The value of public education is under attack, and sinking

January 24, 2023

Between 2000 and 2019 the student population in America’s public schools increased by 7.6 percent. The number of teachers increased by 8.7 percent. However, the population of district administrators nearly doubled, increasing by 87.6 percent.

This is a fundamental change in the public education system, a foundational change. When the foundation changes, what sits on that foundation also changes. This is certainly happening in public education.

Among these changes is a challenge to the age-old idea that the responsibility for and the raising of children belongs to the parents. They are the ones that created the child; paid for her/his food, clothing, and living quarters for years; and began the long, slow process of helping them grow and mature.

But now, in this age of administrative growth, the idea is that those involved in the process of teaching subjects like language, science, history, math, the arts, and other things, are really the ones who should teach kids everything, including those things that for centuries had been the domain of parents. This attitude is the basis for many of the problems of public education today.

And this attitude exists in spite of the fact that the taxes of citizens — most of whom have been, now are, or someday will be parents of school children — pay for the bulk of public education.

As parents have become aware that the education bureaucracy — which includes state agencies, school boards, administrators and teachers — is slowly and secretly controlling what is being presented to their children in school, they are correctly concerned and justifiably upset.

In Virginia, where much controversy exists over public education, it was recently discovered that administrators in three counties and 17 high schools had failed to notify their students that they qualified as National Merit scholars. 

The National Merit Scholarship Program, administered by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation, “is an academic competition for recognition and scholarships that began in 1955. Approximately 1.5 million high school students enter the program each year,” according to the organization’s Website.

Those who receive this honor have applied for it, and worked hard to earn the award. They set this high goal, and they achieved it. Those who receive the Merit award stand at the top of the student learning pyramid. 

Yet, some Virginia education administrators, and likely some in other states, as well, decided not to notify these students in a timely manner. This in many cases denied the recipients the ability to include this information in their applications to the colleges where they hope to go to further their education, and cost them scholarship support. 

And what is the reason for this unacceptable decision? The education authorities did not want to hurt the feelings of those students who did not earn the award, whether or not they even tried for it.

This is one example of what the dubious goal of creating “equity” in outcomes requires. The new “rule” is that a student may have out-performed all other students in the senior class, but it is not fair to the others for him or her to be recognized for that.

There are other unacceptable activities taking place in some American schools. There is strong evidence that some schools and school systems, such as in Chicago, Illinois, and Virginia are teaching Critical Race Theory (CRT). A simplified definition of CRT is that it classifies one race as oppressors and other races as oppressed, increasing division among races rather than continuing to bring all races together.

Gender fluidity is being taught in some schools in New York state. This encourages youngsters to question their gender and perhaps attempt to change it. Other topics regarding sexual activity are also being presented which, out of regard for using appropriate language, will not be named or described here. 

The latter two topics are being presented to very young students, in elementary and middle school. These children are not old enough or mature enough to be presented these topics, or to make decisions about changing their gender. Furthermore, none of these topics are officially part of the approved curricula; they are being added under the table.

Writing in Hillsdale College’s publication, Imprimis, Hillsdale President Larry Arnn explains what he sees as the origin and purpose of these changes. “The process is dominated by ‘stakeholders’ — mostly people who have a financial or political interest in what is taught. They are mostly not teachers or scholars, but advocates. And so we adopt our textbooks, our lesson plans, and our state standardized tests with a view to future political outcomes once the kids grow up.”

Arnn blames these changes on the administrative state. Nationwide, he said, the administrative state has more than 20 million employees, most of whom are at the state level. They are in many areas of government, education among them. They make direct and indirect decisions on the economy, and those decisions affect everything, including educational direction.

The growth of administrative positions in public education was noted earlier. While teachers sometimes are active participants in these under-handed activities, the primary culprits are in administrative positions.

This has to be stopped.

More IRS agents, or smaller, less intrusive, less expensive government?

January 17, 2023

Wealthy Americans are a favorite target of the political left. They suspect they do not pay their fair share, and indeed, actually work to evade paying what they should. The many features of the tax code provide opportunities for people, especially the wealthy, to pay less than what their critics think they should pay.

