June 22, 2009

The Scary Thing About School Funding (In Indiana)

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana
Leave a Comment 

By: Wes Culver (R-Goshen, Ind.)

Unless they work in education or state government, not many people know or understand the complicated formula that determines how much funding each school corporation receives each year.

Each school corporation receives a specific dollar amount per student. So, two schools with the same number of students will receive a different dollar amount because the amount per student is different.

The amount per student can be immense. The lowest amount received by a school corporation in 2008 was $5,414 per student in Northwest Allen School Corp. The school corporation with the highest rate per-student was Gary School Corp., receiving $9,010 per student.

Several community members have voiced their concern with this variation. Why, they ask, does the state give more money per student to some schools and less to others?

Generally, tuition support for schools is tied to the numbers of students — “average daily membership” in bureaucratic terms — in each school district. As such, districts with declining enrollments face decreasing amounts of tuition support.

However, districts are still provided partial funding for students who have left the district, which is known as “ghosting.” Ghosting may occur when a student was enrolled at the start of the school year and then left sometime during that year.

Keep in mind, school districts have five years before funding is completely phased out for that student — 100 percent the first year, 80 percent the second, then 60 percent, 40 percent and, in the fifth year, 20 percent.

School systems with declining student enrollments have benefited greatly from this method, while those with growing enrollments have suffered, even though both face the same problem of changing enrollment.

The governor’s budget wants to finally end ghosting to make sure the money follows the student. If the student is not there, the money for that student wouldn’t be, either. However, the House Democrat’s budget proposal includes the ghosting formula.

A declining enrollment creates no more problems than an increasing enrollment. Officials from schools with declining enrollments say the students leaving are not from one class, but rather a few from every classroom; therefore, they cannot get rid of any teachers. However, neither can a growing school corporation place all the new students in one classroom and hire one teacher.

Growing schools are forced to handle their greater enrollments by redistricting to most efficiently handle students; declining schools should do the same.

These are not easy problems for superintendents to resolve. But that is what their job is and why we put them in those positions. Tough decisions aren’t always easy for businesses and families either, but they have to make them when their income declines.

I don’t think we should ask our schools to do anything we wouldn’t do as families and business people. They should not be exempt from the struggles everyone else faces.

Wes Culver (R-Goshen) represents House District 49 in the Indiana House of Representatives.  His website is www.electwesculver.com.

 

June 8, 2009

Government Intervention has hurt the Economy

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana
Leave a Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

The turmoil that has enveloped Chrysler Corporation has had a substantial impact on our state.  From the parts suppliers who employ Hoosiers at their Indiana factories to the dealerships that dot the state and provide jobs to local mechanics and sales personnel, many have been impacted by Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent and afloat amidst a serious economic downturn.  But what has happened to the automaker also impacts Hoosiers who have never worked with or for the company or its many suppliers and vendors.  Because the state invested some road construction trust funds and some of the assets of the state’s police and teacher pension trust funds in secured Chrysler debt, the government’s mismanagement of the company’s reorganization has cost Hoosiers roughly $5 million.

The loss that these pension funds and the road construction fund have sustained has come about not because of Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent but because of the federal government’s decision to rewrite decades of bankruptcy law precedent.  Whenever a bond holder, such as these three state trust funds, invests in corporate bonds that are considered secured debt, they are investing in the company and, should the company fail, they are guaranteed a recovery of their investment by the sale of the company’s assets.  

When the federal government stepped in and began the process of organizing and managing Chrysler’s restructuring, they did so in a way that disregarded the fact that holders of secured debt are supposed to be first in line to recover their money.   This means that as Chrysler tries to restructure itself in the shelter of a bankruptcy court according to a blueprint forced on it by President Obama’s administration, it is jeopardizing the soundness and sustainability of trust funds that many Hoosiers rely on as part of their retirement.  Additionally, the state’s ability to build the roads that would generate jobs, improve the state’s transportation infrastructure and make Indiana a more attractive place for businesses to come to is threatened by the federal government’s actions.

