit religious schools but rather directly benefit lower-income families with school children."[3] Such a precedent could make it possible for other states with Blaine amendments to introduce voucher programs without violating state constitutions, giving parents more choice and control in how their child is educated.

Twelve states currently have voucher programs, but Indiana's is the most expansive. It is a statewide program with a maximum voucher amount of $4,500 for students in grades 1-8.[4] A family of four earning less than $42,000 annually can receive up to 90 percent of the maximum state voucher; families making up to $62,000 annually receive 50 percent.[5] Since its establishment in 2012, participation in the program has grown 140 percent, jumping from 3,919 students to 9,424. In the Indianapolis area in particular, the number of students receiving vouchers increased 94 percent, from 644 to 1,262.[6] Such results demonstrate a critical need for more educational options for students and parents, and Indiana's response is one to be emulated.

Voucher programs introduce choice and competition into education. With vouchers, private schools are no longer open only to those who can afford it, and the playing field is leveled so parents with limited means that want to send their children to private school have opportunities to do so. In addition, a marketplace of educational choice compels both public and private schools to focus on advancing student achievement and meeting parent expectations.[7] Research also suggests that public schools improved when subject to the competition introduced by vouchers. A study of public schools in Florida found "that public schools subject to more competitive pressure from private schools raised their test scores the most following the introduction of Florida's voucher program."[8] Therefore, the positive benefits of vouchers extend even to those who choose to remain in the public school system in some cases.

Voucher programs have shown success in raising student outcomes in their own right. Students in Washington DC's Opportunity Scholarship Program-which provides vouchers to low-income students through a lottery-had a graduation rate of 91 percent, 21 percent higher than those without vouchers. DC voucher students also had higher student achievement and parental satisfaction, even while spending only $7,500 per pupil, while DC public schools spent $29,409 per pupil in 2010.[9] More than 20,000 students in Milwaukee's voucher program also saw positive results, achieving a graduation rate 18 percent higher than their public school counterparts between 2003-2009.[10]

The Indiana court ruling provides Nebraska a unique constitutional opportunity to implement vouchers and give Nebraska parents more opportunities for their children. Every child deserves to have a choice in where they go to school, and it is time to give all of Nebraska's children that choice.

______________________________________________________

[1] Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., School Choice: The Blaine Amendments & Anti-Catholicism, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/BlaineReport.pdf; Blaine Amendments, "States." Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.blaineamendments.org/states/states.html.

[2] Jordan Cash, "Vouchers and Tax Credits," Platte Institute for Economic Research, August 28, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.platteinstitute.org/docLib/20120823_Vouchers_and_Tax_Credits.pdf.
 
[3] Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson qtd. in Mark Guarino, "Indiana's expansive school voucher program upheld: A model for others?" Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0326/Indiana-s-expansive-school-voucher-program-upheld-A-model-for-others.
 
[4] National Conference of State Legislatures, "School Voucher Laws: State-by-State Comparison." Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/voucher-law-comparison.aspx
 
[5] Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson qtd. in Mark Guarino, "Indiana's expansive school voucher program upheld: A model for others?" Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0326/Indiana-s-expansive-school-voucher-program-upheld-A-model-for-others.
 
[6] Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson qtd. in Mark Guarino, "Indiana's expansive school voucher program upheld: A model for others?" Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 2013. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0326/Indiana-s-expansive-school-voucher-program-upheld-A-model-for-others.
 
[7] David N. Figlio and Cassandra M.D. Hart, "Competitive Effects of Means-Tested School Vouchers," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16056, June 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.nber.org/papers/w16056.pdf.
 
[8] David N. Figlio and Cassandra M.D. Hart, "Competitive Effects of Means-Tested School Vouchers," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16056, June 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.nber.org/papers/w16056.pdf.
 
