Sunday begins National School Choice Week, the annual seven-day period in the middle of winter when kids all over the country dream of either: (1) having the freedom to stay home from school on account of snow, or (2) moving to Florida.

Well, actually, kids dream of those things all the time.  But their parents ought to spend this week dreaming of Florida because the Sunshine State now boasts some of the most forward-looking school choice policies in the country.

In fact, last year a remarkable bipartisan coalition – which included most of Florida’s black and Hispanic state legislators – passed a major expansion of the Sunshine State’s landmark Tax Credit Scholarship Program.  This prompted The Wall Street Journal to marvel at “Florida’s Unheralded School Revolution.”

And last year, not coincidentally, Florida’s student achievement test scores continued to rise, catapulting the Sunshine State into the nation’s Top Five states in K-12 education, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual rankings.  (Not bad for a state that used to place in the bottom third of annual student achievement rankings.)

While there is much to celebrate in the Sunshine State’s schools, Florida still has its share of education policy problems.  For example, last year Florida’s politically-opportunistic former Governor (Charlie Crist) decided to curry favor with the powerful teachers’ unions by vetoing a merit pay for teachers’ bill that he had previously pledged to sign.

Crist’s political strategy ultimately backfired – he got trounced by Marco Rubio in the U.S. Senate race.  Yet, interestingly, his flip-flop on merit pay would not have even won Crist the 2010 prize for Most Unseemly Behavior by a Floridian in the merit pay debate.

That dubious honor, sadly, would have gone to a government teacher at East Ridge High School in Clermont who sent the Florida Senate President a packet of nearly 100 letters – all of them opposing merit pay for teachers – which his students had written as a class assignment.  In a cover letter, the teacher claimed that he had presented the bill (S.B. 6) to the students with “a neutral connotation.”  And the teacher also expressed “total amazement” that every single one of his students wrote a letter opposing merit pay.

(more…)

Can GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt talk President Obama into a major corporate tax cut? Immelt has been appointed to the new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which replaces the disbanded Paul Volcker Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Immelt was a member of that original board. Now he has a more elevated position in the Obama 2.0, allegedly pro-business, move-to-the-center Clintonesque White House.

Regarding the new President Obama, I am still trust but verify. But yes, of course, Jeff Immelt is a businessman through and through. He is a trustee of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation board, while GE is a big sponsor of the Reagan Centennial Celebration. (Recall that the Gipper worked for GE as a spokesman and television host from 1954 through 1962.) He’s also a registered Republican who contributed to both Hillary Clinton and John McCain during the 2008 campaign. And last year, he harshly criticized Obama at a dinner in Italy, where he basically said: Obama doesn’t like business, and business doesn’t like Obama.

But what goes around comes around. Many business people wanted senior executives in the White House, and now they have two — with GE’s Immelt joining William Daley, the former banker and new chief of staff.

GE had a rough time of it during the Great Recession. But in recent quarters it has turned quite profitable; its stock just hit a 52-week high. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Immelt set out his agenda for continued economic recovery. He would focus on manufacturing and exports, free trade, and innovation.

So where’s the corporate tax cut?

(more…)

Americans are beginning to understand that the government-run assembly-line education system is not working.  As I point out in the upcoming “Kids Aren’t Cars” film series, thousands, of not millions of kids are being failed by a system that is geared more towards satisfying adults than educating children.

How else can a recent Detroit Public Schools graduate be unable to read her own diploma? How else can tenure – the job security law for unfit teachers – be explained?  How else can budget busting pension systems be explained?

When collective bargaining was brought into American schools in the 1960s, it was a revenue stream and power base for Big Labor.  Suddenly, union bosses became more interested in building political muscle than educating children.

At that point the battle between unions and school boards became more focusing on salary, benefits,  pensions and working conditions for adults, and less about students.

Kids are only pawns in the self-serving union game.

As we point out in “Kids Aren’t Cars,” this has poisoned the education environment.  We witness ugly fights in communities during union contract negotiations.  Unions lead recall campaigns against school board members who don’t vote the union way. Teachers throw up their hands because the union will take their money by hook or by crook, while showing no interest in their input.