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has used his authority as manager of the threatened funds to file pleadings against the currently proposed Chrysler restructuring.  Mourdock is rightfully arguing that retirees and state taxpayers should not be forced to bear the brunt of this loss imposed by the disturbing actions of the federal government.  While it is important that Chrysler rework its structure and prepare itself to emerge from bankruptcy, it must not do so while following a plan that destroys the very trust on which it will be able to rebuild its business.
By stepping in and causing a $5 million loss to Hoosier retirees and taxpayers, the federal government has not only hurt Hoosiers, but it has also hurt Chrysler and started the very concerning practice of rewriting contracts that impact the economic standing of many Americans.  Investors observing their investments being destroyed by the federal government not only suffer an immediate loss but are also put on notice that any decision they make based on the mutual agreement and trust of the private sector may be quickly overridden if a government bureaucrat disagrees with the terms of the contract.  The unilateral rewriting of business and financial agreements by the federal government is a practice that must stop because it undermines the process by which our country will emerge from this downturn.
Our economy will recover and our nation will bounce back from this downturn if the federal government understands its real role in the marketplace.  The appropriate role of the federal government, and the job it should rightfully assume if we are going to see an increase in economic activity, the creation of jobs and the expansion of wealth, is to fulfill the duties of a referee.  A referee does not participate in the game but he or she does make sure that the rules are enforced.   When the federal government tries to participate in the economy by using its power to rewrite the rules and nullify agreements founded on mutual trust, then it exceeds its proper authority.  When, on the other hand, it enforces the rules fairly on all participants and holds parties to their contractual obligations, it is a party to the creation of the trust that is so necessary and vital to the operation of our economy.
The American people will emerge from this downturn strengthened for what lies ahead.  Chrysler Corporation and other companies that are going through restructuring will be poised to lead the way in the growing economy of the future, but only if the obligations that they have are not ignored or destroyed by irresponsible federal actions.  President Obama and his economic team must immediately cease their misguided efforts to dramatically make the government, and not the individual, the most important factor in our economy.turmoil that has enveloped Chrysler Corporation has had a substantial impact on our state.  From the parts suppliers who employ Hoosiers at their Indiana factories to the dealerships that dot the state and provide jobs to local mechanics and sales personnel, many have been impacted by Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent and afloat amidst a serious economic downturn.  But what has happened to the automaker also impacts Hoosiers who have never worked with or for the company or its many suppliers and vendors.  Because the state invested some road construction trust funds and some of the assets of the state’s police and teacher pension trust funds in secured Chrysler debt, the government’s mismanagement of the company’s reorganization has cost Hoosiers roughly $5 million.

The loss that these pension funds and the road construction fund have sustained has come about not because of Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent but because of the federal government’s decision to rewrite decades of bankruptcy law precedent.  Whenever a bond holder, such as these three state trust funds, invests in corporate bonds that are considered secured debt, they are investing in the company and, should the company fail, they are guaranteed a recovery of their investment by the sale of the company’s assets.  

When the federal government stepped in and began the process of organizing and managing Chrysler’s restructuring, they did so in a way that disregarded the fact that holders of secured debt are supposed to be first in line to recover their money.   This means that as Chrysler tries to restructure itself in the shelter of a bankruptcy court according to a blueprint forced on it by President Obama’s administration, it is jeopardizing the soundness and sustainability of trust funds that many Hoosiers rely on as part of their retirement.  Additionally, the state’s ability to build the roads that would generate jobs, improve the state’s transportation infrastructure and make Indiana a more attractive place for businesses to come to is threatened by the federal government’s actions.

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has used his authority as manager of the threatened funds to file pleadings against the currently proposed Chrysler restructuring.  Mourdock is rightfully arguing that retirees and state taxpayers should not be forced to bear the brunt of this loss imposed by the disturbing actions of the federal government.  While it is important that Chrysler rework its structure and prepare itself to emerge from bankruptcy, it must not do so while following a plan that destroys the very trust on which it will be able to rebuild its business.

By stepping in and causing a $5 million loss to Hoosier retirees and taxpayers, the federal government has not only hurt Hoosiers, but it has also hurt Chrysler and started the very concerning practice of rewriting contracts that impact the economic standing of many Americans.  Investors observing their investments being destroyed by the federal government not only suffer an immediate loss but are also put on notice that any decision they make based on the mutual agreement and trust of the private sector may be quickly overridden if a government bureaucrat disagrees with the terms of the contract.  The unilateral rewriting of business and financial agreements by the federal government is a practice that must stop because it undermines the process by which our country will emerge from this downturn.

