Welcome to Health & School News

Just click on INDEX to take you to a complete listing of all articles appearing on this page

Obama: Bipartisan Health Deal May Not be Possible (March 8, 2010)

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Jennifer Loven

After a day of debate and disagreement, President Barack Obama concluded his recent unprecedented live talkfest on health care with the bleak assessment that accord between Democrats and Republicans may not be possible. He rejected Republican preferences for seeking a step-by-step solution or simply starting over.

Obama strongly suggested that Democrats will try to pass a sweeping overhaul without GOP support, by using controversial Senate budget rules that would disallow filibusters. And then, he said, this fall's elections would write the verdict on who was right.

"We cannot have another yearlong debate about this," Obama said at the end of a 7 1/2-hour marathon policy session.

Neither side gave much ground, sticking mostly to familiar arguments and talking points. The president urged Republicans to "do a little soul searching" but said majority Democrats would decide quickly how to move forward on a priority that has eluded leaders for half a century.

"This will take courage to do," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. said in her own closing speech. "But we will get it done."

With the conversation veering between mind-numbing detail and flaring tempers, Obama and his Democratic allies clashed with congressional Republicans over the right prescription for the nation's broken health care system. Though there was much talk of agreement, each side held onto long-entrenched positions that left them far apart. Democrats seek a kind of broad remake; Republicans favor much more modest changes.

"We have a very difficult gap to bridge here," said Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican. "We just can't afford this. That's the ultimate problem."

With Cantor sitting in front of a giant stack of nearly 2,400 pages representing the Democrats' Senate-passed bill, Obama said cost is a legitimate question, but he took Cantor and other Republicans to task for using political shorthand and props "that prevent us from having a conversation."

And so it went, hour after hour at Blair House, just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.

It was essentially a condensed, one-day version of the entire past year of debate over the nation's health care crisis, with all its heat, complexity and detail, and a crash course in the partisan divide.

Obama and other Democrats argued that a broad overhaul is imperative for the nation's future economic vitality. The president cast health care as "one of the biggest drags on our economy," tying his top domestic priority to an issue that's even more pressing to many Americans.

"This is the last chance, as far as I'm concerned," Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.

Obama lamented partisan bickering that has resulted in a stalemate. "Politics I think ended up trumping practical common sense," he said.

And yet, even as he pleaded for cooperation — "actually a discussion, and not just us trading talking points" — he insisted on a number of Democratic points and acknowledged agreement may not be possible, particularly on the trickiest area of extending coverage to the uninsured and preventing insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. "I don't know frankly whether we can close that gap," he said as he wrapped things up.

With such hardened positions well staked out before the meeting, the president and his Democratic allies prepared to move on alone — a gamble with political risks no matter how they do that.

The option preferred by the White House and progressives in the Democratic caucus is the reconciliation route. GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander asked Democrats to swear it off, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended it. Obama weighed in with gentle chiding, asking both sides to focus on substance and worry about process later — a plea he made repeatedly throughout the day with little success.

A USA Today/Gallup survey released Thursday found Americans tilt 49-42 against Democrats forging ahead by themselves without any GOP support. Opposition was even stronger to the idea of Senate Democrats using the special budget rules, with 52 percent opposed and 39 percent in favor.

A second alternative for Obama and his party is going smaller, with a modest bill that would merely smooth some of the rough edges from the current system. A month after the Massachusetts election that cost Democrats their Senate supermajority and threw the health legislation in doubt, the White House has developed its own slimmed-down health care proposal so the president will know what the impact would be if he chooses that route, according to a Democratic official familiar with the discussions. That official could not provide details, but Democrats have looked at approaches including expanding Medicaid and allowing children to stay on their parents' health plans until around age 26.

Obama himself hinted at a Democrats-only strategy. When asked by reporters as he walked to the summit site if he had a Plan B, he responded: "I've always got plans."

Many lawmakers and Obama stressed areas of agreement, including items such as allowing parents to keep young adult children on their health plans into their 20s, cutting fraud and waste and ensuring that sick people aren't dropped by insurance companies. But such items occupy the edges of reform.

Indeed, any skepticism about reaching broad consensus was vindicated as soon as the first Republican spoke — in opposition to the mammoth bills that have passed the House and Senate. Alexander, of Tennessee, said Congress and the administration should start over and take small steps, including medical malpractice reform, high-risk insurance pools, a way to allow Americans to shop out of state for lower-cost plans and an expansion of health savings accounts.

"We believe we have a better idea," Alexander said. "Our views represent the views of a great number of American people."

Disagreements were not always expressed diplomatically.