Congressional Democrats last August passed the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act." Among other things, this bill would add 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service agents to search for taxpayer mistakes and evasions.

This $72 billion of taxpayer money would, according to Sen. John Kennedy, R-LA, expand the IRS to the extent that it will have "more agents, or soldiers, than the entire Israeli army." It will definitely more than double the size of the IRS, which currently has 78,661 employees. 

And Elon Musk, said to be the world’s richest man, tweeted a picture of a British Redcoat, expressing the irony of it all:  "When the country that revolted over taxes hires 87,000 new agents."

CBN News commented: “The Internal Revenue Service dropped the ball on auditing millionaires, according to a new report published by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Despite calls by Democrats to ramp up scrutiny of high-net-worth individuals’ tax returns, and a legislative push for increased funding for the agency, the likelihood of a millionaire being audited in 2022 was just 1.1 percent.

“Instead, data shows that low-income earners were more than five times more likely to be targeted by the IRS in 2022,” the CBN story continued. “TRAC, a nonpartisan data gathering and distribution organization, was able to obtain the information under a court order through a Freedom of Information Act request.”

“Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Joe Biden himself claim these agents will target only the wealthy,” CBN wrote. “And congressional Democrats say the money will just be used to restore the IRS to its previous size.”

The Heritage Foundation’s John Cooper showed a chart reflecting the concerns of average Americans. "From 2010-2021, those making less than $200K accounted for the most in additional paid taxes. Those making less than $25K were audited at a higher rate than those making $200K to $500K," he commented.

The House of Representatives new Republican majority passed a bill rescinding the $72 billion for the 87,000 new IRS agents. House Resolution 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act, passed the House on a 221-210 vote along party lines. “This was our very first act of the new Congress, because government should work for you, not against you,” said new House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-CA.

America’s government should be small, efficient, and not intrude into the lives of its citizens. The Libertarian Republic published an article in 2015 focused on the “Top 10 Government Agencies We Should Eliminate Immediately.” Citing the size of President George Washington’s cabinet, with only three departments, the article lists the 10 we could close, and why:

* National Security Agency - Perhaps the US governments’ most Orwellian agency, it has many times found itself embroiled in controversy, whether for spying on leaders opposed to the Vietnam war, or collecting the phone records of billions of people.

* Food and Drug Administration - The FDA is given the surreal power of regulating what Americans may eat, drink and medicate themselves with. This creates an environment where citizens are told that they are in fact not the sole deciders of what goes into their own bodies.

* Environmental Protection Agency - The EPA has gone from a small and seemingly necessary regulatory agency to a behemoth which tramples small businesses without regard for economic realities. The EPA has taken the power to arbitrate land disputes and environmental concerns from courts and private citizens, replaced with actions by bureaucrats with no accountability.

* Amtrak - Trains are the transportation choice of the past, yet government keeps investing in them. Higher subsidies are necessary to keep Amtrak running. 

* Internal Revenue Service - The IRS has a long history of abusing its power. If taxation is indeed necessary, must there really be an agency which so clearly intrudes into every aspect of our lives when tax filing season approaches?

* Federal Emergency Management Agency - Emergency relief should be left to private organizations like the American Red Cross, which has proven itself time and time again.

* Transportation Security Administration - Americans have been taught that Constitutional rights are suspended if one decides to travel through an airport. There are certainly better and more efficient ways for safety to be ensured.

* Drug Enforcement Administration - The War on Drugs has taken millions of lives and prisoners, and billions of taxpayer dollars. We as free people have a duty to bring an end to the tyranny of the DEA. 

* Federal Communications Commission - Freedom of speech is among the most important rights in our Constitution. However, the FCC places barriers upon our rights to engage in and listen to speech of our choice. 

* Federal Reserve - Not many Americans truly understand it, yet it silently steals value from Americans’ dollars every day. Since its creation, the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value. 

Agree or disagree with this libertarian view, our government is too big.