(more…)

Today, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its decision in the case Roe v. Wade. Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, the decision was not the high-water mark of the Court.

A quick Google search will tell you that Congressman Sanford Bishop (D-GA) knows all about Pigford fraud, confirming what black farmers have said on video.

And today I spoke to a third farmer who was also at the same meeting with Willie Head and Eddie Slaughter who confirmed their statement that Sanford Bishop was informed about fraud and lawyer fees but didn’t want an investigation into Pigford because it would “shut it down.”

But Bishop says there are anti-fraud provisions in Pigford II that will provide a safeguard against abuse. Fair enough. I just want to throw this question out there, however:

Would the anti-fraud provisions be effective if there are people out there who are giving classes that teach in step-by-step detail how to commit perjury in the Pigford case and not get caught?

As the Pigford investigation continues, it is important to note that we have demonstrated in our Pigford Report that there is massive fraud in the Pigford I settlement, but you have yet to hear a pro-Pigford politician admit to that fact.  To this day, President Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack maintains there are, at most, 10 cases of fraud. Big Government showed two videos of black farmers alleging that Congressman Sanford Bishop not only knew about the fraud in Pigford I, but also instructed the black farmers who brought the information to light to keep quiet as long as “the money was flowing.”

It’s important to note that Eddie Slaughter is not just a black farmer, he is the Vice President of one of the largest black farmer advocacy groups in America, the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association.

After seeing the BigGovernment.com interview, Congressman Bishop, clearly upset with the video revelation, made the following admission to his local paper, the Albany Herald yesterday:

“Yes, I am aware that there is fraud in the program, that’s why anti-fraud provisions were written into the settlement,” Bishop said Thursday morning “My job was to help secure funding for constituents who had been discriminated against by the USDA. It’s not my job to monitor fraud in the program. I can’t assume responsibility for fraud. You can’t lay that at my feet.”

“This is ridiculous. It’s not my job to determine who is a qualified claimant or not, or who gets paid or who doesn’t get paid.”

“I’ve worked with Eddie Slaughter for more than 15 years.”

We now have an admission from a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and a co-sponsor of Pigford legislation, that he was not only told by a black farmer that the Pigford I payout process was “rife with fraud,” but also that as a member of Congress there was nothing he could do about it. (more…)

As America begins to truly understand that having too much fat in one’s diet can lead to a heart attack, three interconnected stories* appeared in the last 24 hours that deserve some attention.

The first is that, every January, the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its union membership data report. Not surprisingly, today’s BLS report summary reveals that U.S. union membership sell dramatically in 2010.

Here are the hard numbers:

• Overall union membership is down to 11.9 percent, from 12.3 percent a year earlier
• Unions lost 612,000 members and now stand at 14.7 million members
  • In 1983, union membership was at 20.1 percent with 17.7 million members
• Private vs. Public Sector Union Membership
  • Public-Sector union membership, which represent 36.2 percent of all public-sector workers, stands at 7.6 million workers
  • Private-Sector union membership, which represents 6.9 percent of all private-sector workers, stands at 7.1 million workers
  • The breakdown:

Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 42.3 percent. This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. Private sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and utilities (21.8 percent), telecommunications (15.8 percent), and construction (13.1percent). In 2010, low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.6 percent) and in financial activities (2.0 percent). [Emphasis added.]

• Age differences. Older workers (55-64) represented the highest percentage of union membership with 15.7 percent, while younger workers (16 to 24) represented the lowed at 4.3 percent. [This explains the AFL-CIO's push to target America's youth.]

There is more data that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported which you can find here. However, the interesting note about this is the timing of the BLS’ report, especially in light of the fact that the cost of unions is coming home to roost in so many states.

(more…)

The news is in.  Even you can open an account at the Bank of China in New York or Los Angeles.  But you have to hurry, trading will be limited.

What does this bank account entail?  According to the Wall Street Journal,

The Bank of China here in the U.S. has started allowing American customers to open an account and to invest up to $4,000 per day—and a total of $20,000 a year—in Chinese yuan, or renminbi. Until now, you had few options to hold money in yuan, which is a “closed” currency managed, and protected, by Beijing.