[9] Jason Richwine, "D.C. Voucher Students: Higher Graduation Rates and Other Positice Outcomes," Heritage Foundation, July 28, 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/dc-voucher-students-higher-graduation-rates-and-other-positive-outcomes; Patrick Wolf et al., "Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report," United States Department of Education, June 2010. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104018/pdf/20104018.pdf; Andrew Coulson, "Census Bureau Confirms: DC Spends $29,409/pupil," Cato Institute, June 26, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://www.cato.org/blog/census-bureau-confirms-dc-spends-29409-pupil.
 
[10] John Robert Warrem, "Graduation Rates for Choice and Public School Students in Milwaukee, 2003-2009," University of Minnesota, School Choice Wisconsin, January 2011. Accessed June 13, 2013,
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/29370.pdf.

Increasing Legal Immigration is the Answer

By: Alex Nowrasteh -- June 27, 2013

This afternoon the Senate voted 68-32 to pass its sweeping immigration reform bill. The bill is a solid improvement over the current immigration system. It legalizes most of the unlawful immigrants here and provides larger pathways for legal immigration in the future.

Under today’s immigration rules, very few of our ancestors would have been able to immigrate here legally. 

The bill does have flaws – many of which I’ve written about in detail. It doesn’t increase lawful immigration enough. The guest worker visa programs for lower skilled workers are too small, restricted to certain sectors of the economy, and governed by confusing bureaucracy. Under today’s immigration rules, very few of our ancestors would have been able to immigrate here legally. The Senate’s immigration bill takes us a small step closer to our traditionally more open immigration policy.

It shovels gargantuan amounts of security resources toward the southern border in an attempt to halt future unlawful immigration that could otherwise cheaply be halted with an expanded guest worker visa program. The border “surge,” as many are calling it, is truly embarrassing, especially for a country with such proud immigrant traditions. There are certainly legitimate security concerns, but the extra enforcement will just drive up the price of smuggling and marginally decrease unlawful immigration of peaceful workers at enormous cost.

Worse, the bill creates a mandatory employment verification system called E-Verify. Those seeking work here will have to use this proto-national ID system to ask the government for permission to work. Government audits of the system find that its inaccuracy rate hovers at around a quarter of a percent. Independent audits, the most recent carried out in 2009, found error rates 3 to 4 times as high as that. As the system is expanded it will place an unfair burden on American businesses, saddling them with costs, and incentivizing illegal hiring without even a cursory I-9 form as has happened in states that have already mandated E-Verify.

Even with those flaws, this bill still does a lot more good than bad. Millions of new Americans will finally be able to live and work openly without fear of deportation. Millions of more highly skilled workers, merit-based immigrants, and their families will be able to become Americans. Americans will have more freedom to hire whom they want and more buyers for their goods and services. Our economy will grow more quickly, wages will increase, and the fiscal state of the federal government will improve over the medium-term.

Despite all of these benefits, this bill will face an uphill battle in the House of Representatives. The first round of a major political brawl has been concluded; time for the toughest round to begin.

http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-bill-better-not-best?utm_content=bufferb6f2c&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

Step-By-Step Immigration Reform

By Bryan Baumgart-Douglas County Republican Party Chairman

6/17/2013

Critics of immigration reform call for securing our borders first, but with effective reform, securing our borders on the basis of immigration isn’t necessary.

Rather than a comprehensive approach, I prefer a step-by-step approach to reform with an emphasis on “risk verse reward”…or as we like to call it in the field of behavior modification…“Principles of Behavior”. Our solutions should be incentive based.

First let’s analyse what is driving current behavior.  What is the incentive to bypass the legal immigration process?  As we know, the current system is extremely convoluted and expensive. It takes far too long and is rife with unintended consequences.

For example, a friend and former co-worker of mine from Brazil had spent years and thousands of dollars working through the system. When he was approached with an outstanding job opportunity with a different company, he was faced with the decision of turning down the offer or starting the immigration process all over again. In the end, he felt like it was just too much time and money to throw away. He was left stuck, extremely frustrated, and he lost out on a great opportunity to advance his career.

