HT: Red State

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland is also a down the line liberal who pretends to be centrist, but he has failed to emulate the leader of his party on the issue of charter schools.  Instead of embracing charter schools – called community schools in Ohio – he has launched an all out attack on them via the state budget.

What is remarkable is that the state’s editorial boards – who have criticized charters in the past and are no bastions of conservatism – have responded by calling on Strickland to listen to Obama and stop his partisan attack on the schools.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer makes the case well in their editorial President Obama says let charter schools bloom; so should Gov. Ted Strickland:

Cleveland is fortunate to have a number of those thriving, innovative schools. Cleveland’s Citizens’ Academy and the Entrepreneurship Preparatory School are educating students who had been floundering in the city’s public schools.

Somehow, though, their academic success hasn’t impressed the governor. Relying on scant evidence — especially for someone touting evidence-based school funding — Strickland seems to believe that charter schools can be funded on the cheap. The governor doesn’t seem to realize — or perhaps doesn’t care to admit — that most have to do major fund-raising from donors who are a lot less wealthy in this economic maelstrom.

Strickland’s budget recklessly slashes charter school funding 20 percent. Online charter schools suffer even deeper cuts. Unlike traditional public schools, charters would receive no additional funding for teacher pay increases, even though charters often serve the same poor, urban youngsters.

Strickland complains that for-profit companies that manage charter schools are blinded by the money, showing little interest in teaching children. But he proposes to slash away at every charter school — good and bad. That’s irresponsible.

A process is already in place to close charter schools that fail in their mission. The many good charter schools in Cleveland support this process, and it would make a great deal more sense if the governor supported it, too.

They conclude:

Strickland should think twice before ordering every child out of these little lifeboats, because some of them would certainly be forced back aboard sinking ships.

When it comes to understanding the importance of charter schools to many Ohio students, Strickland clearly has a lot to learn. He should ask the president for some tutoring.

Ouch!  Sad but true.

Think it is just Cleveland?  Nope, how about the Akron Beacon Journal.  The ask a very good question: Why has Ted Strickland taken aim at charter schools that are meeting his goals for public education? Despite their skepticism about many charters they recognize the what these budget proposals really mean:

If student performance in charter schools, for the most part, has shown little if any improvement on the regular schools, a number among them, indeed, are living up to expectations as models of educational creativity and achievement. Cleveland’s Citizens’ Academy, Intergenerational School and Entrepreneurship Preparatory School come easily to mind.

And truth be told, the presence of charter schools has a been a prod for public schools, driving them to take innovative measures they otherwise had no reason to consider. Many urban districts now run charter schools of their own, for example.

In that context, Strickland’s budget for charter schools in some instances defies the policy priorities he has defined for primary and secondary education.

[. . .]

A decade’s experiment in charter schools has produced such models as Citizens’ Academy and E-Prep that bear replication. They are succeeding at the creative approaches to learning Strickland says all children deserve. The challenge Ohio must meet (a challenge reiterated by President Barack Obama) is to create incentives for excellent education, in public as well as charter schools. It will be Ohio’s loss if Strickland’s charter school proposals result in slowly but effectively starving to death excellent schools along with the mediocre and the failures.

Moving on from the Northeast to Central Ohio, we have the Columbus Dispatch.  They too wonder why Strickland can’t see what Obama seems to understand.  They argue that Obama endorses new ideas in education; Strickland should do same:

President Barack Obama’s speech on Tuesday to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Miami showed a willingness to break with Democratic orthodoxy by embracing two good ideas long-opposed by teachers unions: merit pay for teachers and charter schools.

Obama earned boos on the campaign trail at their very mention. His continued support is good news for a system that has struggled to improve youngsters’ academic performance.

Strickland not only declines to support merit pay, his proposed budget slashes funding for charter schools, which would make them even more vulnerable to budget woes.

On Tuesday, the same day that Obama spoke of the need to embrace reforms, dozens of charter-school supporters filled a Statehouse hearing room to ask legislators not to approve the sections of Strickland’s budget that would gut charter-school funding.