A Republican Speaker of the House was chosen, after a long process

January 10, 2023

Republican Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Minority Leader for several years who had the support of 90 percent of the House Republicans, was elected Speaker of the House in the early minutes of last Saturday. But it was a long, tedious battle that lasted four days, as a group of 20 Republicans opposed his election in order to gain concessions. 

After the 14th vote failed late Friday night, Patrick McHenry, R-NC, moved to adjourn the House until Monday. Other Republicans, however, changed their minds during the vote, and managed to defeat the adjournment motion. That meant that the voting for Speaker must continue, and the 15th vote was then taken. Enough of the 20 Republicans that had opposed McCarthy did what was needed for him to finally win.

Then, the gavel was passed, and the new Speaker swore in the newly elected House members.

What was it about McCarthy with which those 20 Republicans so strongly disagreed? He was called a “RINO,” and said to have not stood up for Republican principles. He went along with the Democrat majority, and other similar things, they charged.

And the group was determined to oppose his election unless and until he agreed to certain concessions, which he finally did.

After the election McCarthy addressed the House. "As Speaker of the House, my ultimate responsibility is not to my party, my conference, or even our Congress. My responsibility — our responsibility — is to our country."

McCarthy revealed some of his priorities for the 118th session of Congress, promising to "address America’s long-term challenges: the debt and the Chinese Communist Party. Congress must speak with one voice on both of these issues," he said.

McCarthy said he is set on building a "nation that is safe," a "future that is built on freedom," and to construct a "government that is accountable where Americans get the answers they want, need, and deserve."

"Our system is built on checks and balances. It’s time for us to be the check and provide some balance to the President’s policies," he added. "There is nothing more important than making it possible for American families to live and enjoy the lives they deserve."

He believes it is necessary to "stop wasteful Washington spending to lower the price of groceries, gas, cars, and housing and stop the rising national debt."

"We pledge to cut the regulatory burden, lower energy costs for families, and create good-paying jobs for workers by unleashing reliable, abundant American-made energy," McCarthy said. "Our first bill will repeal funding for 87,000 new IRS agents. Because the government should be here to help you, not go after you."

In closing, McCarthy said: "Our nation is worth fighting for. Our rights are worth fighting for. Our dreams are worth fighting for. Our future is worth fighting for."

Republicans also have said they will return the operation of the House to its previous fashion that existed before former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, began her iron-fisted rule that removed much of the ability for members to participate that the House had been known and celebrated for, and replaced by Pelosi’s heavy hand.

Among the topics the Republican-led House will explore are a couple that are just common sense in a body that is supposed to work for the people it serves: Single Subject Bills, and 72 hours to read a bill.

A good example of what these measures will prevent is the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill, or more appropriately, the “ominous” spending bill. This bill contained several separate subjects, was 4,155 pages long, spent a ridiculous amount of taxpayer’s money, and was put to a vote before it could be adequately studied by those voting on it. As former Speaker Pelosi famously said, you have to pass it to find out what is in it. That is not what America is about.

One of these many subjects provides about $3 million for the Pollinator-Friendly Practices on Roadsides and Highway Rights-of-Way Program, for "activities to benefit pollinators on roadsides and highway rights-of-ways" like planting certain types of flora or implementing certain mowing strategies.

Another one provides that "not less than" $575 million "should be made available for family planning/reproductive health, including in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species."

And, the “ominous” bill allocates $1.56 billion to Customs and Border Protection for "border management requirements" and $339.6 million to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for "non-detention border management requirements." But these funds are prohibited from being used to "acquire, maintain, or extend border security technology and capabilities" unless they’re for improving processing, not securing the border. 

Some other beneficial topics are a “Church” style committee that allows the House to look into the weaponization of organizations like the FBI against the American people, a Texas border plan, ending COVID mandates and funding, a budget that stops an increase in the debt ceiling and holds the Senate accountable, and a vote on term limits.

The Republicans have identified quite a few areas needing repair or attention that have been ignored, or subverted, by the Biden administration.

Now they have to appropriately address and fix them, and Democrats will hopefully understand their importance, and support them.