Alexander challenged Obama's claim that insurance premiums would fall under the Democratic legislation. "You're wrong," he said. Responded Obama: "I'm pretty certain I'm not wrong."

As with much in the complicated health care debate, both sides had a point. The Congressional Budget Office says average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, as Alexander said. But the policies would cover more medical services, and around half of people could get government subsidies to defray the extra costs.

Obama and his 2008 GOP opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, had a barbed exchange. McCain complained at length about what he said was a backdoor process to produce the original bills that resulted in favors for special interests and carve-outs for certain states.

"We're not campaigning anymore. The election's over," responded a clearly irritated Obama.

"I'm reminded of that every day," McCain shot back, adding that "the American people care about what we did and how we did it."

Said Obama: "We can have a debate about process or we can have a debate about how we're actually going to help the American people at this point. And I think that's — the latter debate is the one that they care about a little bit more."

Generally, polls show Americans want solutions to the problems of high medical costs, eroding access to coverage and uneven quality. But they are split over the Democrats' sweeping legislation, with its $1 trillion, 10-year price tag and many complex provisions, including some that wouldn't take effect for eight years.

The Democratic bills would require most Americans to get health insurance, while providing subsidies for many in the form of a new tax credit. The Democrats would set up a competitive insurance market for small businesses and people buying coverage on their own. Democrats also would make a host of other changes, which include addressing a coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit and setting up a new long-term-care insurance program. Their plan would be paid for through a mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases.

"Not only are lawmakers polarized, the parties' constituencies are far apart," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University professor who follows public opinion trends on health care. "The president is going to use it as a launching pad for what will be the last effort to get a big bill passed. He will say that he tried to get a bipartisan compromise and it wasn't possible."

The Blair House setting wasn't grand, or even particularly comfortable. About 40 senators, representatives and administration officials were crowded shoulder-to-shoulder around a hollow square table, perched for the six-hour marathon on wooden chairs with thin cushions. Coffee breaks were ruled out, so the only pause in the action came during lunch.

C-SPAN carried complete coverage, while news operations from cable networks to public broadcasting were making it the focus of their day.

Leaving the site during a lunch break, Obama was asked by waiting reporters if he thought the debate was engendering a lot of interest across the country.

"I don't know if it's interesting watching it on TV," he responded.

Does Bilingual Education Work? (September 28, 2009)

Texas' bilingual education programs have produced poor results for both students and taxpayers, and should be replaced with an immersion-based approach to English-language instruction, according to new research released today by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The report, entitled "Does Bilingual Education Work? The Case of Texas," analyzes the history and effectiveness of Texas' bilingual education programs, and makes policy recommendations on how Texas schools can best teach English to non-English speaking students.

This week, the Texas Public Policy News brings a conversation with the report's author, Dr. Christine Rossell, a professor at Boston University who has researched bilingual education for the last three decades.

http://www.texaspolicy.com/current-texaspolicycast.php

Liberals Don’t Like It When Parents Get Uppity (September 21, 2009)

The inanity of critics of those opposed to President Obama pursuing his political agenda in an address to children enrolled in government-run schools misses the point entirely –parents have the ultimate responsibility for the education of their children, not the state. If parents don’t want Obama’s brand of brainwashing for their kids who in the world are they to tell them differently? The arrogance of those condemning them shows how radical they are in their thinking.

Some have put forth the disingenuous argument that Obama’s address should be heard by all young and impressionable school children as part of a captive audience out of respect for his office, if not the man. What kind of schizophrenic gibberish is that? The two are inseparable. Obama has shown nothing but disdain for the presidency. If he doesn’t respect it, why should anyone else as long as he’s filling it?

By their reasoning, Muammar al-Gadhafi, Kim Jong-il, Seyed Ali Khamenei, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, and many others of like ilk should all be respected because they are heads of state. I was taught one has to earn respect; it doesn’t necessarily come with the office, title or position one holds. Teachers, priests and ministers should be respected because of their vocations? Including the pedophiles among them?  Medical doctors, lawyers and financiers should be respected because of their profession? Even the Dr. Kevorkians and Bernard Madoffs of this world?

Obama and his party have done more damage to this country than any of his predecessors.  As noted in a recent column by David Limbaugh, “(Obama’s) deceptions and contradictions are astounding. His premises for policy change are consistently duplicitous. He’s embarked on a course to deliberately bankrupt the nation; he is at war with mainstream American values; he is undermining our national security during wartime (prosecuting our protectors – and otherwise) and he’s pursuing unprecedented government control of the private sector.”

