No Bureaucrat Left Behind

by Rossputin | 6:47 am, January 11, 2012

Over at the National Journal web site, experts in education have offered a range of opinions about the 10th anniversary of George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” law. They’re quite interesting, but not surprisingly my favorite opinion is that of my friend, former Congressman and current Chairman of the Colorado State Board of Education, Bob Schaffer:

http://education.nationaljournal.com/2012/01/the-legacy-of-no-child-left-be.php#2147619

Romney: It’s not just electability

by Rossputin | 10:23 am, January 10, 2012

Two new reports from Gallup have perhaps the best news for Mitt Romney of this campaign season.

For the first time, Romney’s support among Republicans nationwide has reached or exceeded 30 percent, breaking through the 25-percent “barrier” that has been a common talking point among Romney opponents and pundits.

More importantly, Gallup data released Tuesday morning show that Mitt Romney has the highest “acceptable” and lowest “unacceptable” ratings of any Republican candidate:

These numbers fly in the face of the “anybody but Romney” cheerleaders who suggest that Republicans will not support Romney should he get the nomination. (I’ve been extremely skeptical of that theory since in this cycle Republicans are – and should be – motivated primarily by beating Barack Obama.)

Other points of interest:

• Ron Paul’s “unacceptable” rating is twice his “acceptable” rating.
• Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman have no business still being in this race.
• Only one other candidate, Rick Santorum, is more acceptable than unacceptable – by 6 percent – though I expect that to change for the worse if Santorum remains a viable candidate and thus a target for Romney and Gingrich supporters.
• Romney – who critics attack for his business success, for his religion, and for being a “moderate” – has a 28 percent margin of acceptable over unacceptable.

It may be an air of inevitability, it may be a perception of electability, but you also have to give credit to Romney for (except for his poorly chosen words about liking “to be able to fire people”, which have been taken wildly out of context by Republican and Democrat opponents alike) running a disciplined, consistent, conservative campaign and primarily training his fire on Barack Obama rather than other Republicans. Whatever you may think of Romney, few would argue that he would strike the average American as the most presidential of the GOP field – and more presidential than the man currently holding the office.

Betting odds have Romney over 70 percent to win the South Carolina’s January 21st primary and 83 percent to win Florida’s primary 10 days later. (Romney is 98 percent to win New Hampshire’s primary today.) Despite all the talk about how the nominee might not be known until May, it could all be over but the shouting on January 31st.

Anti-Romney or Anti-Capitalism?

by Rossputin | 7:07 am, January 10, 2012

I’ve never seen a baseball player get three strikes on one pitch, but former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich just accomplished the political equivalent. During a Sunday morning Republican debate in New Hampshire, Gingrich suggested that a Super PAC supporting him will be attacking former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist Mitt Romney’s business history.

Strike one: As Quin Hillyer notes, Gingrich may have inadvertently tipped his hand exposing illegal coordination between his campaign and a PAC.

Strike two: Regardless of the impact of criticisms by Newt-backers on Romney, Newt has shown himself to be too bitter, petulant, and vengeful – in short, too immature – to be a serious candidate for the presidency.

And – the most important and least discussed – strike three: The PAC’s impending assault combined with Gingrich’s words during Saturday morning’s debate that “I think it’s a legitimate part of the debate to say OK on balance are people better off by this particular style of investment?” show less an attack on Romney than attack on capitalism itself, something that should be anathema to a self-described “Reagan conservative.”

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/10/anti-romney-or-anti-capitalism

Did Gringrich break the law?

by Rossputin | 1:40 pm, January 9, 2012

Some important political information and analysis from Quin Hillyer (and Jennifer Rubin), wondering aloud if Newt Gingrich recently admitted being in violation of federal election law:

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/09/did-gingrich-break-the-law

Rick Perry’s Iraq blunder

by Rossputin | 7:39 am, January 9, 2012

In Saturday’s Republican debate in New Hampshire, Texas Governor Rick Perry said, as he has in the past, that he would “send troops back into Iraq” to prevent Iranian dominance in Iraq from effectively wasting the blood and treasure which America sacrificed to topple Saddam Hussein and try to guide that country toward some sort of sustainable democracy.