The first step in effective reform must be simplifying the legal immigration process. This is likely the most difficult step, but a legal immigration process that is affordable, timely, and efficient serves as an incentive rather than a deterrent.

The next question is what becomes of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in our country? Critics decry amnesty, but deportation is not a realistic option and neither is tearing families apart over a misdemeanor. Continuing to ignore their presence has proven to be a mistake. The people screaming, “No Amnesty” are the very same people upset about footing the bill. It’s a consequence of refusing participation in the system.

The only realistic option is to offer a pathway to citizenship. Not granting instant citizenship, but allowing undocumented immigrants to self-report and enter the now simplified legal immigration process just like everyone else. Providing a temporary work or school visa allows families to stay together while they work through the immigration process. Paying taxes, obtaining insurance and healthcare, and legally participating in the system helps to empower these hard working families and encourages them to buy into the American Dream. Being welcomed and becoming part of the system provides the incentive to assimilate and proudly view oneself as American.

The next step, indexing visas to meet the economic demand of the country. As a country that has thrived on capitalism, it only makes sense to allow legal immigration to meet the labor demands of American businesses. When these businesses are allowed to thrive, so does our country. They create more jobs and provide more revenue.

The final step is much easier. Effectively implementing E-Verify measures by cracking down on employers with strict penalties. The incentive for employers to seek cheaper labor is a reality we must face. It is an unintended consequence of government interference in the market with the implementation of minimum-wage laws. Indexing visas to ensure labor supply meets demand is a good start, but until the risk outweighs the reward, don’t expect employers to voluntarily comply with the law. Once employers do comply, the lack of job opportunities available to undocumented immigrants serve as an incentive to self-report and enter the now much simpler legal pathway to citizenship.

Finally, to be clear on securing our borders. I do favor securing BOTH of our borders, but on the grounds of national security, not immigration. Without the incentive for illegal immigration, securing our borders is not necessary. The only people who would be interested in sneaking across our borders would be the people who mean us harm. Thus…it’s an issue of national security.

http://www.politicalinsidersreport.com/2013/06/17/step-by-step-immigration-reform/

"Under today’s immigration rules, very few of our ancestors would have been able to immigrate here legally." - CATO Institute

http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-bill-better-not-best?utm_content=bufferb6f2c&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

Broaden Immigration Reform Beyond Enforcement

By Joshua W. Weir - 5/8/2013

The writer, of Omaha, is a lawyer.

As immigration reform is debated, I hear many fellow conservatives supporting enforcement-only policies. Concerns that amnesty would set bad precedent are valid and consistent with one principle of conservatism — respect for law and order.

However, many other core principles of conservatism — promoting free markets, economic prosperity and personal accountability — should also inform this debate. Throwing money at a law that violates these fundamental principles is not conservative.

First, immigration policy must be market-based. If supply does not meet demand, black markets emerge to fill the void. When our economy demands labor that cannot be supplied lawfully, illegal immigration fills the void. And it has — to the tune of 11 million people.

Markets always find a way. Presently, an arbitrary quota of visas is made available annually, regardless of actual demand for labor. We also have an inflexible per-country percentage limit.

At critical periods in our history, this arbitrary system would have stifled economic growth or resulted in millions of illegal immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, etc. During the economic boom of the 1990s, demand for labor was great, but the system did not supply immigrant labor sufficient to meet the demand of American businesses. It was an open secret that companies, including Nebraska companies, were actively “recruiting” in Mexico in the 1990s.

As a result, approximately 60 percent of aliens lacking status currently in the United States are from Mexico, many of whom are “waiting in line” in a 20-year-plus visa backlog.

Second, restrictive immigration policy stifles economic growth. Jobs are not a zero-sum game. Jobs beget jobs. Each job filled does not cost someone else that job. Instead, each job filled contributes to economic growth by “expanding the pie.”