Many presidents before Obama have earned the respect of the nation because of who they were and how they represented themselves to the world while filling the office. Obama on the other hand is a national disgrace.

It was wrong for school districts to spring this on parents at the last minute. Granted, the school districts didn’t know about it until the eleventh hour and before a national holiday weekend in typical Obama fashion. But that being the case, parents should have been given the choice to “opt in” rather than “opt out” of having their children coerced into listening to Obama’s propaganda. Just because the state forces school children into attending a government-run school doesn’t give them the right to engage in liberal social engineering and brainwashing.

Before Obama’s stealth was discovered, here’s what his address to school children included: teachers were encouraged to assign students a paper on how to “help the president,” pre-kindergarten to sixth grade students were encouraged to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president, immediately following the speech students were encouraged to engage in a discussion about what “the president wants us to do.”

Fortunately enough irate citizens discovered the subtle brainwashing and forced the White House to back off and got Obama to revise his lesson plan – too late, he had already shown his hand. And they thought “Tricky” Dick Nixon was sneaky.  Barry’s downright scary!

And remember Klee’s Law: “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.” (Samuel Adams)

©2009 Harvey H. Klee

Keep Politics Out of the Classroom (September 7, 2009)

By Peggy Venable

For some students, September 8 is this year’s first day of school. It’s also another first – the first time a U.S. President has asked to be invited into classrooms to speak directly to children.

It may seem innocuous for President Obama to speak directly to students about the importance of education. If that were the whole story, this could be a milestone which parents need not fear. Unfortunately, Obama may have an ulterior motive.

Frankly, we don’t know what the President is expecting to say, and that has people nervous. Originally, Obama was expected to talk about controversial policy proposals that would change our country. Many of us who have well-intentioned policy disagreements with the president have had reason for concern. 

Two lesson plans were prepared by the Department of Education, produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows. One is for K-6 and the other is for 7-12 grades.

It is recommended teachers discuss – among other things – “Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?”

The lesson plan goes further, saying: “Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?”

That’s enough to send chills down my spine. Schoolchildren should not be indoctrinated in obedience to and service in support of the president of the United States. Our system is based on the rule of law, and a robust tradition of loyal opposition, not blind support for the president in power.

Obama is expected to address the “challenges” facing him in Congress and will likely use that opportunity to promote global warming taxes and a Washington take-over of the country’s health care system. Hearing only one side of the story, many young people could be swayed.

In the proposed curriculum, it was suggested: “Teachers can extend learning by having students write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.”

That has been changed to now read:

"Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."

It appears even the President doesn’t know just what he is going to say or what he will ask students to do. In the wake of the “I Pledge” video which has been shown in some schools and ends with celebrities saying they “pledge to be of service to Barack Obama” and to “Be a servant to our president”, we have reason for concern.

When recruits are children, doesn’t that constitute indoctrination, even brainwashing? Perhaps the most disturbing part isn’t the teachers having students write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president, but that these letters would be used by teachers to “make students accountable.”

Indoctrination is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. Indoctrination is common in totalitarian societies, and completely alien to our system of government.

As the American public learns more about Obama policies, support for those policies has diminished. Now he is taking his message to the schools where the audience is not only impressionable children but teachers, educational bureaucrats, and parents.

As a former White House Liaison to the U.S. Department of Education in the President Reagan Administration, I can say with certainty that this type of approach is an abuse of power. Public policy decisions are made by voters, and America's children should not be used to influence opinion, to organize the education unions, or to sway parents -- they simply should not be used!

This may be President Obama’s vision of change, but it is not one shared by many Americans. It is past time to empower parents to have meaningful alternatives to the government-run schools in which they can be subject to such indoctrination. All parents should be able to make the choice Obama made for his own children to send them to a private school if that best suits their needs. Until that day happens, we need to remain ever-vigilant against attempts to use the government-schools to indoctrinate our children.

LISD’s Response to Obama’s Address to School Children (September 7, 2009)

To: Parents/Guardians of Llano I.S.D. Students

 From: Dennis R. Hill

 Subject: Presidential Address to the Nation’s School Children

 Date: 09-04-09

I have had questions from patrons of the district concerning the position of Llano I.S.D. with respect to viewing of the President’s address to the students of our nation.  The press release concerning this event is as follows: “President Obama announced that on September 8 – the first day of school for many children across America – he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education.  The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.  He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.” 

As Superintendent of Llano I.S.D., I appreciate the visible support of any sitting President encouraging students, staff, and parents to strive for higher educational attainment.  However, as Superintendent, I must consider a number of factors related to this event.  I have reviewed those factors with the instructional administrative team and we have collaboratively developed the position outlined below.