The governor’s plan would remove charter-school funding from the so-called foundation formula, by which regular public schools are funded, making charter funding as vulnerable as any other line item. The amount he provided for charters, assuming their enrollment stays the same or increases next year, equates to at least a 20 percent cut from the foundation formula they received this year.

Strickland also would arbitrarily ban all for-profit charters, even though some of the state’s most successful charters are operated by for-profit companies, including one in Dayton that is the highest-rated public elementary school.

Moving West we have the Dayton Daily News (Governor’s shot at charters hits Dayton).  They also recognize the governor is aiming at closing some of the best schools in the area:

Gov. Ted Strickland must be stopped in his drive to put charter schools out of business.

His proposed budget would cut funding for the state’s 330 charter schools by about 20 percent overall, which, for many, would mean they’d be done.

The schools already get far less in taxpayer money than traditional public schools. That’s the price they pay to buy autonomy to operate free of sometimes stifling bureaucracy and rigid union contracts.

In Dayton, the cut would be a travesty for the charter schools that are besting or equaling Dayton public schools. Especially tragic would be the potential double-whammy that the Dayton Early College Academy would suffer.

Let’s be clear: If the governor gets his way, this special school that is putting Dayton on the map nationally in the school reform movement is history.

I know what you are thinking.  Why am I quoting liberal editorial boards praising Barack Obama?  Because it points out the utter laugh-ability of Strickland’s centrist image and his education reform claims.

If Barack Obama and editorial boards across the country can see that this budget is a ham-handed direct attack on charter schools at the expense of reform and the most vulnerable children what does it say about Strickland that he refuses to back down?  This is plain and simple a sop to the teachers unions who support him.

He might even hope that GOP led Ohio Senate removes the provisions so he does have to face the political fallout.  After all, he did much the same thing last budget (attacked charters but did nothing when the GOP took those proposals out).  Or maybe in what is bound to be a tough re-election bid he is determined to keep labor on his side?

Whatever the motivation, Strickland’s proposals are bad for education in Ohio, bad for future reform, and a disaster for the students of Ohio.  In at least this one instance we can all agree that Strickland should quit kissing up to labor unions and listen to President Obama.

Strickland has an easy chance to shore up his centrist fig leaf credentials by following Obama’s lead.  Knowing Governor Strickland, however, I am not holding my breath.

The Dayton Daily News had the Strickland story yesterday.  And the truth of the matter is that Strickland’s handling of the economy was never that popular.  But the Quinnipiac poll has some interesting numbers:

The poll, taken as the national and state economies continue to flounder, found that voters disapprove of Strickland’s handling of the economy, 45-39 percent. In a poll released Feb. 5, voters approved of Strickland’s handling of the economy, 44-37 percent.

Also, the new poll found Strickland had a 56-30 percent job approval rating, down from a 63-25 percent approval rating in the Feb. 5 poll.

In another finding, voters narrowly disapproved – 46-43 percent- Strickland’s use of one-time money to balance his proposed state budget. Overall, however, they approved of how Strickland is handling the state budget, 44-36 percent.

Now you can see why Strickland has been so feisty when asked about his budget.  He knows he is playing a dangerous game but has little choice.  If he gives in to his liberal supporters and calls for outright tax increases (instead of fee hikes and other revenue increasers) he faces a backlash from voters on a traditional GOP strength.  But if he uses one time money and other sources he gets hit by the media and the GOP for simply kicking the can down the road rather than addressing the problems now.

President Obama’s numbers are feeling the effects of economic conditions as well:

President Barack Obama’s job approval rating has dropped slightly in Ohio, according to a new poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Obama, who had a 67 percent approval rating Feb. 6, is now at 47 percent. Thirty-three percent of Ohioans have an unfavorable view of him, according to the newest poll, up from 16 percent Feb. 6.

[. . .]

Obama’s biggest loss is among independent voters. In February, 72 percent supported him, and 55 percent support him today. He’s also lost support among evangelical protestants.