But when even John McCain opposes sending troops into Iraq, you know Perry has made a serious mistake. McCain said that “the moment and window of opportunity [to keep troops in Iraq] has now been closed.”

Perry is undoubtedly right that President Obama’s precipitous pulling of all US troops from Iraq was an effort to “kowtow to his liberal leftist base” but the idea that Americans would tolerate sending troops back into that sandy quagmire shows a remarkably out-of-touch politician, or someone so desperate that he’s willing to say almost anything to get attention and differentiate himself from the rest of the GOP field.

The other day when Rick Perry’s betting odds of being the Republican nominee were trading around 2 percent, I said that that was about 2 percent too high. Now that the odds are down to one percent, allow me to repeat myself: his odds are 2 percent too high.

Backbone Radio, January 8, 2011: Victor Davis Hanson

by Rossputin | 7:29 am, January 8, 2012

For details of this afternoon’s edition of Backbone Radio, including our interview with one of America’s most important thinkers and writers, Victor Davis Hanson, please see the Backbone web site here:

http://rossputin.com/blog/backbone.php/backbone-radio-january-8-2011

Obama’s recess appointment gambit

by Rossputin | 8:31 am, January 6, 2012

When even a New Republic writer suggests that Barack Obama’s Wednesday recess appointments to the Consumer Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board are probably unconstitutional, you know we’re in for a good fight…at least if Senate Republicans have the courage to take it on.

The left-leaning Politico also notes that “But President Barack Obama’s decision to jam the Senate and install three labor nominees and a consumer watchdog without a confirmation vote raises unsettled legal questions that could have a long-lasting impact past his presidency.”

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin has a good summary of initial Republican response to Obama’s power-grab:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-recess-appointments-the-ex-law-professor-makes-a-power-grab/2012/01/04/gIQAwZbScP_blog.html

My view: While Obama is pandering to the far left and union (if you’ll pardon my redundancy) parts of his base, his move is politically unwise.

Think about Obamacare: It was not just the content of the law which people hated; it was also the process. From “deem and pass” to “reconciliation” to “pass it so you can learn what’s in it” every part of the Democrats’ efforts to shove the measure down our throats stunk of heavy-handedness if not outright tyranny.

Obama’s recess appointments were an unnecessary reminder by Obama that he is indeed a tyrant. It’s one thing to fight “obstructionism.” It’s another thing entirely to say that he, rather than the Senate, determines whether or not the Senate is in session.

If these appointments are challenged in court and if Obama loses, it would do measurable damage to his election prospects – not just because of the appointments themselves but because it is such a stark reminder that our president is a man who thinks himself and his vaunted goals so important that the rule of law should yield to his will. Other than among the roughly 20 percent of Americans (university professors, union members, and government employees) who strongly approve of Obama’s job performance, this sort of autocratic behavior does not play well to the American sensibility. It is a sensibility that is figuratively and literally foreign to Barack Obama who spent formative years living in anti-democratic places like Indonesia and Columbia University.

It may be that Obama is feeling his oats after his payroll tax cut “victory” over House Republicans and therefore trying to flex his muscles. But he’s picked a stupid fight at a stupid time, with far more to lose than to gain, reminding us of the surprisingly tin-eared Chicago-style politician he spent most of 2009 and 2010 proving himself to be.

No diploma necessary

by Rossputin | 8:08 am, January 6, 2012

In the latest bit of politically-correct economically-ignorant insanity to come from Washington, D.C., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – an organization which should (but won’t) be at the top of any Republican president’s list to eliminate – has opined that employers may be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if they require that potential employees have a high school diploma.

The concept is supposedly that an inability to graduate from high school might by a symptom of a learning disability, and a disabled person can’t be disadvantaged in getting a job.

The confused thinking from EEOC seems to overlook the fact that an inability to graduate from high school probably represents something important about a person and that, from an employer’s point of view, the reason someone didn’t graduate usually is not and need not be important. Even if it were of modest importance, making a hiring process more complicated is an unjustifiable expense for most companies.

The impact of the EEOC’s “informal discussion letter” can only be bad for employers and for the future of high school education.

For employers, they may fear being forced to hire a stupid or incompetent employee because that person claims his inability to graduate was due to a disability. Perhaps the EEOC thinks we all live at Lake Wobegon, where all children are above average.

