That simple truth moots the entire article. 
Posted on 12/29/2001 8:52:48 AM PST by holman
Seven months after Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party and altered the balance of power in Washington, he remains something of an icon. Consider the recent book-signing Jeffords held at a Borders in downtown Washington to celebrate the publication of his triumphant My Declaration of Independence. One after another, Jeffords's beaming fans called him a hero and an inspiration, and asked to snap his picture. A starry-eyed blonde showed up with ten copies of his book. After signing the whole stack, Jeffords kissed her hand. "I'll remember that!" she exclaimed, wandering off with a giddy smile.
The national media has been equally charmed. In just a week of December television appearances, Vermont's junior senator was celebrated by Mike Wallace, Katie Couric, and Larry King. "I salute you," King told Jeffords. Couric, echoing a familiar refrain, described Jeffords as "a man at peace" with his decision. On "60 Minutes," Jeffords declared, "I've never felt better about myself."
You might think Jeffords hasn't a care in the world. Not only is he a media star, but his new Democratic allies supposedly value him in a way the Republicans never did. Didn't the number-two Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid, give up a precious committee chairmanship to Jeffords back in the spring? Doesn't Tom Daschle, who became Senate majority leader thanks to Jeffords's switch, routinely joke in public that he's just come back from "mowing Jim Jeffords's lawn"? One almost imagines the squinty-eyed Vermonter reclining on a chaise somewhere, as powerful Democrats pop grapes into his mouth and fan him with palm fronds.
The reality is rather different. For all the public appreciation, Jeffords is no more influential now than he was as a Republican--in fact, he may be less so. He has already witnessed the primary cause for which he left the GOP go down in defeat. And a second pet issue is also in serious peril. Gone is the power he once had to extort concessions from Republican leaders fearful of losing his vote; those leaders now despise and shun him. Worse, his Democratic friends may be starting to take him for granted. Indeed, in a recent meeting of House and Senate Democrats, he pronounced himself "the most depressed I have felt" since switching parties.
The single issue most responsible for Jim Jeffords's defection from the GOP was special education--specifically his belief that Republicans weren't spending enough on it. Jeffords has a deep personal investment in the issue: He was one of the principal authors of Congress's 1975 law setting special-education policy for the country. In April, Jeffords briefly managed to help whittle down President Bush's tax cut and add $200 billion in special-ed funding. But when he learned that the final Bush budget plan offered no new education spending at all, Jeffords says, he knew he had to bid the GOP farewell.
But if Jeffords had hoped that aligning himself with the Democrats would achieve his goal, he was mistaken. Special-ed funding came up again during the long negotiations this fall over Congress's sweeping new education bill. After months of haggling, by mid-December House and Senate leaders and the White House had finally reached agreement on nearly every intricate detail of the bill. The only issue left to resolve was special education. Jeffords, with the support of a few liberal Democrats, insisted on the $200 billion he'd failed to get in the Bush budget. But House Republicans--who were both opposed on the merits and eager to punish Jeffords--wouldn't compromise. Jeffords implored his Democratic colleagues to fight, even if it meant stalling the entire bill indefinitely. He even dropped what some took to be not-too-subtle hints, reminding people that he had left the GOP over this very issue. (And for an afternoon, a few senators actually wondered if he could possibly do the unthinkable--switch back.) But in the end, it was no use. The lead Democratic negotiators, Representative George Miller and Senator Ted Kennedy, with Daschle's support, refused to make a Tora Bora-style stand with Jeffords. Fearing it would be political suicide to derail the bill, the Dems instead promised to revisit funding for special ed next year.
Jeffords's only recourse was to cast a protest vote against the conference report, and to vent his frustration in a New York Times op-ed last week: "I am outraged," he wrote, "that a majority of my colleagues on the conference committee"-- a number that included several Democrats--"voted not to include this [special-education] amendment." But some Democrats have told Jeffords that he has only himself to blame. Despite his disgust with the Bush tax cut, he did vote for it, after all--and intentionally delayed his defection until after it was signed into law. "There's a reason there's no money for [special education]," says one Democrat close to the education talks. "It was the tax bill."
