Why the White House allows its village idiot to stay on the campaign trail is beyond me, not that I’m complaining. (CNSNews.com) – Vice President Joe Biden mocked Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) Thursday to students at an event on “keeping higher education affordable and accessible,” for comparing federal student loans to “stage three cancer.” During a
See the original post:
Biden To Students: “You Know You’re Spreading Socialism”…
Promoted from the diaries The Chronicle of Higher Education has banned Naomi Schaefer Riley from its Brainstorm Blog. Ms. Riley’s offense was having the audacity to post a blog entitled: “The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations” . As you can imagine, this blog generated a firestorm of responses demanding that the CHE purge Riley’s blog from its web-site and terminate her services. The initial response of editor Liz McMillen was to encourage CHE readers to “view this posting as an opportunity—to debate Riley’s views, challenge her, set things straight as you see fit. “ McMillen reminded CHE readers that When we created the Brainstorm blog five years ago, we hoped it would be a forum for debate — where views about higher education, academic culture, and ideas could be aired and discussed and often challenged. It is a blog for opinion, sometimes strong opinions, not news reporting by the staff. The writers on the blog—13 in all, from institutions around the country—fall on different points of the ideological and political spectrum. They are not staff members of The Chronicle nor do they represent the views of the staff or of the newspaper. CHE then changed its mind and caved in to liberal outrage by terminating Ms. Riley. Here is part of McMillen’s explanation, which you can read in full here : We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’ s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. As a result, we have asked Ms. Riley to leave the Brainstorm blog. Since Brainstorm was created five years ago, we have sought out bloggers representing a range of intellectual and political views, and we have allowed them broad freedom in topics and approach. As part of that freedom, Brainstorm writers were able to post independently; Ms. Riley’s post was not reviewed until after it was posted. I realize we have made mistakes. We will thoroughly review our editorial practices on Brainstorm and other blogs and strengthen our guidelines for bloggers. Naomi Riley is a former editor at the Wall Street Journal and has published several books on higher education, including The Faculty Lounges: And Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Pay For . WSJ has published Riley’s response to being terminated: “The Academic Mob Rules.” You can read Ms. Riley’s bio and contact her here , and judge for yourself about her credentials. I do not know Naomi Schaefer Riley personally, but, having spent 35 years in higher education, I do have a firm understanding of the concept of academic freedom. This would not be tolerated, if Ms. Riley was a Marxist.
In the past, we have chronicled the cycle of capitulation that is so emblematic of Republicans in the 112 th Congress. It goes like this: Democrats propose some odious and profligate legislative idea or budget bill and call for tax hikes as “pay-fors.”. Conservatives advocate that we uproot the entire premise of the destructive legislation by drawing a line in the sand on the principles that got us elected. Republican leaders eschew conservative principles and acquiesce to the premise that the Democrat legislation is a priority too big to fail. They telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never let the proposal fail, but promise to make them pay for it with reforms or other spending offsets. These reforms or offsets are just as offensive to Democrats as the conservative proposal. Democrats demand tax increases to pay for them. Ultimately, we get the reauthorization of the program without spending offsets or tax increases. Then, Republicans unequivocally swear to stick it to the Democrats during the next budget battle by finally utilizing their leverage. Repeat and rinse and needed. This is what has transpired with every reauthorization battle over some big-government program. The latest is the circuitous cycle of capitulation is the extension of the Stafford student loan interest cuts scheduled to expire June 1. Democrats insidiously used those precious stuuudents as political human shields to push reauthorization of the subsidized interest rates on Stafford loans – a bill that was supposed to be temporary when it first passed in 2007. Instead of going on offense and explaining how it is these very subsidies that have fueled the education bubble, engendering a need for the subsidies in the first place, Republicans ran for the hills. “Why, of course we support the extension.” How dare you accuse us of opposing a Nancy Pelosi-era law, they contended. “We just want it to be paid for.” In that vein, the House passed the $6 billion extension on April 27, along with a provision that pays for the cost by eliminating a preventative healthcare program established under Obamacare. Today, Senate Democrats will bring their bill to the floor, and Republicans have already promised not to filibuster it. Of course, the Senate bill contains tax increases as pay-fors instead of spending cuts. This, from Roll Call : Republicans are determined to stop Democrats from turning this week’s student loan interest rate debate into a political issue, even as the GOP prepares to oppose parts of the Democratic plan. “The conversation is now over the pay-for, not whether to do it, as Democrats had hoped,” a Senate GOP aide said, adding Republicans want to pay for it in a responsible way. We saw the same thing two weeks ago with the Violence Against Women Act and the postal bailout bill. The new strategy is to diffuse Democrats’ perceived political advantage on demagoguery by….agreeing to pass their bills! I guess that’s one way to win the political battle; when you