Educationally, it diminishes the incentive for marginal students to finish school, something which would not only be good for their brains but is also important to show troubled or only modestly intelligent kids that persistence is a valuable trait and strategy for life.

And just as there is a cottage industry of doctors who will sign a medical marijuana prescription for any reason at all as long as the “patient” has cash, we will see a cottage industry of psychologists, therapists, and psychiatrists who will certify a slacker or a moron (sorry, EEOC, those people really exist) as disabled so that he can be forced down the throat of an unwilling employer.

The EEOC’s letter says that an employer can only use a “standard, test, or other selection criteria” to screen potential employees if the standard is “job related…and consistent with business necessity.”

More from the letter:

 

Thus, if an employer adopts a high school diploma requirement for a job, and that requirement “screens out” an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA’s definition of “disability,” the employer may not apply the standard unless it can demonstrate that the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity. The employer will not be able to make this showing, for example, if the functions in question can easily be performed by someone who does not have a diploma.

Even if the diploma requirement is job related and consistent with business necessity, the employer may still have to determine whether a particular applicant whose learning disability prevents him from meeting it can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. It may do so, for example, by considering relevant work history and/or by allowing the applicant to demonstrate an ability to do the job’s essential functions during the application process. If the individual can perform the job’s essential functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation, despite the inability to meet the standard, the employer may not use the high school diploma requirement to exclude the applicant. However, the employer is not required to prefer the applicant with a learning disability over other applicants who are better qualified.

 

Imagine the growth in the far-beyond-cottage industry of lawyers suing companies for “discrimination”.

What is an employer to do if his every hiring decision is subject to EEOC scrutiny and his having to prove (not being given the benefit of the doubt) that a non-high school graduate is less likely to do a good job than a graduate? More fundamentally, why should an employer have to justify his hiring decisions to anyone?

What does “reasonable accommodation” mean? How much does the EEOC think a private company should be required to spend to hire someone with a disability when hiring someone else would not require such expense? This opinion – indeed this entire agency – is the ultimate in government having no concept of cost-benefit analysis, which is the world that the rest of us have to live in if we’re not to go bankrupt. Alternatively, perhaps they simply have a truly twisted approach to the value of the “benefits” their tyranny brings to a select few.

Consider the last EEOC sentence quoted above: “However, the employer is not required to prefer the applicant with a learning disability over other applicants who are better qualified.” This implies that the employer is required to prefer the applicant with a learning disability over other applicants who are equally qualified. How is that fair to the majority of high school dropouts who are not learning-disabled? Furthermore, given that there can be extenuating circumstances which cause smart, motivated kids to drop out of school, such as dire family situations which require their help, it is more likely for an employer to find a diamond-in-the-rough employee among dropouts who are not learning disabled than among those who are.

In short, employers are generally prevented by this EEOC opinion from considering a high school diploma as a sign of a qualification for a job. This is, of course, a position that nobody who understands the real world would ever think reasonable.

Employers are not tools of the state to be used to achieve leftist social engineering. They are entrepreneurs who risk their (or their investors’) money trying to provide goods and/or services at a profit. Bad employees, a category into which a high school dropout seems more likely to fit than others might, make that fundamental task of business much more difficult. One can imagine a situation in which being forced to take on a bad employee would remove the financial wherewithal of a small business to hire a better employee, damaging customers, shareholders, and future potential growth and hiring.

To be clear, I don’t argue that people without high school diplomas can’t be good or even great employees. But in businesses which require a reasonably well-developed cerebrum and a modicum of discipline, not having a diploma represents a real likelihood of someone either not being as smart or not being as motivated as someone who graduated. It’s no surprise that the only group of Americans who seem to lose jobs or have substantial wage pressures due to illegal aliens are those without high school diplomas (though even that relationship is the subject of some debate.) For the benefit of our nation’s future, there should be the substantial risk of a substantial, perhaps even life-long penalty for not finishing school. The last thing this nation needs is a government policy reducing the incentive to graduate.

