Posted on 12/15/2001 7:16:32 AM PST by Keyes For President
WorldNetDaily: Uncle Sam's dangerous drug
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25705 Saturday, December 15, 2001 Uncle Sam's dangerous drug
By Alan Keyes
House and Senate negotiators reached agreement this week on education legislation that the president is expected to sign quickly. And the House of Representatives, in an overwhelming vote uniting Democrats and Republicans, passed the bill on Thursday. Representatives Tom DeLay and Peter Hoekstra led a small group of the conservative remnant in opposing the $26.5 billion package, which Bush Republicans are trying hard to portray as a prudent implementation of conservative principle. But it is, in fact, the culminating capitulation of the conservative attempt to reform the federal government's role in education. What I wrote about the bill in September remains true today: Instead of the promised attempt to rein in government domination of education, we have an education bill that ramps-up federal funding, increases federal control and was cooperatively stripped of all elements of support for genuine school choice and local control. However distracted conservatives may be by the drama of the war against terror, we should not let this moment pass without noticing the comprehensive defeat that Bush education policy, enshrined in the bill, represents. Apparently ended is the struggle conservatives have waged for decades to head off the nationalization of K-12 education. Constitutional language, American tradition and fundamental principles of self-government all weigh decidedly against any federal involvement in local education. Since the first election of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party had stood for a rollback of that involvement, even abolition of the Department of Education. Now, at the federal level, we have abandoned the argument with the public about the costs and dangers of federal involvement in K-12 education. The current bill does not artfully advance an incremental version of the principled position of President Reagan. Indeed, it takes us in precisely the opposite direction. It also utterly and finally reneges on one of the most important of President Bush's education policy campaign promises. Candidate Bush called for cutting funds to failing schools and returning to the parents that money in a limited voucher scheme. The bill about to pass Congress for President Bush's signature will give failing schools more money! And the voucher proposal was jettisoned shortly after the inauguration. The increase in federal education funding in this bill is staggering over 40 percent in one year. This is more than the education budgets of an average-sized state, such as Iowa or Colorado. With the money, President Bush has eagerly taken on himself, on behalf of the national government, responsibility for the educational performance of the nation's children. No rhetoric about flexibility and local independence will prevent the inevitable ongoing torrents of federal money, bilge about federal resolve to "leave no child behind" and ever increasing levels of federal oversight and control. And what will happen when an extra $8 billion fails to improve our children's learning? And fail it will, because real improvement in government schools is blocked by administrative inertia, obstructionist unions and statist secularism in the professional educational establishment. Sad history and all the data show that these impediments are increased, not diminished, by federal dollars. But still the cry will go up for more money, and a more aggressive federal commitment. What will President Bush say next year when another $8 billion increase, or $12 billion, is demanded to make real reform happen? After all, the federal government can leave no child behind. What next? Shall we pass the "Lake Woebegone Act" and decree that all the children shall be "above average?" Most discouraging of all is that the new bipartisan federal education initiative is such a distraction from the deepest source of our educational problems the demise of the two-parent, marriage-based family. The family is the school of character and must be the primary agent in education. No federal spending can effectively energize the real reform we need reform in which parents get control of their own lives, reassert effective, wise and moral control over the lives of their children, and extend that control finally to the common life of our public schools. As with most federal welfare, federal education money is a drug that obscures and intensifies underlying problems. The Republican Party used to preach "Just say 'No!'" Now we are increasing the dose and inviting the country to party on. It's a prescription for GOP and national addiction that immeasurably weakens our children's future. Let us pray it does not ultimately cost us our capacity for responsible self-government.
Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.
Former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes, was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council and 2000 Republican presidential candidate. |
Gator Fan, eH?
..well, we all can be perfect....YES - I am kidding !! !!
You nailed it on one point - if I can be allowed to hate only one thing, while I'm on this Earth, that choice will be the united nations.....
As far as those flags go, you're correct. Far too many people really don't understand what those really mean. Most of the ones that don't like them - simply haven't a clue as to the Heritage and History behind them.
I see. So you know exactly what I was thinking and exactly why I did this. Sounds familiar. You don't buy my (truthful) explanation so in other words I am lying.
As I see it, there's two possibilities: Either my explanation is truthful, or I am a liar and my real motivation was, as you said, to divide us all (as if I observed that there is too much unity between the Keyes & Bush factions on FR so I better think of a way to put a stop to that!). You are free to conclude either way, but to be fair I would ask you to consider my conduct here over the past few years before you come to your conclusion.
As for provoking people, provoking whom to what? Maybe provoking people to actually read the article, and demonstrating that you can't jump to conclusions based solely on misleading headlines, hearsay, or mischaracterizations. Maybe next time people will not be so hasty to post responses on threads without actually reading what they are responding to!
Whom have I attacked with this post? President Bush? No. I do not say one bad word about him in my post. Alan Keyes? Nope. At first blush it appears I have accused him, but the cracks about the decoder ring, breakfast drink, etc. are clues to clue in the clueless that this is satire.
Does the Hitler reference offend you? Why should it? Did I liken anyone to Hitler? Bush? No. Keyes? No. Bush supporters? No. Keyes supporters? No.
Face it, the only reason this may have gotten to some people is because they recognized themselves in my satire. I hit a little too close to home for some.
As for reconsidering my tactics, again I repeat, I see no reason to do something like this again. I made my point which needed to be made. But I'll bet we haven't seen the end of the name calling and personal attacks which have occured on this forum for years and from which I have always refrained.
I will continue to support President Bush when I think he's right, and continue to criticize his policies when I think they are wrong. And I refuse to lose my sense of humor and take differences of political opinions personally.
Regards,
Well said, and I agree.
Richard F.
You are truly a gentleman and a scholar.
Regards,
God bless you!
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.