>Our economy will recover and our nation will bounce back from this downturn if the federal government understands its real role in the marketplace.  The appropriate role of the federal government, and the job it should rightfully assume if we are going to see an increase in economic activity, the creation of jobs and the expansion of wealth, is to fulfill the duties of a referee.  A referee does not participate in the game but he or she does make sure that the rules are enforced.   When the federal government tries to participate in the economy by using its power to rewrite the rules and nullify agreements founded on mutual trust, then it exceeds its proper authority.  When, on the other hand, it enforces the rules fairly on all participants and holds parties to their contractual obligations, it is a party to the creation of the trust that is so necessary and vital to the operation of our economy.

The American people will emerge from this downturn strengthened for what lies ahead.  Chrysler Corporation and other companies that are going through restructuring will be poised to lead the way in the growing economy of the future, but only if the obligations that they have are not ignored or destroyed by irresponsible federal actions.  President Obama and his economic team must immediately cease their misguided efforts to dramatically make the government, and not the individual, the most important factor in our economy.

Published in the South Bend Tribune and the Northwest Indiana Times.

 

May 12, 2009

Senate Considers Passing Hate Crimes Legislation

Posted by Brian Sikma under Congress, Hate Crimes/Hate Speech
1 Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

A few weeks ago the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  It is expected that the United States Senate Judiciary Committee will consider this proposed hate crimes legislation later this week.  This is not the first time that the House has passed a hate crimes bill, and this is not the first time the Senate has considered legislation designed to establish an unequal system of justice.  What is happening for the first time is the consideration of this legislation with a liberal Democrat majority in the House and Senate and a liberal President in the White House.

Although the political circumstances surrounding this latest attempt to classify thoughts as a crime are not favorable to those who believe in freedom, this does not mean that we should fail to take action.  If we establish a national hate crimes law it will be a direct assault not only on the principle of federalism and the traditional boundaries of criminal law, but it will also be an all-out charge against religious liberty.

Those who commit violent crimes should be punished regardless of their motive and regardless of the identity of their victim.  Contrary to what many advocates of hate crimes legislation wish you to perceive, not a single criminal is escaping the consequences of his crime because of the lack of a hate crimes statute.  Those who oppose hate crimes legislation do so on the grounds that everyone deserves to be equally protected from violent criminals.  When government seeks to use the criminal justice system to right supposed social wrongs, the outcome is far from what real justice should be.  You cannot have appropriate justice in the unequal application of justice.

In addition to the fact that this legislation is unnecessary from a criminal law perspective, it is also unnecessary because it constituents a very real threat against religious liberty.  In states where hate crimes laws exist, they have been used to threaten, intimidate, and silence those who seek to speak out about their beliefs on sexual morality.  Men and women of faith, and particularly Christians, have been silenced under the guise of preventing crime because voicing their deeply held beliefs would lead, so the reasoning goes, to violent crimes being committed against those who are living in a lifestyle that is contrary to those beliefs.

The first amendment of our Constitution partly declares in profound and yet simple terms “Congress shall make no law…preventing the free exercise [of religion].”  This entire amendment is focused on protecting the free exchange of ideas and the pursuit of those ideas free from any government coercion or limitation.  Expressing one’s view about moral issues has never, and should never, be limited because of the demands of political correctness.

Among the nations of the world our country stands as the greatest bastion of religious liberty.  This is not an accident of chance, it is the product of an arduous and vigorous debate that took place during our founding.  It was realized then that religion is not something that government can force men and women to adhere to or abstain from.  Religion and all that goes with it is a product of man’s personal belief in God.  Requiring some to recant their beliefs or keep silent as to their views because others consider them unpopular is not the legitimate role of the government.

If we fail to act today to respectfully and persuasively make the case to our elected officials that hate crimes legislation is not only unnecessary but also runs counter to the freedoms that we have embraced, we can expect to see a more intense assault take place on our values in the future.  Regardless of how your Senators may have voted on this issue in the past, they need to hear from you again.  Please take time to contact them and urge them to Oppose H.R. 1913.  Hate crimes legislation represents an unacceptable shift in the focus of criminal law and it poses a direct threat to religious liberty.