To try to understand what’s at play here, let us determine who gains what.  For the Chinese, some might see this move as a clear indication that they want more US dollars.  After all, China is a developing economy, and with that comes expenses.  These expenses to a large degree are outside goods and services with companies that settle their contracts in dollars.  This would be a very shortsighted intuition.

The Big Picture: China is beginning to internationalize the yuan in an attempt to turn it into a new formidable world currency. Opening Chinese banks to American customers is one small step for the yuan, one giant step for China.

How should the average investor look at this move?

(more…)

House Republicans lived up to a primary campaign promise when they voted to repeal ObamaCare by a vote of 245-189, with three Democrats joining the effort. Despite the headlines and congratulatory news releases, the real work is just beginning. Even after the vote, the forces of rationing are still firmly in control of our government and it’s health care policy. The time has come to roll up their sleeves and get creative to find ways to repeal, defund, and delay imposition of the government health care scheme that is in its first stages of implementation.

The government’s mandate to “reverse the health care cost curve” is taking over policy decisions. Rather than mandating “cures” the government is mandating “cost” as the primary driver of our health care policy. As such, patients are being denied access to critical drugs they need to survive. While the vote to repeal ObamaCare is a critical first step, Congress needs to act – and quickly – to save the lives of patients like Christy Turnage.

Turnage is a breast cancer patient who relies on Avastin to survive. The drug is not cheap but Turnage is among a group of “super responders” whose life depends on the availability of the drug. But the FDA has other ideas. Cost, which has never been considered in the approval process, was a factor in the decision whether to “de-label” the drug. De-labeling Avastin and other expensive drugs mean that the rich will have access to it while Medicare patients and those who rely on private insurance will be denied coverage.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss Jeffrey Immelt’s new job and the fiscal crisis facing many states.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Jeffrey Immelt To Head President’s Council On Jobs And Competitiveness
Rahm Emanuel Discloses Campaign Funds, Leaving Little Doubt He’s the Frontrunner
Higher Taxes Wouldn’t End Some Deficits
Where the New Jobs Are: In Texas, not California.
Pej: Bankruptcy for the States?
Ben on the Cost of Medicaid to States
(more…)

One year ago today, on January 21, the Supreme Court released its landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The decision corrected an anomaly in campaign finance law, and in doing so was a tremendous victory for the First Amendment and Americans who wish to participate in our political process.

The case found its origins in 2007 when my group, Citizens United, a membership organization, sought to promote, distribute, and broadcast via video-on-demand a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If Citizens United would have done so, we were told by the FEC that it would have been a willful violation of the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (better known as “McCain-Feingold”) which prohibited corporations from making independent expenditures and electioneering communications. This violation was not merely subject to a civil fine, but rather a criminal penalty – I personally would have been sent to jail for promoting the film. Citizens United filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission to defend our right to promote and broadcast the film. It took more than two years, but the First Amendment protection of political speech was restored by the Supreme Court in this landmark ruling.

In the year since Citizens United was decided, it has been the subject of countless unwarranted attacks and harsh rhetoric. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) claimed, “Citizens United was an incredible act of judicial activism. It turned back a century of federal law, and it nullified Minnesota’s twenty-year-old ban on corporate spending in elections.” Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), in his farewell addressed, alleged that Citizens United “effectively undermin[ed] the basic democratic principle of the power of one person/one vote.” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) argued that “if we don’t act quickly to confront this ruling, we will have let the Supreme Court predetermine the outcome of next November’s elections. It won’t be Republicans or Democrats; it will be Corporate America and other special interests.” All twisted the decision beyond recognition in an attempt to demonize the ruling and further their own political agenda.

(more…)

I’m not a big fan of central banks, and I definitely don’t like multilateral bureaucracies, so I almost feel guilty about publicizing two recent studies published by the European Central Bank. But when such an institution puts out research that unambiguously makes the case for smaller government, it’s time to sit up and take notice. And since these studies largely echo the findings of recent research by the International Monetary Fund, we may have reached a point where even the establishment finally understands that government is too big.