Meanwhile, Jeffords is also encountering trouble on his second-most prized issue: the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The compact, which pays tens of millions in subsidies to Vermont farmers, expired on September 30, and its fate is uncertain. When Jeffords was still a Republican, he managed to keep the compact alive, in part by claiming it was essential to his reelection--and thus to maintaining the GOP Senate majority. Back then, says conservative activist Grover Norquist, "a whole bunch of Republicans were willing to hold their noses and give Jeffords the stupid subsidy." No longer. Now Senate Republicans like Trent Lott, who lost his majority leader post when Jeffords switched, have sworn to block any effort by Daschle to reward the traitor. Indeed, one lobbyist recalls seeing Lott at a Washington dinner this summer and asking about the dairy compact. "His eyes were on fire," the lobbyist recounts. "He grabbed me by the arm and said, `I will never, ever let Jim Jeffords forget what he did to me.'"
Jeffords's problem is that Democratic leaders don't feel nearly as much passion on his behalf. On his own, Daschle might give Jeffords his compact, but Midwestern senators who think it provides New England farmers an unfair advantage are pressuring him not to. Daschle may also be nervous about how the compact plays in his home state of South Dakota. "Tom Daschle always says that he represents South Dakota first and is the Democratic leader second," says Norquist, an avowed compact foe. How, Norquist asks, would it look to South Dakota's farmers if Daschle acted against his state's interests in order to reward "some bozo from Vermont"?
That's not to say Democrats haven't tried at all. When Republicans tried to limit farm spending earlier this year, Reid told them that Democrats would scale back their funding demands in exchange for a six-month extension of the compact. Republicans refused. Now Daschle is trying to finesse the issue with a compromise plan that would give $2 billion in subsidies to dairy farmers throughout the country--thereby buying off senators from all regions--over the next three years. One Senate agriculture aide describes that plan, for which Daschle personally twisted arms on the Senate floor last week, as "a little payback" for Jeffords. But it's just a temporary fix--and if that's all he gets, Jeffords says, he'll be disappointed. Again.
Jeffords insists he has at least achieved one political goal: empowering Republican moderates. "I put the moderates back in business, and that alone has made a huge difference," he told Roll Call this month. But where's the evidence for that? Yes, Lott created a leadership slot for moderate Senator Arlen Specter after Jeffords's defection, but the Senate Republican agenda shows no signs of enlightenment. And GOP leaders in the House--who are on the verge of promoting Tom DeLay to Majority Leader--haven't even made a pretense of listening to their moderates. If anything, hard-liners in both parties wield even more control following Jeffords's switch, since Daschle's Democrats can now wage a fiercer fight against Bush's domestic agenda.
To be sure, Jeffords still knows how to hold out for a good deal now and again. When Senate Democrats were writing their economic stimulus bill this fall, Jeffords--the swing vote needed to pass it out of the Senate Finance Committee--demanded that some $4 billion be shifted from health care to dubious "agricultural stimulus" programs in exchange for his vote. But that's probably less than he would have gotten had he stayed in the GOP. After all, threatening to switch parties is a powerful negotiating tool--but it vanishes as soon as you actually switch. In fact, the more Jeffords loses, the more he falls back on rhetoric about how he "had to be true to what I thought was right, and leave the consequences to sort themselves out." Unfortunately for him, those consequences haven't quite turned out the way he hoped.
I still maintain that we are paying for baby-sitting for parents who should be responsible for thier retarded children.
So these parents don't deserve the same service other 'normal' children receive? Is this what you are saying?
Make that two of us. I hope he gets voted out as a traitor the people who elected him. Thanks for the post, holman; good article.
Hello!....Your so-called 'normal' children in our schools are taught in classes of 20-30 by ONE teacher.
Are they getting the same attention as one child who is (unfortunately) because of his/her disablity under the supervision of one aide for the full school day?
Benedict Arnold died in England in total disgrace. They took he and his family in but nobody could trust him.
Arnold, Benedict (1741 - 1801)
American soldier and traitor.
He was a hero of the early stages of the War of independence, serving with conspicuous valour at Ticonderoga, the invasion of Canada, and saratoga springs. After 1778, possibly persuaded by his loyalist wife, he began plotting with Clinton to deliver West Point to the British. When his courier, Major André, was captured, he fled to the British, for whom he fought thereafter. He died, neglected, in England.
