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?
Hunter does a lot of things right. But he can’t run a presidential campaign worth squat, and his FR supporters have resorted in desperation to tearing down the other conservative in the race—the one who CAN win—Fred Thompson.
AuntB you are starting to sound like a Paulestinian. We’re not all “out to get you” so calm down...
..DH is not some fringe nutcase or billionaire wack-job, or other kind of demagogue which threatens the US and western civilization--he is a great and honorable man, and the FDT supporters know it. I am astonished by their baseless cheap shots and hostility.
Why are you suprised? They certainly can’t run on FRed’s light resume.
So tell the rest of the Duncanistas to stop posting it.
Some of you really went over the top, and were disrespectful and mean-spirited, just like liberals.
You know who you are. ‘nuf said.
I know who they are too. I already said so in #36.
It’s the coronation they think Fred deserves. Can’t argue about votes and policies, just about that Hunter can’t win and Fred can.
Thanks for the link, but I’d prefer that you, or somebody, would tell me why you support Fred in your own words.
Does his website say, for instance:
Fred Thompson on Illegals: “...you’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship...”
- Fred Thompson, April 2006, Fox News
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Refused to debate in the Values Voters debate - JUST LIKE THE DEMS and Rudy McRomney.
Co-sponsored McCain/Feingold and has NOT changed his mind about it, either, except to say he would raise the amount of $$ that individuals can contribute. Laura Ingraham rightfully told him on her radio show that this was STILL limiting our free speech.
P.S. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Why get it second hand when you can go right to the source?
“Why get it second hand when you can go right to the source?”
Because the source won’t tell you what I told you in my last post.
So, tell me, why do YOU support Fred Thompson over the strongest conservative - DUNCAN HUNTER. And I don’t want to hear that he’s better known (because he’s an actor, btw). I’d like to hear issues.
You don’t have to spend a lot of time on a long post. Just a few sentences.
You missed my point.
He took his tap dancing lessons from Fred, Sun! :)
And your point was what? Insinuating that I am “absolutely intent on getting Hillary elected?”
Please.
“He took his tap dancing lessons from Fred, Sun! :)”
lol. I can’t get a straight answer from these people.
Hunter Duncan cannot get elected. Can’t even elevate himself above the margin of error. I don’t waste my time supporting vanity candidates no matter how conservative they are.
You’re getting straight answers, you just don’t like them.
Too bad so-called conservatives don’t fight as hard as the left. John Kerry’s supporters didn’t give up on him when he was only 4%, 3 weeks before the primaries.
If good people don’t fight for good, as hard as evil people fight for evil, evil will win.
I’m REALLY disappointed that SOME people are giving up so easily, especially this early.
But fortunately, we Hunter supporters have enough fight to make up for the rest of you.
You stole that from Ron Paul's dinner table, didn't you? :-)
“You’re getting straight answers, you just don’t like them.”
Big deal, you gave me a link.
You can’t even say IN YOUR OWN WORDS, why you support Thompson re: ISSUES. How do you expect to convince anyone else, when you don’t know yourself.
I bet you can even fill up a tagline about your candidate, as I did with my tagline.
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.