“During a presidential election, Ohio is the single most important state in the country because of its history of being a decisive barometer. So the 10-point drop in President Obama’s support in the Buckeye State is something that the White House might want to pay attention to,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

You can see that voters may still have fond feelings for the president but the longer the economy struggles the more likely he is to lose support.  Voters are really not all that sophisticated about these things, IMO, if the economy is struggling they eventually blame those in leadership like the governor and the president.

Now is the time for the GOP to hone and sharpen our ideas about economic development so that when the public is willing to listen to alternatives to the failed Democratic policies we have coherent proposals to put forward

In all seriousness, I do believe that the President’s remarks point to his fundamental worldview.  In talking about the stimulus he touts government action but fails to explain how this will actually grow the economy and provide jobs in the future.  Instead, it is about how one time funds will keep some workers in their current job providing mostly government services or how infrastructure projects will magically grow the economy.

Here is his defense of the stimulus:

Now there were those — there were those who argued that our recovery plan was unwise and unnecessary. They opposed the very notion that government has a role in ending the cycle of job loss at the heart of this recession. There are those who believe that all we can do is repeat the very same policies that led us here in the first place.

But I also know that this country has never responded to a crisis by sitting on the sidelines and hoping for the best. I know that throughout our history, we have met every great challenge with bold action and big ideas. That’s what’s fueled a shared and lasting prosperity. And I know that at this defining moment for America we have a responsibility to ourselves and to our children to do it once again. We have a responsibility to act, and that’s what I intend to do as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)

So for those who still doubt the wisdom of our recovery plan, I ask them to talk to the teachers who are still able to teach our children because we passed this plan. I ask them to talk to the nurses who are still able to care for our sick, and the firefighters and first responders who will still be able to keep our communities safe. I ask them to come to Ohio and meet the 25 men and women who will soon be protecting the streets of Columbus because we passed this plan. (Applause.) I look at these young men and women, I look into their eyes and I see their badges today and I know we did the right thing.

This speech is typical Obama in that it is disengenuious and deceptive but full of nice sounding rhetoric.

Keep reading to see why.First, notice how he dismisses his critics as if they all just wanted to do nothing or “repeat the very same policies that led us here in the first place.”  This is a straw-man and he knows it.  There were plenty in the GOP who wanted to act but in ways that were likely to spur the economy not just fund liberal wish lists and government control.  Heck, there were even those who shared the basic Keynesian idea of the stimulus but who felt the particulars being proposed were unlikey to work as they were either to slow or not targeted to promote economic activity.

It is also worth noting that Obama consistently distorts the situation by asserting, or strongly implying, that his opponents got us in this mess.  Bush is to blame is perhaps the central motif of the Obama administration so far.  And this is just hooey.  The Democratic Congressional majority played a role in where we are today; to say nothing of liberal housing policy, Fannie and Freddie Mac; etc. (not to mention monetary policy which is often left out of the discussion by politicians).

The idea that the only choices were continue along the same path, do nothing, or support Obama is typical rhetoric from this president.  He is always the wise and benevolent one rising above partisanship and petty politics while his opponents squabble and dig their heels in to the detriment of America.  This while he, and his co-partisans Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, steamroll leftist policies through in the name of averting a crisis.  The point of all this is to paint Obama as the brave man of action and his opponents as timid hacks when in many cases the opposite is true.

But notice that when Obama gets to the substance of what his brave action has resulted in it focuses on a temporary continuation of government – or heavily subsidized – services.  does Obama talk about how the stimulus is going to jump start the economy by incentivizing business creation and innovation?  No.  He talks about how the stimulus allowed the police recruits he is speaking to and nurses, teachers, and firefighters to keep their jobs.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I like having policeman, nurses, and firefighters, but this ain’t job creation.  And given that these are one time funds this is merely a temporary reprieve loaded with federal red tape and strings.