The first study looks at real-world examples of debt reduction in 15 European nations and investigates the fiscal policies that worked and didn’t work. Entitled, “Major Public Debt Reductions: Lessons From The Past, Lessons For The Future,” the report unambiguously concludes that spending restraint is the right way to reduce deficits and debt. Tax increases, by contrast, are not successful. The study doesn’t highlight this result, but the data clearly show that, “revenue increases do not seem to have induced debt reductions, whereas cuts in primary expenditure seem to have contributed significantly in the case of major debt reductions.” Here’s a key excerpt.

…this paper estimates several specifications of a logistic probability model to assess which factors determine the probability of a major debt reduction in the EU-15 during the period 1985-2009. Our results are three-fold. First, major debt reductions are mainly driven by decisive and lasting (rather than timid and short-lived) fiscal consolidation efforts focused on reducing government expenditure, in particular, cuts in social benefits and public wages. Revenue-based consolidations seem to have a tendency to be less successful. Second, robust real GDP growth also increases the likelihood of a major debt reduction because it helps countries to “grow their way out” of indebtedness. Here, the literature also points to a positive feedback effect with decisive expenditure-based fiscal consolidation because this type of consolidation appears to foster growth, in particular in times of severe fiscal imbalances.

The last part of this passage is especially worth highlighting. The authors found that reducing spending promotes faster economic growth. In other words, Obama did exactly the wrong thing with his so-called stimulus. The U.S. economy would have enjoyed much better performance if the burden of spending had been reduced rather than increased. One can only hope the statists at the Congressional Budget Office learn from this research.

(more…)

What do you get when you mix bureaucrats with a bunch of adorable puppies?

In Kim Houghton’s case, you get a major First Amendment lawsuit.

Kim Houghton decided after a successful, 20-year career in advertising that she wanted more.  She wanted to realize her American Dream and become an entrepreneur in a business focused on dogs.

She had the gumption to quit her job and make her dream come true:  Wag More Dogs is a high-end canine daycare located next to a popular dog park in Arlington, Virginia.  Kim commissioned an outdoor mural on her wall that has cartoon dogs, bones and paw prints as a way to give something back to the park she’d frequented for years, and build up some good will for her new business.

The mural was a big hit.  After all, who doesn’t like puppies?   Things were smooth for a few months.

And then Arlington bureaucrats got involved.

Officials blocked Kim’s building permit and told her that she could not open unless she painted over the mural or covered it with a blue tarp.

Her crime?

Painting a piece of art that—in the eyes of government officials—had too strong a “relationship” to her business.

(more…)

After watching the spectacle of blame unfold during the days following the tragic January 8^th Tucson shootings, one angry community is no longer biting its tongue. Saying it will no longer be victimized by political opportunists on the left, the Word community has finally broken its long taciturnity.

An estimated 5,000 very upset words held a rally today in the plaza directly across from the national headquarters of the American Library Association at 50 E. Huron Street in Chicago. The keynote speakers of the group—which calls itself Words of Wisdom (WOW)—were WOW President, the Honorable word Reason, and Vice-President and WOW Founder, the Venerable word Ridiculous.

Reason—a bespectacled old word with a long gray beard—took the podium first. “This just doesn’t make any sense,” argued the six-letter noun.

“Not only is there no demonstrable nexus between the demented shooter and the Tea Party or Sarah Palin, there’s absolutely no proof that the curtailment of free speech will result in fewer crimes of this sort in the future. Civility is nice, my fellow Words—but liberty is nicer.”

The crowd—many of them prepositions, conjunctions, or mere adverbs who came out of a sense of semantic solidarity—cheered in enthusiastic support. “Wooooohoooo!” screamed Exclamation from the back. “Save free speech!” hollered Indignation. “Screw the frickin’ censors!” Vulgarity bellowed.

After Reason’s opening statement, Ridiculous made her way to the podium. Clad in a Lady Gaga meat-dress and light fur, once she opened her mouth, Ridiculous—thankfully—did not live up to her name.

(more…)

Today, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter pardoned most Vietnam draft dodgers.