More changes are being offered to satisfy the “cancel culture”

January 3, 2023

Here we go again! Along with all the efforts to “cancel” things that upset someone, a few people, or lots of people — like the names of buildings, streets and schools; and statues of people, and actual people living and dead — there is a new movement. This one seeks to eliminate words and phrases used for years, decades or centuries.

In an act of “we gotta get woke,” Stanford University has published an index of "harmful language." The school plans to eliminate this language from its websites and computer code, and will offer replacement terms to be used in the future. And likely these rules will apply to those on campus and otherwise associated with the school.

Stanford calls this project the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, and it is described as a "multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford," according to the project guide.

The guide goes on to say that its goal is to eliminate "many forms of harmful language," including "racist, violent, and biased language, including disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, and sexual bias. "It also states that it wants to educate people on the impact of words.

It should be fairly obvious that the language Stanford finds “harmful” consists of words and phrases that have been around in popular usage for years or decades. But in this new hypersensitive world, they are no longer useful because of some relatively under-lying meaning that someone might find offensive.

Here’s one example. Under a section titled “Imprecise Language,” the guide advised readers to replace the term “American” with “U.S. citizen.” The reason for this is that calling people who live in the United States of America (USA) “Americans” insinuates that the USA is the most important country in the Americas.

There are four groups of countries in the Americas: North America, Central America, South America and The Caribbean. And in those four groups, there are more than 40 individual countries. However, only one of them, the United States of America, has the word “America” in its name. The USA has also been known as “America,” for a long time. Therefore, the citizens of the USA can properly be called “Americans.”

This example is plain evidence of how foolish this and many other such efforts are. Perhaps the powers that be at Stanford realized this, had it explained to them, or gave in to the outrage over this cancellation, because it has back-tracked on this word, and now claims to absolutely welcome the term “American.” 

Progress? Perhaps.

Some of the terms Stanford deems harmful and has not back-tracked on include "abort," which the school wants to replace with "cancel" or "end," due to moral concerns about abortion; "child prostitute" to be replaced with a "child who has been trafficked," so the person is not defined by just one characteristic; and "Karen" is to be replaced with "demanding or entitled White woman."

The index suggests using "accessible parking" instead of "handicap parking," "died by suicide" instead of "committed suicide" and "anonymous review" instead of "blind review." We also should use "unenlightened" as a replacement for "tone deaf," and a "person with a substance abuse disorder" as a replacement for "addict."

The institutionalized racism section says to avoid using phrases like "black hat," "black mark" and "black sheep" because of "negative connotations to the color black." It also says to avoid using "grandfathered" and use "legacy status" instead, because of "roots in the ‘grandfather clause’ adopted by Southern states to deny voting rights to Blacks."

“Immigrant” is out, and the preferred substitute is “person who has immigrated.” The Wall Street Journal noted about this cancellation that, “It’s the iron law of academic writing: Why use one word when four will do?”

“You can’t ‘master’ your subject at Stanford any longer,” the Journal added, saying “in case you hadn’t heard, the school instructs that ‘historically, masters enslaved people.’” 

Does Stanford still award “masters” degrees? Or, will they simply be renamed “post-bachelor,” “bachelor-plus,” or “pre-doctorate,” “not-yet-doctorate,” or something else?

Given that these words and phrases “trigger” the sensitivities of some folks, and that the multitude of other things that people want to cancel are things that have been around or in common use for a long time, and their meanings have been understood and accepted as useful and normal.

Why is it now suddenly necessary to get rid of them?

These days there is virtually nothing that doesn’t bother someone. So, the question that arises is, are we going to give in to this new mania and change everything when some people become uncomfortable with them? Or, are we just going to learn to deal with the discomforts, as we have been doing since humans have existed?

The things that are now considered as unacceptable are part of American society and history. They are “us.” If they are removed, we lose the valuable lessons they can teach us. If we reword things, we are giving in to what in many cases are hyper-sensitive feelings about things that we historically have simply accepted. 

We aren’t perfect, and will never be. We need to learn to live with these imperfections.