To learn more about the threat posed by hate crimes legislation, watch the below video of Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) speaking about this type of legislation on the floor of the U.S. House:

 

April 25, 2009

Green Earmarking

Posted by Brian Sikma under Energy, Environment | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

As Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) works to move cap and trade legislation through his House Energy and Commerce Committee, he’s finding it a bit hard to sell the whole idea to members of Congress who come from districts that would be hit hard by carbon taxes. States with heavy industry or states that rely extensively on existing energy sources as part of their economy would be hardest hit with job losses, price increases, and taxes should the legislation pass.

In an effort to secure much needed support, Waxman has started talking to individual members about providing credits to various industries that are a big part of their local economies. While the cap and trade bill would apply across the board to many industries and businesses, specific exemptions for coal fired power plants, for example, would allow them to feel less pain from a new tax and regulatory structure.

What this kind of behind the scenes maneuvering seems to boil down to is green earmarking. If a member of Congress wishes to show his dedication to the folks back home he or she can do so by securing an earmark for this project or that project, a bridge, a dam, or some other public works initiative that would generate jobs and goodwill for the incumbent member. With the high economic costs of cap and trade standing tall against any future plans by businesses and industries to expand and grow, affected communities and businesses would benefit by exemptions and built in carbon credits that give them a pass from the otherwise broad regulations.

Green earmarking will allow members of Congress to appear to be concerned about the environment and be on the politically correct side of the climate change discussion while at the same time giving them a tool to make sure that nothing they do is going to really harm their districts. If we thought that earmarks were a bad part of the process now, let’s imagine what they will be like when a new program designed to raise hundreds of billions of dollars becomes open to special amendment by individual members of Congress.

 

April 25, 2009

A Jobs Bill

Posted by Brian Sikma under Congress, Energy, Environment | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

President Obama and House and Senate Democrats have joined forces with the environmental lobby to promote a “cap and trade” plan for dealing with global climate change. Under a cap and trade plan the government would sell carbon credits to businesses and the money raised by those sales (where the customer has no other option to turn towards outside of simply closing up shop) goes towards carbon reducing programs and policies. Companies that cannot buy enough credits will-if they intend to keep up production-need to invest in expensive new technology designed to reduce carbon emissions.

The creation and implementation of these carbon reducing measures is not just about saving the environment but is, according to Democrats, about jobs. Indeed, this plan is about jobs. I will cost the American economy jobs, increase unemployment, and drive up the cost of products and services that Americans use every single day. With cap and trade, while the net amount of carbon emissions will decrease, so will the number of good American jobs. Without a specific tie between carbon emissions and global warming being scientifically proven and without a meaningful cost/benefit analysis showing that it is better to impose an entire new class of taxes than to allow the current situation to exist, cap and trade legislation is not a good idea.

The problem of cap and trade was addressed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) earlier this week on the House floor. In the key line he declared “The Democrat plan actually caps growth and trades jobs. The truth is, this cap and trade legislation is essentially an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals in Washington, D.C., and it must be opposed.”

See the video below for Rep. Pence’s entire remarks:

 

April 3, 2009

Iowa Decision Makes Case for Indiana Amendment

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana, Marriage Amendment
Leave a Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

When traditional marriage supporters advocated for a state marriage amendment in 2008, Speaker Pat Bauer argued that such a constitutional amendment was unnecessary and redundant in light of Indiana’s existing state law.  Proponents of the amendment responded by saying that the same judicial reasoning that allowed courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere to challenge the constitutionality of marriage laws could be used by Indiana courts.  The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and impose that new definition on the state proves the Speaker wrong, and marriage supporters right.

Unlike Massachusetts, a state known in recent decades for being highly “progressive” in both fiscal and social policy, Iowa is a mid-west state whose citizens have many of the same values that Hoosiers have.  One may have expected courts in states like California and Massachusetts to have activist judiciaries more than willing to redefine the definition of marriage.  But Iowa is not a state that would have been considered a prime candidate for this sort of judicial misrule.

Indiana legislators and policy makers should take close note of the Iowa decision and realize that what happened there could happen here.  Marriage is a fundamental institution in society and the state must act whenever necessary to protect its status and definition.  Without its presence as a bedrock unit in the makeup of society, our state cannot expect to move forward into a prosperous future.  The strength of our state, the well-being of our children, and the prosperity of our communities depend on our ability to protect marriage from those who would redefine it into something it has never been, and will never be able to successfully be.