In the nect section he attempts to get to job creation:

These jobs and the jobs of so many other police officers and teachers and firefighters all across Ohio will now be saved because of this recovery plan — a plan that will also create jobs in every corner of this state. Last week, we announced that Ohio would receive $128 million that will put people to work renovating and rebuilding affordable housing. (Applause.) On Tuesday — on Tuesday I announced that we’d be sending another $935 million to Ohio that will create jobs rebuilding our roads, our bridges, and our highways. (Applause.) And yesterday, Vice President Biden announced $180 million for this state that will go towards expanding mass transit and buying fuel-efficient buses – money that will be putting people to work, getting people to work. (Applause.)

Altogether, this recovery plan will save and create over three and a half million American jobs over the next two years.

Notice again the emphasis on government programs: housing, infrastructure, and mass transit.  Put aside the debate about the benefit of these programs or projects.  Let’s be honest, public housing and transportation infrastructure do not drive Ohio’s economy.  Does anyone really think temporary spending in these areas – not matter how valid the individual projects are – will really change Ohio’s economy in any real way? If this was true how come all that road construction didn’t keep Ohio’s economy growing at a steady clip?  Ohio raised the gas tax and spent more on roads and I don’t recall the job growth then.

Obama, and his Ohio Democratic cohorts, simply fail to understand that government doesn’t create jobs and spark the economy.  More prevailing wage construction projects will not jump start Ohio’s economy in the long term.  Will it help some people keep their jobs?  Sure.  Will it strengthen Obama’s union allies and keep government programs afloat?  You bet it will.  BTW, is the last time Obama funded housing projects a real good example?

Is anyone going to start a business because of the programs he talks about?  Is anyone going to relocate to Ohio and contribute to the economy because of these programs?  Outside of contractors and non-profits dependent on government what exactly is in it for the small businesses and workers who really contribute to economic growth? No, no, and nothing.   And please don’t tell me high speed rail.  Because even if that might help business in Ohio – I very much doubt it – it is a long way off and a very unsure thing at this point.

The problem here is fundamental.  The only thing Obama knows about is government.  His whole career has been about using government to engineer social change and fund programs.  For Obama the government is the hammer in his tool belt and so every where he looks he sees nails.  There is not a hint of true economic development and growth in that whole speech.  It is about funding government jobs and projects in the name of economic stimulus.

Further proof that Obama is looking at this crisis through the wrong lens is his conclusion, a rousing call to service:

The job you signed up for is not easy. It can mean long shifts and late nights. It demands focus, and determination, and great bravery in the face of unknown dangers. When you run into that building or chase down that suspect, you will be risking your own life in order to protect the lives of men and women you have never met, and some that you may never know.

But you knew all that when you joined the academy. You knew the risks involved, you knew the sacrifices required, and yet you stood up and said, “I’ll take that risk. I’ll make that sacrifice. I will do that job.”

And that, Columbus, is the very essence of responsibility. That’s the spirit we need in this country right now, no matter what our role is or what our profession that we’ve chosen. It’s a spirit that asks us to look beyond our own individual ambitions to the wider obligations we have as the good citizens of a great nation; a spirit that calls on us to say, “I’ll make that sacrifice. I’ll do that job.”

If we can summon that spirit once more; if we’re willing to look out for one another and listen to one another; if we are willing to pull together and do our part; if we can show even a fraction of the courage and selflessness that these cadets have already demonstrated, then I have no doubt that we will emerge from this crisis stronger than before and keep this nation’s dream alive for future generations.

All of that is great and true.  I am all for responsibility and community service.  I want dedicated police, firefighters, and civic leaders.  I am glad when people give to their community.

But Obama speaks as if this is the action we need in response to the economic downturn.  But the economic troubles we are experiencing didn’t come from a lack of police; from people unwilling to serve their community.  And we can’t community service our way out of this crisis.

What we need is to think about what policies and procedures prevent economic growth; what legal and economic environments are conducive to business innovation and expansion; etc.  Ironically, Obama claims government is the answer and yet never seems willing to look at ways in which government is the problem.  He posits a return to the Great Society as if it were innovative and free thinking.  As if we tried the free market and it failed so back to even bigger government.