A majority of the 11 million people arrived during the 1990s and contributed to the economic boom of that decade. Ill-considered immigration regulations can slow economic growth like any other government regulations.

Capitalism relies upon free markets to channel the power of people acting in their self-interests. The failure of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War demonstrated that the most heavily armed walls and fences cannot stop resourceful and desperate people.

Hundreds of people die annually while crossing our border seeking freedom (economic or otherwise), security and family reunification. We deplete our resources fighting against that spirit instead of harnessing that economic power.

Third, the status quo costs everyone. We as a country have neither the political will nor the resources to uproot 11 million people. Order and personal accountability would actually increase if these people had liability insurance for the cars they are already driving, paid taxes for the jobs they are already working and obtained health insurance for the doctor visits they are already making. Additionally, taxpayers foot the bill each time we deport the parent of a U.S. citizen-child, thereby disrupting intact families and further burdening the social safety net.

The desire for border security is as old as the nation-state. There was a time in the 1930s when California attempted to blockade its borders from “Okies” who were no more popular than today’s “illegals.” Mass migration from poorer to more prosperous regions is a phenomenon taking place across the developed world. Mass migration is not new, it is not unique to America and it is not going away.

“Tall fences and wide gates” lead to more secure borders. Limited visa availability pushes otherwise law-abiding immigrants to the border, where drug traffickers, terrorists and dangerous criminals can easily blend in.

The failure of Prohibition demonstrates that channeling behavior can be more effective than banning behavior. People will enter lawfully if given the option. Law enforcement could then focus its resources on the real threats to our national security and better secure our borders.

We as conservatives must fully engage in the immigration debate and ensure this problem has market-based and common-sense solutions going forward. Any immigration reform must include indexing visas to demand for labor and allocating more visas for the countries that supply the majority of immigrants.

We also must acknowledge that 11 million people are here to stay, with or without immigration reform. Conservatives must work to improve on the Gang of Eight’s proposal rather than killing the bill.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130508/NEWS0802/705089928/1677 

Common Core - Dangerous for America!

 Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom Issue Paper: commoncore1.doc.  4-13.

BACKGROUND.  Conservatives are legitimately alarmed about the Obama Administration Common Core curriculum pressed onto our public schools.  The regime heavily pushes this curricula through its $4.35 billion 2009 Race to the Top education grant competition bribery.  Many states have embraced Common Core to grab these massive grants.  States that accepted its precepts received bonus points in their applications.  This plan awards points to states that adopt this common set of K-12 standards that are mostly identical all over America. Obama’s Education Dept. has awarded over $360 million to 2 liberal groups to create student assessments in Common Core.  Obama herded states into adopting these standards without time to deliberate on their adequacy, requiring adoption approved by state education dept. officials, if states want to obtain federal waivers from the 2002 No Child Left Behind law.  If Obama succeeds, states like NE will lose federal funds by adhering to their own standards, denied access to Race to the Top federal dollars for refusing Common Core.

  