NOTE : Compare Rep. Sanford Bishop’s (D-Ga) statements in this article (published at 6pm) with what he said in this Albany Herald article that was published at 11:30am. In the earlier article Bishop says he was aware of the fraud and it wasn’t his job to police it. By the time he talked to the Atlanta reporter later in the day, he suddenly has no idea at all what the farmers are talking about and insults them by implying that they were drunkards.

From Bob Keefe at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

WASHINGTON — Democratic U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop called Internet insinuations that he was somehow involved in fraud surrounding last year’s settlement between the government and African-American farmers “one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.”

Videos featuring two Georgia farmers that are being circulated on the Web by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart hint that Bishop, of Albany, may have known about possible fraud in last year’s so-called “Pigford” settlement between the government and black farmers who claimed that a Department of Agriculture farm loan program discriminated against them.

“I don’t know what they were imbibing,” Bishop said of the two farmers after watching the videos. “I’m just perplexed and shocked.” (more…)

Even as President Obama maintains close to 50,000 troops in Iraq and continues to escalate and expandthe war in Afghanistan, the antiwar movement in America continues to shrink (PDF).

So, what happened?

Reason.tv visited two antiwar protests—one left-leaning, one libertarian—in an attempt to answer that question. Author and historian Thaddeus Russell and Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty also weigh in.

War, it seems, is a bipartisan venture, which is reflected by the fact that Democrats have a favorable view of Obama’s foreign policy, despite its remarkable similarity to George W. Bush’s foreign policy. And though there have been rumblings of antiwar sentiment from some on the Right, Republicans remain strongly in favor of an interventionist foreign policy.

Although public sentiment is turning against the war in Afghanistan, the always-shifting withdrawal deadlines and the unwillingness to touch defense spending mean that this bipartisan war is likely to continue far into the future.

(more…)

Crispus Attucks Falls at the Boston Massacre

Anita MonCrief, infamous ACORN whistleblower, was  asked to go on Sean Hannity’s radio show Thursday the 20th to discuss the founding of America’s first black Tea Party.

Named after the first person to die in the Revolutionary War, the Crispus Attucks Tea Party was founded January 18th, 2011, at “This Is It” soul food restaurant in the heart of Houston, Texas’ 3rd district.  (Read the interesting original court documents about the “Boston Massacre,” including a dramatic description of Attucks’ slaying, here.)

The 3rd district is Represented by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and was the focal point of rampant ACORN-style vote fraud and widespread voter intimidation this past November. It is thus fitting that this tea party had its inaugural meeting right down the street from Lee’s residence.

With the typical politesse and considerate attitude of conservatives — always left unreported by the press (do ya think?)  – Rep. Lee was extended an invitation to the event. And with typical leftist rudeness, Lee snubbed it. Wonder why? These are her constituents, after all.

(more…)

House Republicans lived up to their promise to vote on repeal of ObamaCare and for that we are grateful.  But the roadblocks to enactment of the measure are great.  From the filibuster to a presidential veto, the bill has long odds to become law without another national election.  But Republicans can—and must–turn symbolism into reality by shifting their focus to the individual pieces of the legislation that are most offensive and intrusive.

Individual Mandate:  The House should have an up and down vote on the individual mandate provisions of the legislation.  Time and time again, House Democrats have failed to answer the basic question – where in the Constitution does it authorize the Congress to force individuals to purchase health insurance?  Nancy Pelosi scoffed at the suggestion Congress’ power can be restrained.  Former House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers said there were a “very good set of arguments” for the constitutionality of the mandate but he couldn’t name any.  Rep. John Lewis cited the “pursuit of happiness” language of the Constitution as the basis for its constitutionality.  Of course, “pursuit of happiness” comes from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Rationing:  Thousands of lives hang in the balance on the FDA’s Avastin decision.  The drug, which extends life of late-stage cancer patients, is about to be “de-labeled” for by the FDA for breast cancer patients because of cost-considerations.  Women who rely on the drug to survive are already starting to see coverage denied even before final FDA action. Democrats have joined Republicans in protesting the FDA’s actions.  Congress should vote up or down on the Avastin decision as well as on legislation to end future rationing of drugs and treatments.

(more…)