Clearly, Obama is in the driver seat politically.  But if the GOP is to return to power it will have to explain to the American people that Obama is playing a shell game.  That more and more government does not equal economic growth.  That businesses create jobs not government programs.  That labor unions and government dependent non-profits can be powerful special interests; and not conducive to growth and opportunity.

Obama loves to give a big speech but the fact of the matter is that he has no idea how to promote economic growth.  What he knows is government spending under the guise of community service.  And that is what we are going to get unless we find a way to communicate with the American people so that they see past his rhetoric to the consequences of his policies.

We heard from a president with a moral compass every bit as sophisticated and powerful as Bill Bennett’s, and who possesses a remarkably subtle understanding of the American psyche, but who knows only one way to fit all that wisdom into his current job description—use it to justify seemingly endless calls for more and more government.

[. . .]

In every instance, new government programs are the answer. And therein is the fundamental challenge Obama faces. The American exceptionalism he invoked generates precisely those character traits—personal responsibility, hard work, sacrifice, entrepreneurial creativity, resiliency, decency, and fairness—that will enable ordinary Americans to resist and, ultimately, defeat the suffocating Big Government that Obama seeks to impose on us.

Tom Jones only lets fans hurl their panties during up-tempo numbers, not serious ballads. Maybe it’s time for the White House to give the press corps similar guidelines.

It’s funny because it’s true . . .

So President Obama promised virtue and transparency, and declared war on lobbyists. Thus far, we’ve got a tax cheat headed for Treasury, a man who lied under oath headed for Justice, and two celebrated lobbyists headed for the #2 slots at Defense and HHS.

I do not understand why the Treasury guy wasn’t thrown out in a rage of protest.  We’ve got something like 350 million Americans. I refuse to believe he is so uniquely qualified that Geithner’s dramatic lack of virtue should be ignored. Nor do I understand why Holder’s denial that he knew all about Marc Rich isn’t grounds for rejection. Precisely for the reason Obama stated: at a time when confidence in government is crucial, you can’t start your administration by violating your own announced principles.

America, meet the new boss.

Just five weeks ago, in a fit of anti-Bush anger and liberal self-flagellation, 53 percent of the electorate voted to send an unknown, untested and inexperienced Chicago pol to the White House.

Who was Barack Obama? What sort of pol? Nobody knew or, apparently, cared.

Now America is learning to pronounce “Blagojevich” and discovering what The New York Times [NYT] calls “the murky and insular world of Illinois politics.” It’s a realm of open corruption, boundless greed and contempt for the law. And it’s the lifelong political home of President-elect Obama.

Surprise!

What, you didn’t know that Obama made his bones in the Chicago political machine? You didn’t know, for example, that he won his first election by getting one of his political mentors thrown off the ballot? Or about his financial support from corrupt Chicago moneyman Tony Rezko? Or how Obama and sidekick Rahm Emanuel advised the campaign of a machine hack named Rod Blagojevich?

You didn’t? Don’t feel bad. According to a post-election Zogby poll, a large majority of Obama supporters didn’t know key facts like these, either. And why should they? After all, NBC, The Boston Globe-Democrat and the rest of the Partisan Press had little interest in reporting these stories.

Instead, as the Chicago Tribune’s John Kass just wrote, the media “have been clinging to the ridiculous notion that Chicago is Camelot for months now. It must help them see Obama as some pristine creature, perhaps a gentle fawn of a magic forest, unstained by our grubby politics.”

As they say, read the whole thing.

Here’s the WaPo subhead for a story on Bobby Jindal’s presidential prospects:

Jindal May Prove To be Republicans’ Version of Obama

What? You mean Jindal’s a post-American political radical who’s never held a real job and was catapulted to political success because of his race? Because I thought he was a sober patriot, rooted in his native Louisiana, who’s been successfully handling significant executive responsibilities since he was 25. Maybe that’s some other guy I’m thinking of.