VALID CRITICISM.  Common Core eradicates local school board control over the K-12 math and English curricula, substituting a lone, federally-imposed curricula that applies to public, private, parochial, and home schools.  Proponents advise that national standards will improve academic performance; however, these new standards evidence no proof that they are better than current NE standards.  No district has tested these standards, which use unproved instructional methods. These standards base on unproved ideas and questionable assumptions.  The job of teaching our kids is too important to depend on untested, common methods pushed by companies that have financial interests in selling textbooks, technology, and academic assessment but not accountable to parents or taxpayers. Several private corporations will make huge profits, with less money reaching classrooms.  Our children will become guinea pigs.  In Massachusetts, adopting Common Core meant dumping academic standards regarded as the best in the nation.  In many states, Common Core standards are inferior to state standards.  There exists no evidence that a federal curriculum brings high academic achievement.  France and Denmark boast national curricula that do not reflect high achievement on international testing.  Contrarily, both Canada and Australia use many regional curricula and show better results.[1]  A Brookings Institution study found that common state standards do little to equalize academic achievement among states.[2]   Instruction is confusing.  Common Core requires pupils to explain a math problem before doing the calculation, complicating the teaching of basic math.  Teachers become confused with the unfamiliarity of teaching this product.  Students do not learn traditional math, like multiplication, until a grade or two later. In Common Core math, kids abandon concrete skills for abstract confusing methodology.  Elementary kids who got “A” grades struggle to explain how they find answers after using mental math in Common Core and get lower grades.  These math standards delay development of key concepts and skills, instructions written at a level confusing to teachers, students, parents, and administrators.  Math standards not well-organized at the high school level, several important topics insufficiently covered, and standards not divided into defined courses. To avoid attention, proponents have focused only on math and English, aiming to eventually extend Common Core to all subjects.  Math standards are inferior.  A math professor, the only mathematician on the validation committee, refused to sign off on the math standards, declaring that they would drop many pupils 2 yrs. behind those in many other nations.  One most tragic change for English classes is the requirement that 50% or more of readings in Grades 6-12 come from informational instead of cultural texts.  Such means that curricula will not include many classic works in American and other literature.  Popular treatises like Common Sense, the Gettysburg Address, and To Kill A Mockingbird are not present, only on a list of reading suggestions.  No research tells that college readiness comes from reading informational items in high school classes.[3]  Conservatives around the country are angry about the secretive process by which Common Core standards became adopted, allowing for few or no public hearings, blocked from the legislative process.  The conservative Cato Institute noted that state lawmakers are surprised when academic curricula become snatched from their prerogatives.  Common Core defines contents for all U.S. K-12 math and English texts and defines what our kids will learn and not learn.  No empirical validation of standards or metric to monitor intended or unintended consequences.  No early childhood teachers or child development experts were included in the K-3 standards formulation process, because Common Core shocked these professionals.  Standard writers had no background in child development or early childhood education.  The Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health & Education Professionals statement criticizing Common Core garnered signatures from over 500 prominent early childhood professionals, like educators, pediatricians, developmental psychologists, and researchers.  The statement read that Common Core conflicts with new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young kids learn, what content they should learn, and the best methods to teach them in kiddiegarden and early grades.  Common Core pilots are disappointing.  One principal told of his school piloting the assessment, whereby the failure rate rose dramatically, particularly among slow learners. 

COMMON CORE TESTING.  After adoption of Common Core curricula, its standardized testing is approaching fast.  No national standardized test can effectively measure what teachers teach in each public school system.  Common Core demands a great increase in testing, much more than the already excessive amount required by No Child Left Behind.  NYC will spend over a half billion on technology, so that its students can take electronically federal tests.  Research proves that increasing testing does not increase achievement.  NE school districts suffer funding squeezes, but Common Core costs billions for new textbooks, infrastructure like high speed networks, new software for additional computers, training, consultants, and tests. 

COST TO TAXPAYERS.  Adoption is expensive, and states adopting Common Core jump into an assessment quagmire without estimates on costs.  Local school administrators complain that Obama grants do not cover the requirements, costing much more to implement all the mandates.  The education establishment likewise complained for years about the unexpected costs of No Child Left Behind.  Common Core will repeat this expensive lesson in forcing another underfunded ed mandate on states.  NE probably would not qualify for federal funding now, leaving NE taxpayers to pay the entire bill. 

LEFTIST CURRICULA.  One lesson features a video titled China Rises, that praises the virtues of Chinese communism over capitalism.  The leftist New York Times co-produced this propaganda piece.  Another lesson regrets children inability to vote, as they understand global warming and war better than adults who make world problems worse.  Common Core uses UN programs to institute international curricula. Materials promote “alternative lifestyles,” criticize capitalism, praise labor unions, redistribution of wealth, radical environmentalism, and social justice, and debase of Judeo-Christianity. The liberal progressive school-to-work plan will allow the Obama Regime to put everything in place to plan for future labor markets.  Common Core promotes a model of a command economy and unlimited federal governance.  Proponents want to control our schools, so that our children will become conditioned to accept that the federal government has the right to order them to serve its economic commands.  Government will be the master, not the servant. 