Although this session of the General Assembly failed to act on a marriage amendment, with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Bray (R) being responsible for his committee’s failure to hear the matter in the Senate, the Iowa ruling will hopefully spur legislative leaders to action next session.

 

March 17, 2009

Obama Picks Activist to Be First Judicial Nominee

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana, Judicial Branch
Leave a Comment 
Judge David F. Hamilton

Judge David F. Hamilton

By: Brian Sikma

Without a doubt one of the most contentious issues of President Bush’s two terms in office was his appointment of various individuals to serve in the federal judiciary. In Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, the President is awarded the power to appoint judges to the federal judiciary. When this power is viewed in light of the doctrine of judicial review, the reasoning that justifies the power of the courts to overturn laws passed by Congress and regulations imposed by the Executive Branch if they are found to be un-constitutional, the power of judicial appointment is understood to be one of the more important roles that a President fills.

Since the inception of the federal judiciary, federal judges and justices have had to wrestle with a number of disputes over the meaning, purpose, and intent of the Constitution, various federal laws, government regulations, and treaties that have been ratified by the United States. Their job has not always been a high-profile one, but perhaps since the uproar over President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “court packing” scheme in the 1930s, their time in the limelight has grown. This increased attention has also come about as a result of some of the more activist decisions that have been handed down in opinions since the middle of the 20th Century.

Because a judge on the federal bench today will probably at some point hear crucial cases relating to abortion, same sex marriage, 2nd Amendment rights, interstate commerce, religious liberty, and even property rights (recall the Kelo v. City of New London decision that touched off a firestorm of controversy over eminent domain), and because judges are appointed for life, their nomination has become a rigorously public and political affair.

President Bush frequently chose to nominate individuals to the federal judiciary who embraced an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and who viewed their prospective role as one in which they should enforce the law and uphold the Constitution, not twist it to fit a convoluted yet politically correct way of interpretation. The vast majority of them believed that, whatever their personal political preferences, it was the job of legislators, executives and citizens to work together to change the law. They did not find rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, unrestrained eminent domain, or affirmative action in the Constitution.

Yet it was often because of these beliefs in a restrained and limited judiciary that led liberal groups and liberal senators, including the current President, to vehemently oppose the nomination of judges like Charles Pickering (who went unconfirmed), John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Janice Rogers Brown. These individuals were viewed as “dangerous” and a “menace” to the Constitution and to the freedom that we enjoy because they were not active enough to legislate from the bench. It is odd when those who refuse to distort the power of their office are deemed dangerous, but those who stop at nothing and from time to time use international law as a justification for superseding the plain meaning of our Constitution are hailed as champions of liberty.

Although the days of the fighting over President Bush’s judicial nominees are over, President Obama re-entered the judicial nominee fray in a different role on March 17 when he made his first judicial nomination. Since he is a former Constitutional law professor and liberal Senator who had the chance to vote on judicial nominations in the Senate, it was not hard to guess what sort of judges and justices President Obama would nominate.

In nominating Judge David F. Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, President Obama solidified what many had already suspected about his approach to the judiciary. Judge Hamilton has served as the Chief Judge for the Federal District Court of the Southern District of the State of Indiana and in that capacity he has earned a reputation that runs counter to the flowery rhetoric that is now used to describe his temperament and qualifications.

Judge Hamilton drew the ire of many Hoosiers and a sizeable number of Indiana state legislators when he ruled in 2005 that prayers before the Indiana House of Representatives must not contain the words “Jesus Christ” or any other phrase that refers to the Christian faith. In a poorly researched opinion that relied on an amateurish ignorance of controlling precedent, he made it clear that prayer was allowed so long as it was to a vague, God-like figure that was not affiliated with any particular faith. Prayers that were clearly affiliated with non-Christian faiths were allowed to proceed.

Two years before his ruling imposing a gag order on the Indiana House of Representatives’ opening prayers, Hamilton struck down a state law requiring women seeking an abortion to be provided with information 18 hours before the abortion by either the doctor or staff regarding alternatives to abortion. The law did not seek to eliminate abortion, it only sought to make sure that women preparing to undergo a very serious medical procedure with important psychological consequences were aware of the fact that they do not have to kill their unborn child to deal with the situation.

