Posted on 09/18/2007 3:13:31 PM PDT by Calpernia
All the candidates from both political parties have emphasized the need for better education. It is plainly obvious that many, if not most, public schools across America are sub-par. Sub-par not only relative to schools abroad, but when judged against the rigors of American schools of yesteryear. The Democrats and Republicans, in theory, differ greatly when it comes to federal funding of education. Ronald Reagan, as well as the conservative wing of the party, wanted to get rid of the Department of Education altogether, while the donkeys have long howled about the supposed lack of spending on schools.
The so-called crown jewel of US education is still considered to be our colleges, both public and private, as evidenced by the large numbers of foreign students that come to our shores to attend these institutions.
However, a closer examination of the curricula currently being passed off as “education” shows that science and logic and classical economics have taken a back seat to fluff, in many cases. Multicultural flim-flam - from ethnic studies, to lesbian empowerment, to ‘revised’ history – has invaded nearly every campus. The federal government is also responsible for piling on a load of crap. They offer cold hard cash if said institution will establish a program that pays homage to the ‘vision’ and history and agenda of some politician or ‘civic leader’.
One would think that Republicans would be immune from this nonsense. And one would certainly think a man claiming to be a federalist would resist coughing up taxpayers’ hard earned money for such endeavors. Well, let us examine the record of Fred Thompson on the subject of education.
In the 104th Congress, Fred’s first, he cosponsored with Senator Frist and Carol Mosely Braun a bill to spend money refurbishing historically black colleges:
S.1940, Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for the preservation and restoration of historic buildings at historically black colleges and universities.
A noble gesture perhaps, but certainly not a nod to a colorblind society. There were numerous small, historical campuses across the country that were NOT predominantly black that could have used some federal cash. Yet Thompson, Braun and Frist saw fit to propose $65 million over 4 years for these grants. Of course, it helps motivation when Tennessee has its own black colleges covered by this legislation.
The following Congress, the 105th, found Mr. Thompson teaming with Bill Frist, Susan Collins and about 15 other Senators for something called the Education Flexibility Amendments of 1998, S.2213. This legislation sought to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, purportedly to offer the states more flexibility in meeting federal performance mandates. Sounds good, until you read the details. In Tiltle I, it does indeed tweak the edges of previous education law, allowing for more waivers for local school districts. However, the real purpose of this misnamed legislation was to create two federally funded endowments, each with $3 million in seed money for fiscal year 1999: Title II: OREGON INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES. - From the funds appropriated under section 206, the Secretary is authorized to award a grant to Portland State University at Portland, Oregon, for the establishment of an endowment fund to support the Oregon Institute of Public Service and Constitutional Studies at the Mark O. Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. TITLE III--PAUL SIMON PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE - GRANTS- From the funds appropriated under section 306, the Secretary is authorized to award a grant to Southern Illinois University for the establishment of an endowment fund to support the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. The Secretary may enter into agreements with the University and include in any agreement made pursuant to this title such provisions as are determined necessary by the Secretary to carry out this title.
But apparently, one bill making endowments was not sufficient in the Education budget. Fred and Frist and Kennedy proposed S.2638, “To provide support for certain institutes and schools”. In addition to the two grants mentioned above, they added in two more: TITLE III--HOWARD BAKER SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT - From the funds authorized to be appropriated under section 306, the Secretary is authorized to award a grant to the University for the establishment of an endowment fund to support the Howard Baker School of Government at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee. TITLE IV--JOHN GLENN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AND PUBLIC POLICY - GRANTS- From the funds appropriated under section 406, the Secretary is authorized to award a grant to the Ohio State University for the establishment of an endowment fund to support the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy. The Secretary may enter into agreements with the University and include in any agreement made pursuant to this title such provisions as are determined necessary by the Secretary to carry out this title.
And the funding appropriated for these two storied gentlemen’s institutes was $10M and $6M, respectively.
And then just for grins, Frist and Thompson proposed these expenditures, in the exact same format, as amendment S.AMDT.3743 to bill S. 442. The irony is the S.442 is called the Internet Tax Freedom Act and its purpose was to “establish a national policy against State and local government interference with interstate commerce” for internet usage.
In the 1999 session of the 106th Congress, apparently unsatisfied with the seed money that was passed for these fine institutes, Fred Thompson decided to provide another few million ($10M for Baker, $3M for the lesser politicos), but added $5M for a fifth endowment: TITLE V--ROBERT T. STAFFORD PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, though it is apparently not associated with a particular school. Certainly a man of Stafford’s acumen deserves an institute, considering he is best known as a rabid environmentalist and for his work on shepherding Vermont’s gay civil union law to fruition.