ITS FUNDING.  Common Core has received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other leftwing sources. 

PERTINENT VIDEO.  http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/stop-obamas-common-core-curriculum-standards-progressive-indoctrination-standardization-and-tracking-of-american-children-into-collectivists-little-boxes-videos/

ITS SUPPORTERS.  The leftwing American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorses Common Core. Several creators of  Common Core standards have accepted employment with testing companies that will accrue millions of dollars developing tests based on the standards they created.

HOME SCHOOLS UNSAFE.  Saxon Math and Math U See both declared that they will align their curriculum, popular among home schools, with Common Core.

INVASIVENESS.  Conservative parents object to violation of student privacy by data mining through assessment means. Common Core creates a student database including test scores, hobbies, family income, voting status, and health records, a violation of individual rights and limited government. [4]  Data mining includes using cameras to evaluate kid facial expressions, electronic seat that judges postures, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse, and a biometric wrap on wrists.

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.  Board members voted 7-1 (John Sieler voted with taxpayers) to pay a consultant company $47,000 to compare NE standards alignment to Common Core, due in October, 2013, a hint that the board majority will embrace the latter curricula.  The State Board of Education must give final approval of state curriculum standards and assessments. School districts should not use Common Core yet, as the state board has not adopted it yet.  We urge taxpayers to contact their state board of education member to pass the following resolution:
 

Notwithstanding any other statute, the state board of education shall not adopt, and the NE Dept. of Education shall not implement, Common Core standards developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative.  Actions pursued to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards are void.  Common Core State Standards shall not be adopted or implemented without the approval of the NE Legislature.

LEGISLATURE.  Sen. Jim Scheer from Norfolk introduced LB 512, to order the state to accept Common Core national assessments and allow the state board of education to proceed with this curricula. We must lobby our state senators to kill LB 512, then co-sponsor and support legislation to ban NE from adopting and spending money on all activities relating to Common Core, like training teachers or buying materials.  Also, press them to pass a bill to forbid sharing of private student information without parental consent.   

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  As awareness of this federal education power grab increases, opposition mounts.  States now realize that accepting Common Core means transferring control of school curriculum to the Obama Regime.  Only Texas, Alaska, Nebraska, and a few other states are steadfastly resisting, and others have withdrawn participation or are considering such.  Common Core violates the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes that prohibit federal direction, control, or supervision of curricula, instruction, and materials in K-12 schools.  This plan is a serious assault on state sovereignty, a power grab by which the Obama Regime will directly target school districts.  This federal intervention will cripple state, local, and parental authority over curricula and cost states $16 billion in new spending.[5] 

TAKE ACTION NOW.  We still can stop this dangerous scheme to nationalize education and indoctrinate our children.  Do not permit nameless, faceless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to seize control of NE public education.  Contact your state board of education member and state senator today to stop the progress of Common Core in Nebraska.  Email netaxpayers@gmail.com for their contact information. 

Research, analysis, and documentation for this issue paper done by Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom, with prior permission granted for its use by other groups in the NE Conservative Coalition Network.  4-13.   C

---

[1] Closing the Door on Innovation: Why One National Curriculum is Bad for America. Available at: http://www.k12innovation.com/Manifesto/_V2_Home.html.

[2] “The 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education: HOW WELL ARE AMERICAN STUDENTS LEARNING?

[3] Common Core Standards, Devastating Impact on Literary Study and Analytical Thinking, Sandra Stotsky, Heritage Issue Brief, Heritage Foundation, December 2012.

[4] Joy Pullmann, managing editor of School Reform News and an education research fellow at the Heartland Institute.

[5] Heritage Foundation.