Tellingly, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals-the very court Hamilton has been nominated to serve on-has found occasion to do damage control and reign in his aggressive rewriting of the Constitution and legal precedent. Now that he will be sitting on the court that has often overturned his judicial misbehavior, he is in a position to support activist judges like himself who are working hard at the federal district court level in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

In an attempt to set a bipartisan tone for his first judicial nomination, President Obama noted that he made his decision in consultation with Indiana Senators Evan Bayh (D) and Richard Lugar (R). Both senators indicated their support for the nomination. It is to be expected that Sen. Bayh would support Hamilton since he held an official position in the 1990s in then-Governor Evan Bayh’s administration. However, Sen. Lugar’s support for the choice is deeply unfortunate and greatly disappointing. Sen. Lugar should have already known that Judge Hamilton does not have a record of service indicating a qualification to serve at a higher level in the judiciary.

Both of Indiana’s Senators could have, and should have, chosen to quietly set aside the politics of perceived bipartisanship and opposed this nomination on the grounds that Judge Hamilton did not serve his office well when he used his power to impose on the people of Indiana a very twisted and misunderstood view of the Constitution. Hoosiers know that Judge Hamilton’s record is not one marked by wisdom, sound judgment, and a solid legal philosophy. Now it’s up to the Senate to learn that lesson too.

 

March 16, 2009

Educational Incompetence

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana, Opinion and Analysis
1 Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

The recent, and ongoing, debate over the future of the Washington D.C. school voucher program has served as a high profile reminder that efforts must continue to be made to improve the quality of education provided by public schools.  Here in Indiana, the House has passed a bill that has the potential to lower the quality of education in this state and increase the administrative workload facing school districts.  The bill deals with creating “cultural competency” standards and protocols for schools around the state and has been sponsored by Rep. Greg Porter (D-Indianapolis).

Cultural competency is often defined as understanding the differences in action, behavior, and communication that span across various cultural and social groups.  If one is able to take this understanding and act in ways that are consistent with an increased awareness of these differences, they can be considered culturally competent.  To bring it to the practical level, if one is to be culturally competent they must be willing to adjust their actions based on the culture they are dealing with and, by extension, they emphasize the fact that differences between the two groups exist.

Cultural competency is good for diplomats.  It is not good for Indiana’s teachers and students.  By requiring school districts to develop programs to train teachers in cultural differences, set benchmarks for culturally competent behavior, and implement a system that monitors the cultural competency of teachers, we are shifting our focus away from the proper goal of classroom instruction: educating students in a way that stretches them academically and prepares them to become successful individuals and good citizens.  We should not turn the focus of classroom instruction into understanding the varying degrees of differences that we have with one another.

Teachers do need to be aware of the different socio-economic backgrounds that their students come from.  Yet this understanding should not be translated into a mandate that classroom education be reduced to a number of different individual standards with each student being held to his or her own level of accountability.  Our teachers should have the freedom to hold all students accountable for their actions and demand that each student do their very best in class.  Not all students will be at the top of the class, but by excusing lack of effort, inattention to instruction, or other behavioral issues by ascribing them to the cultural background of the student, we are sending the message that because of one’s background they will not be expected-or encouraged-to achieve great things.

Tailoring an educational program, whether in the individual classroom or throughout an entire school, to meet the needs of individual students is appropriate.  However, substantially altering the program to consciously emphasize the cultural differences between students or between student bodies across the state would not be the right thing to do.  Emphasizing, either explicitly or implicitly, what issues divide us does not make for an educational process that prepares students to be well equipped to join a society founded on a unity of beliefs and ideals with regard to responsibility and freedom.

Some have expressed concern that cultural competency will turn into a round about method of indoctrinating Hoosier school children with moral and social values that are not consistent with the values held by a majority of Hoosiers today.  This concern is a valid one because this result would occur if educators were required to not only acknowledge but also emphasize and encourage students to accept behaviors such as same-sex marriage and adoption. In the name of teaching students to accept diversity (which, when properly understood is a good thing), other states have had this very thing take place.