Oxford Paperback Encyclopedia, © Oxford University Press 1998
Special education is one of the biggest boondoggles the politicians have ever dreamed up. Like Title I, it is an enormously wasteful and largely ineffective program used by public school systems to mask their failures and pad their payrolls. At the same time it has spawned an immense bureaucracy as well as endless loopholes for trial lawyers to exploit at public expense. However, for liberals like Jeffords and his pals like Katie Couric it wins them points with the "feel good" crowd.
Yes, Lott. But notice Lott didn't say he would do anything but whine about it.
Jeffords, well known to be a dim bulb, was term limited as chairman of the education committee, so the democrats bought him by promising he could continue. However, with Wis.Sen. Kohl in Agriculture, there was NO WAY the NE Dairy Compact could survive. Jeffords sold out the interests of his constituents for personal advantage, and then tried to portray it as an act of principle. Naturally, the media bought it - anytime a Republican turns it must be principle.
You, sir, have failed to make the case for the above statement.
It appears that one who simply disagrees with you is "unreasonable."
Have a good evening yourself!
That simple truth moots the entire article.
As an inner city public school educator, I have observed this to be true. Many people may not realize that "gifted and talented" as well as "disabilities" are both a part of special education. Due to political pressure and "strong- arming" by the Office of Civil Rights, the classification of "Gifted" has been dumbed down to include students who in some cases are not even average. The office of Civil Rights has attempted to enforce quotas on school districts by requiring them to identify minorities as gifted in numbers proportionate to the majority regardless of whether they meet the criteria. This has made a joke of the whole evaluation process, because you have to find "some way" of getting them to qualify and once they do, they cannot be "dequalified" (per local policy).
At the other end of the spectrum, of course, you have the students whose parents are clamoring to get them into special ed due to the SSI check that they receive once they are determined to have a "disability". While these parents are in the minority, it makes little sense to reward the parents handsomely for the poor behavioral and/or academic performance of the student. (An exception to this might be orthopedic handicaps where the family has real expenses and burdens due to special needs for wheelchairs, lifts, etc.)
The amusing thing about all this is that many of the employees who administer this stuff are now catching on and requesting what is known as "504 accomodation plans" indicating that they have a disabling condition that prevents them from working too hard, etc.
What goes around comes around.
The single issue most responsible for Jim Jeffords's defection from the GOP was special education--specifically his belief that Republicans weren't spending enough on it.
It's difficult to have a debate if we would have to go all the way back to deciding if mentally challenged children should be educated by tax dollars or not. It's simply a fact of life.
It appears that one who disagrees with you is unreasonable"
Not true, if you knew me and read some other posts of mine I will change my opinion when informed of facts on had not previously know. I don't base my opinions without a standard. Truth.
The truth is many public school children are being 'babysat'. Because I am a mom I hear remarks mothers make about their children such as: 'I wish school break was over, I'm fed up with my kids being at home." Or, "I cannot wait for my kids to start school, I'm tired of them" and on and on I could go. Then, when I find out just what they are learning, well that's another subject.
Meanwhile my time is spent wondering and sometimes worrying if I'm doing a good enough job...am I giving them my best...etc.
I said before I was speaking from my own experience. I know that I made a difference in the lives of those children I taught. I worried if I was doing a good job, or if I was giving them my best. I was no glorified babysitter. I didn't baby them and I didn't treat them like second class citizens as they often got treated outside the classroom. If tax dollars can be spent so negligently on the 'average' students, it can be spent on all students that walk through their doors.
But, JimVT, the fact, the truth of the matter is those children who are underaverage intelligence suffer in large classes. For all my 13 students I had an individual plan for them because they learned slowly and on different levels. Their capacity to take in information differed greatly from the average intelligence child. So, what to do? They needed to be where they could learn on their level.
I don't particularly find teaching 20-30 students all the same materials, all assumed to be on the exact same level especially appealing either.
Then we could discuss the real joke education of the "Gifted and Talented" students who really mostly exsist of kids who have average intelligence but because schooling is so dumbed down average appears to be 'gifted and talented.'
I said you were unreasonable because I don't believe that you have witnessed a good sample of what special education does but yet have formed a very radical opinion on the matter.
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.