In 2000, Fred introduced an amendment S.AMDT.2317 to the DC College Access Act that mandates that District of Columbia grads get “in-state” tuition at institutions outside of DC. More Frederalism, I reckon.
Of course, Mr. Thompson also voted for the much maligned No Child Left Behind Act, despite his supporters claiming that Fred is a small government conservative. Granted, there was a lot of pressure to pass NCLB: Bush campaigned on it, the schools were a mess, and its goal was supposed to be to hold schools accountable. Nevertheless, the final bill had Ted Kennedy’s fingerprints all over it, and it became just another government boondoggle; a very expensive boondoggle.
And finally, for an encore topping off his fine career in education, Fred introduced and got passage of an amendment to dedicate funds for one last endowment. This time he hid it in the supplemental appropriations bill for Terrorism related expenses. The amendment reads: SA 3611. Mr. THOMPSON (for himself and Mr. Frist) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4775, making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 86, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following: ``(5) the provision specifying $835,000 for the Benjamin L. Hooks Institute for Social Change shall be deemed to read as follows: `The Benjamin L. Hooks Institute for Social Change in Memphis, Tennessee for an endowment to pursue a broad programmatic agenda that emphasizes the continued importance of the Civil Rights Movement and encourages academic research and community outreach, $835,000'.''. It passed into law, assuring that the former NAACP leader, lunatic, and vociferous foe of Clarence Thomas would have his legacy and agenda kept alive for years to come. I’m just amazed Fred Thompson had the time and energy to work on such important education funding goals between all of his Campaign Finance Reform activity. Who ever said he was lazy?
The poster of the original article has often made use of phony, cherrypicked, and false information so many times that bothering to read the article is a waste of time. Until a more reliable source does the research, there isn’t any point in discussing the ‘issues’.
However, we could talk about Duncan Hunter’s dismal record on spending, since the original poster has seen fit to bring up the subject.
How are those teapot museums working out for you?
..you owe the lady an apology RM—that is uncalled for
Can you only defend your candidate by distortion?
Duncan Hunter is running a campaign. You all bitched because he wasn't out there campaigning and when he wasn't in the house for a bunch of procedure/worthless votes you grab it like a dog after a bone with NO meat on it!
Now, show us Duncan Hunters attendance record before this campaign or can it.
I think it was very much called for.
Ummm...the attendance records are from 2006. I imagine he barely shows up at all now that he’s running for President, but that’s not what people are talking about.
What about the insinuation that the Fred supporters in that poll are “nameless borg?” Is that “called for?”
On top of everything else, now you Duncanista`s are getting thin skinned. Whatever. LOL
I choose not to can it and I never bitched about him doing his job. Nor did I engage in any distortion.
Sheesh, don’t you know that they’re on the side of ‘truth and justice’, backing their losing candidate in a romantic ‘uphill battle’? They can’t be held to account for their actions!
“Must be something about this Fred Thompson guy since everyone is gunning for him.
Might have to check into him.”
Please let me know what you find out. All I hear is that he’s well known, but that’s because he’s an actor. So what does he stand for, issue-wise???? I can’t seem to get a straight answer out of the Fred Thompson folks.
He does have an almost-perfect pro-life voting record, which is good, but some of the other candidates have a PERFECT pro-life voting record.
So what else is there?
..would you let anyone talk to your mom or wife or daughter like that in public or private, even in an argument?
Call 1,500 people "nameless borg?"
No. I don't suppose I would. It's wrong to paint with so broad a brush. Focus on the individual.
“..would you let anyone talk to your mom or wife or daughter like that in public or private, even in an argument?”
They act like liberals, don’t they?
I’m glad you made that open-minded good-faith request for information. Perhaps the information at this link will begin to sate your curiosity:
http://fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx
The Duncanistas who referred to me as a "nameless borg" and "bitching" about Duncan's campaigning (!?!) are behaving badly, but I wouldn't say they act like liberals.
They are making a sprited defense of Fred agaisnt these ‘lies’ it seems. ROFL.
The real issue is, getting behind a candidate who can challenge and beat both of the top tier liberals running, Rooty and Hillary. Fred is the one candidate who can accomplish that. Hunter is not. Everything else, are standard diversionary tactics.
My wife, mother or daughter would hear a lot worse than that from ME if any one of them acted with the repeated intellectual dishonesty that has been displayed by the thread poster, as well as other Duncan Hunter supporters.
If my wife, mother, or daughter were ripping down good conservatives to further the cause of a vanity candidate, I’d be pushing my way to the front of the line to tell them how ridiculous they were being.
Where is the intellectual dishonesty?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.