Indiana’s educators should not overlook or ignore the broad variety of cultures that have come together to make Indiana what it is today.  Yet as our state moves forward we must keep in mind that the secret to our past ability to assimilate various cultures into the fabric of our state’s society today is that we emphasized the ideas that united us as Americans and as Hoosiers.  Immigrants to our country have long recognized that it is not a common race or ethnicity, economic occupation, social status, or even intellectual ability that has brought us together as a people.  It has been our common commitment to a shared set of values, visions, and responsibilities that has created the rich tapestry of our history.

The future of the next generation of Hoosiers is too bright and too brimming with potential to waste in the shallow demands of the bureaucratic do-goodism known as cultural competency.  Young Hoosiers should be aware of the differences that they have with others, but they should be educated by teachers and an education system that focuses on what unites us and does not excuse a lack of effort in the name of a political correct form of condescension.

 

March 9, 2009

A Credibility Deficit

Posted by Brian Sikma under Budget, Congress, Elections, Indiana, Members of Congress
[3] Comments 
Pres. Obama and Sen. Bayh

Pres. Obama and Sen. Bayh

By: Brian Sikma

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (D) has long been perceived as a moderate Democrat with conservative fiscal leanings.  His opinion editorial in the Wall Street Journal on March 4 helped reinforce this perception.  Titled “Deficits and Fiscal Credibility“, the op-ed made an excellent case for why President Obama should refuse to sign the $410 billion omnibus spending bill that takes care of unfinished spending business from last year.

Critics of the omnibus spending bill have pointed out that it grows the budgets of various government agencies and departments by about 8% and includes nearly 9,000 special interest “earmark” projects.  At a time when American families and businesses are trimming their budgets to reflect the realities of the economic downturn, the federal government should not be expanding the budgets of various agencies and embarking on the fulfillment of a 9,000 item goodie list that bails out special interests and leaves Americans holding an empty bag.

Some may say it took a certain level of political courage for Senator Bayh to urge his fellow Senators to vote against a bill heavily supported by his Party’s leadership in the House and the President of his own party.  The issuing of a direct challenge to the president to live up to the hope filled promises of the campaign trail by vetoing the bill was certainly a welcome development, but a closer look at Senator Bayh’s record and recent history illustrates a problem not with the message, but with the messenger.

As Senator Bayh argues for credibility in Washington on fiscal matters and the deficit, his record in the days leading up to the op-ed’s publication illustrates a deficit of credibility on his part.  Just 19 days before issuing his call for fiscal discipline, Senator Bayh voted in favor of H.R. 1, the President’s $790 billion economic stimulus plan.  The real cost of the plan runs well over $1 trillion by the time you add in the interest that will accrue from the new debt that will have to be issued to cover the spending spree.

Voting in favor of a $790 billion stimulus bill that is not timely, targeted, or temporary, (to paraphrase the advice of one the President’s own economic advisors) is not an exercise in fiscal discipline.  Nor is it an exercise in political courage for Senator Bayh to carefully dust off his conservative credentials just before a potentially heated re-election campaign in 2010.

To eliminate this credibility deficit, Senator Bayh and lawmakers like him who talk the talk but fail to walk the walk need to begin acting on their stated principles and not just talking about them.  Voting for bailouts and stimulus bills and then turning around to seize the high ground against a spending package with misplaced priorities is not what constituents need.   The American people deserve to be served by leaders who understand that wasteful government spending is always bad, no matter how distant or how close the next election may be.

 

March 9, 2009

Two Visions of Freedom

Posted by Brian Sikma under Conservatism, Opinion and Analysis, Taxes
Leave a Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

In order to be mainstream and successful, American political candidates and office holders must profess a strong faith in freedom and declare in resounding terms their belief in the idea and principle of liberty.  Yet often two very different understandings of freedom seem to be present when opposing sides, the right and left, offer their policy proposals to the American people.  Not every opposing, or competing, set of solutions or proposals find themselves rooted in two distinct understandings of freedom.  But often enough it is quite clear that although two very different policies are advocated for with the same language of freedom, it is not possible for the advocates to be sharing the same understanding of that principle.

As our nation continues to struggle economically, the economic and fiscal proposals outlined by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress on one hand, and House Republicans and conservative thinkers on the other hand, give us an insight into the ramifications of competing understandings of freedom.  Although both sides offer us their plans by saying that they are consistent with freedom, it could well be that each side is talking past the other by agreeing on the terminology but not sharing in the same definition.