The EEOC’s web site is full of lawsuits they’ve brought against private companies for various claimed discriminations, whether age-based, race-based, or disability-based. It’s as if they believe their job is to punish companies for not being sensitive enough to the left’s politically correct but economically ignorant views about how business works. And when the government is coming after you, what’s a company to do other than settle, pay a fine, and allow the government to change their hiring decisions – which they presumably made in the best interest of shareholders?

The EEOC is, like the National Labor Relations Board, out of control. It needs to be stopped, or preferably eliminated. It is not the government’s job to choose winners and losers among employees any more than it is to give unions leverage on private companies. It is time for employers to fight back against the overbroad interpretations of the ADA, not just because the EEOC and courts are harming businesses across the country and creating entire new classes of plaintiffs and low-life attorneys chasing their next victims, but because the word private in private enterprise must return to meaning something before our economic liberty is entirely lost to the do-gooders’ fascism.

Santorum’s moment in the sun

by Rossputin | 7:29 am, January 5, 2012

On Tuesday night, Iowa did what it does: create a lot of sound and fury by being first, and give a result that tells us much less about who will win than about who won’t.

On Tuesday night, Texas Governor Rick Perry, who came in fifth in Iowa, said he was going home to reassess a path forward, making it seem that he was dropping out. On Wednesday morning, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who placed sixth despite having been born in Iowa and winning the Ames straw poll, dropped out, presumably to focus on winning reelection to Congress and to avoid going into debt which she simply couldn’t afford. Following Bachmann’s announcement, Rick Perry sent out a “Tweet” suggesting he would campaign in South Carolina and compete in that state’s January 21^st primary. It’s a confusing move by a candidate whose primary memorable attribute so far has been confusion.

If you haven’t heard that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney beat former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum by 8 votes out of more than 122,000 votes cast, each gaining nearly 25 percent of the vote, well, you’re probably Debbie Wasserman Schultz or some other Democrat living in your own Obama bubble. Texas Congressman Ron Paul came in third with about 21 percent of the ballots cast followed by Newt Gingrich in fourth place with 13 percent.

Despite his impressive showing, political bettors at Intrade.com are not taking Santorum seriously with most candidates’ betting odds barely changed from a few days earlier. As of Wednesday afternoon, Romney’s odds of being the Republican nominee were down less than half a percent from prior to the Iowa results, trading around 81 percent. Santorum’s odds were roughly unchanged trading around 4.5 percent after a brief spike over 8 percent. Newt Gingrich was up slightly to about 6 percent while Ron Paul’s odds were slightly lower, around 2.5 percent. Jon Huntsman’s betting odds are up about one percent to over 4 percent. Rick Perry’s odds remain around two percent, where he’s been for a couple of weeks, and around two percent higher than his actual chances.

It can’t make Rick Santorum happy that the day after his remarkable performance in Iowa, bettors don’t give him more of a chance to be the Republican nominee than they give either Newt Gingrich or Jon Huntsman. Perhaps bettors simply understand Santorum better than Iowa caucus-goers do. More on this in a moment.

Please read the entirety of my article for the American Spectator here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/05/santorums-moment-in-the-sun

Justice, union style

by Rossputin | 5:43 pm, January 3, 2012

Nothing really surprises me these days when it comes to large unions and their henchmen being above the law. But this story reported by the National Legal and Policy Center is particularly galling:

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/12/28/ex-president-local-seiu-affiliate-chicago-sentenced

In short, John McMahon, the president of a Chicago SEIU-affiliated garment and laundry workers union embezzled about $12,000 from the union and falsified documents to cover his crime.  His sentence, after pleading guilty, was 2 years probation including six months home confinement, restitution of the money he stole, and a $25 “special assessment.”

I’d say more but I’m speechless…

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• ProgressNow Colorado and ALEC

  Oooh, looky what our friends at ProgressNow have been up to lately – ALEC And The Left’s War On Free Speech: If you want an insight into today’s left, look at its multifront war against the American Legislative Exchange Council for committing the grave sin of pushing free-market bills in state legislatures. At a recent [...]

• Hostess to Unions: No More Sugar for You
• Buffett Rule Foolishness
• Romney Expected to “Reassure” NRA on Second Amendment
• Tea Party Accepts IRS Tax Exemption, Then Complains of IRS Intrusion
• The Budget Battle: Entitlements Staying, Taxes Going Up
• $5 Trillion Tax Hike Coming