Ø     The district has emphasized increased instructional focus in recent years.  As such, we will not have a general assembly to view the address, nor will the address be shown in classes where no curricular connection to the address can reasonably be made.  Additionally, the timing of the address may conflict with the lunch schedules on many Llano I.S.D. campuses.  To have a general assembly at this particular time during the daily school routine would create a significant scheduling hardship.

Ø     For classes such as certain social studies courses where a curricular connection can be reasonably made, the instructor of that class will have the option to record the presentation so it may be utilized as an instructional resource at the appropriate time and in the manner determined by the instructor. The presentation will not be utilized as an instructional tool on September 8^th.  Llano I.S.D. will not require staff to use the instructional resources provided by the U.S. Department of Education.

Ø     Since we have had some parents indicate they do not want their children to view the President’s address, the district will honor that request.  Parents may make that request by signing in the appropriate space at the bottom of this page.  For the students whose parents choose this option, an alternate educational activity will be offered.

We are off to a great start this year with many exciting things happening in the district.  As always, we appreciate your continued support.

Sincerely,

Dennis R. Hill

Superintendent

Llano I.S.D. 

My signature indicates I do not want my student/s to view the President’s address.

Please print the names and grades of the students below

If you have indicated you do not want your student/s to view the President’s address, please return this form to the office of the principal of the campus where your oldest student attends.

EDITOR'S COMMENT: In light of President Obama waiting until the last minute to pull a political stunt like this - and adding insult to injury by doing it over a holiday weekend in an attempt to slip one by the citizens, the LISD should have allowed parents and guardians  to "opt in" not "opt out." But maybe in a government-run school they didn't have that option - so much the pity.

LISD School Budget Deliberations (August 10, 2009)

The Llano News published an excellent article entitled, “School Budget Process Underway,” written by Jodi Lehman, 07-29-09 edition. It fairly and clearly lays out a decision facing the school board:

1. Keep the Interest & Sinking Fund tax rate the same as last year ($0.175 per $100 valuation) and, assuming tax collections meet projections, prepay $488,75 in bonds and reduce the 2009-2010 interest cost by $11,250 and /or,

2. Redeem $1.45 million in bonds early without penalty and save the district $32,625 in interest cost in the coming school year. To prepay all the bonds for early redemption, the board would have to raise the Interest & Sinking Fund tax rate by 3.5 cents per $100 valuation to $0.21, a 20 percent increase.

Board President Ronnie Rudd is mentioned in the article as stating the benefits of an early redemption of bonds are:

·        Saving interest costs now and in the future,

·        Improving the district’s future bond rating by reducing the district’s bonded indebtedness and,

·        Removing pressure from the Maintenance & Operations side of the budget.

But if all that was accomplished, wouldn’t the district be in a stronger financial position to spend more money in the future and send more money to the state by way of Chapter 14 (“Robin Hood”) payments? It is estimated that $14.2 million of Llano ISD taxes will go to the state or partnership districts – which is the same thing for all practical purposes i.e. Llano taxpayer money is being sent out of the district.

The way I see it:

·        “Saving interest costs now and in the future” will increase the district’s funds on hand freeing them up for future spending;

·        “Improving the district’s future bond rating” will enable the district to borrow more money through the issuance of bonds at more favorable interest rates in the future and increase the district’s indebtedness;

·        “Removing pressure from the M & O side of the budget” would result in making more money available to be spent on that side of the ledger.

By having citizens spend more money now through tax increases to better enable the district to spend more in the future doesn’t make much sense from a taxpayer point of view.

An alternative would be to cut spending now by doing away with non-mandated activities and related expenditures i.e. those which are not required by the state.  If the district would do that, I’d be all in favor of their improving the district’s financial situation. Otherwise, why encourage their unnecessary spending?

Unless government-run schools face the same financial realities as the rest of us i.e. you can’t always get what you want when you want it and that there’s a difference between “wants” and “needs,” they will continue to spend money as if there is no economic crisis going on in the country or the rest of the world for that matter. Borrowing more money by way of bonds or certificates of obligation or increasing taxes seems to be the only response to economic hard times the schools are willing to take. It’s about time taxpayers said, “Enough is enough.”

And Remember Klee’s Law:  “When my sister's children were teenagers, she told them that, if they got into trouble and ended up in jail, to remember that they had a right to make one phone call. She added: ‘Don't waste that call phoning me.’ We will never know whether they would have followed her advice, since none of them was ever in jail.” (Thomas Sowell)

Index of School News articles for the past 6 months

To read a particular article, simply click on the title below

2010 Articles

2009 Articles