It is not possible for a plan that involves stimulus plans that must be paid for either by debt or higher taxes, and arbitrary bailouts that are sometimes forced on companies and give the federal government the power to pick winners and losers in the private sector, to be consistent with freedom when freedom is understood to mean the liberty to pursue one’s own choices consistent with a moral order.  Freedom of opportunity and the freedom to rise to one’s full level of potential and meet one’s own destiny requires that government not interfere with and over regulate individuals as they pursue this goal.  Freedom is not a right to do whatever you want to do, it is a right to do what is right.

Those who advocate for stimulus plans, bailouts, and bigger government do not share this view that freedom means freedom of opportunity and the freedom to live up to one’s potential.  In their view, freedom means being free from certain pressures and restraints like individual responsibility and fiscal discipline.  It means an equality of outcomes regardless of the varying levels of investment put in by different people.  It means that we have a “freedom” to achieve the same level of subsistence, no less, and certainly no more.  Using your talents and work ethic to get ahead, to set goals for yourself, and to achieve great things and improve the lives of those around you is not allowed under this very narrow view of freedom.  Just as this view removes the pressures of risk and limits the level of responsibility one must assume, it also imposes a firm and unyielding ceiling on what individuals can do.

When government turns the right of opportunity into a “right to succeed” it must impose a basic floor that allows everyone to have equal, or nearly equal, resources and assets.  But whenever a floor is imposed, whenever a basic minimum of tangible assets is determined to be a right, there is also a cap and a limit imposed on how far one can rise above the mandated minimum.  If failure is unacceptable or even illegal, so is success.

To apply these two distinct understandings of freedom to an issue, let’s consider the matter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To the left, these entities were expanding freedom by making home ownership more accessible and more common by relaxing credit standards and encouraging-and in some cases mandating-that lenders make loans to individuals who would have normally been denied a loan. The program was a success at expanding “freedom” because it resulted in more Americans owning homes, never mind the fact that it did so by placing them in homes that they could not afford and put a tremendous amount of stress on the mortgage industry.

Conservatives viewed Fannie and Freddie as antithetical to freedom because they coerced banks and other lenders to make loans to people who’s financial standing was not yet strong enough to sustain a mortgage, even a modest one. They believe that lenders and their depositors should be free to decide how much risk they want their assets to assume as part of an investment.

If you work for your assets, then you should have some say in how those assets are maintained and invested. The theory of owning your own property actually means something to conservatives.

This does not mean that conservatives mean that people should not be able to obtain mortgages and start on the path of home ownership.  It does mean that conservatives want people to be responsible enough to work hard and earn the status of home ownership, not be handed the opportunity at the expense of someone else’s success.  People value what they earn, and they take care of what they work for.

To the left, freedom means helping people “get ahead” even when that means mandating that other people act against their own interest and against the best interest of the system (in the case of Fannie and Freddie, the loan and mortgage system). To the right, freedom means giving people the opportunity to actually own what they own, and have the ability to pursue upward mobility and set and achieve personal goals-be they educational, financial, or something else-without the government telling them what they can and can’t do.

As the American people sort through the speeches, proposals and actions that surround the debate over the economy and what to do about it, they should bear in mind these two very different interpretations of freedom.  One definition was realized in the founding of our country, with the seeds of this mature tree being planted long before 1776.  The other definition has been around for some time, too.  It has not always been labeled freedom, but well meaning and yet misguided individuals have often tried to persuade people that equal outcomes, and the comfortable chains of paternal government, are the highest form of liberty.  Philosophers can hold either view and harm few, government leaders can hold only one view and be serving the best interest of the people.

In order to survive this economic downturn and climb out of this economic morass and return to the upward leading road of economic prosperity, the American people will need to stand and let their leaders know that while some government action is necessary and warranted, a far reaching expansion of government’s role in business, finance, and personal economic choice will not be tolerated.

The freedom of our founding is not an easy freedom.  It is only worth something to vigorous, rugged, rough and tumble people.  It does not prevent failure, but it does allow for unparalleled  success and it does allow you to work hard, earn, save and invest and own your own property and prosperity.  It allows you to fulfill your own destiny and help your community as you see fit.  We are Americans, and we have chosen true freedom in the past and we must do so again today.

 

Next Page »