can’t beat em’ join em’. It’s important to note that there are numerous deadlines approaching for reauthorization of big-government programs and legislation. As the Hill reports , there are nine looming deadlines on the legislative calendar, including the export-Import Bank, National Flood Insurance Program, the Farm Bill, and the highway bill. On all these issues, Republicans have an opportunity to draw bold-colored contrasts against statist and anti-free-market policies. Sadly, they’ve chosen to accept the premise of these extensions, and in some cases, robust expansions. Their only quibble with Democrats is how to “pay for” these programs. And as we have seen throughout the cycle of capitulation, once Republicans show their cards by agreeing to the extension, Democrats have no incentive to negotiate on the pay-fors. At some point, we need to ask the obvious question: why do we need Republicans to figure out how to pay for Democrat programs that self-perpetuate the need for more extensions and more pay-fors down the road? Why do we need another party to merely serve as more prudent stewards of the politburo? In theory, one could explicate this strategy of agreeing with Democrats on some ancillary, yet popular issues, as a pragmatic strategy to save our political capital for “bigger issues.” To play devil’s advocate, maybe we should disarm Obama of some issues like VAWA and student loans that he has successfully demagogued, while saving our energy and political capital for the consummate battles, such as entitlement reform and a balanced budget amendment. The retort is very simple: if Republicans lack the moxie to oppose Democrats on these “smaller issues” when they only control one branch of government, does anyone really believe they will have the guts to pursue entitlement reform, especially with full control of government, along with the political responsibility that such broad power entails? Then again, we can always “reauthorize” the status quo on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare. We’ll just find a way to pay for it. Cross-posted from The Madison Project
Read the original:
The Cycle of Capitulation Continues
Barack Obama didn’t believe in government healthcare mandates…until he did. He didn’t think we should spike the football on Bin Laden…until it was time for reelection. Joe Biden thought Obama was ill-equipped for the job of President…until he took the job as his right hand man. Yes, the ability for this administration to say one thing and do another is nothing short of astounding. Apparently this sphere protecting the executive branch from any lasting accusation of hypocrisy also extends to the executive spouses. Take for example President Obama’s recent targeting of colleges that prey on veterans . They survived insurgents, terrorists and roadside bombs. But President Obama is worried that many military veterans who made it home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now being targeted by unscrupulous for-profit career colleges . Mr. Obama plans to fly to Fort Stewart in Georgia on Friday to sign an executive order intended to help protect active-duty troops and veterans from deceptive and misleading practices.. (emphasis mine) To be clear, I know nothing about these institutions. They could be great, they could be awful. But I do know why Obama doesn’t like them and that is quite simply because they are “for profit” which really gets in the way when you are trying to nationalize student loans and higher education. Luckily for Jill Biden , the rules governing the awfulness of these institutions are kept out of the administration’s hypocrisy protection sphere. Northern Virginia Community College is the latest two-year institution to announce a partnership with the University of Phoenix, with the announcement yesterday of a transfer agreement. Students from the community college will get a tuition discount when they transfer to Phoenix, according to a news release. They will also be able to tap the for-profit provider’s prior learning assessment offerings, which can grant college credit for prior training and work experience. President Obama, who has often been critical of for-profits, has visited Northern Virginia five times for photo ops and to give speeches. Jill Biden, the vice president’s wife, is a professor at the college. (emphasis mine) See how this works? It’s the perfect example of how liberals think. Everything is horrible unless they are there to make sure “it’s done right.” Never mind the idea that perhaps our brave men & women of the military are probably intelligent enough to figure out who is trying to screw them over with a scam college vs. a college that might actually help them. They can’t be trusted with this decision without a liberal overlord placing pillows under their feet the whole time. Or, perhaps some consistence is called for? In a campaign year when the scrutiny of the national media is focused so intently on every move the Obama administration is making, shouldn’t Mrs. Biden be asked to step down from her position at this evil for-profit institution? Haha, no I’m just kidding. They won’t even ask her about this. Follow @BenHowe
Read more here:
Jill Biden: Government Oversight for Thee, Free Markets for Me
The candidates for U.S. Senate in Nebraska had a debate the other night. When asked to name a mistake they’ve made in their adult life, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning was the only candidate who couldn’t think of one. “I’ve made plenty of mistakes. I think if you ask my wife she could tell you that,” he said. “There’s so many it’s hard to put my finger on just one.” Since Jon Bruning can’t think of one mistake, here’s a list so Nebraska Republicans know about the record he’s trying so hard to hide. Bruning Supported Universal Healthcare: “The best direction for the future includes a government sponsored basic health care plan for all Americans. … Our present system borders on socialized medicine anyway, with the government paying 42 percent of all health care costs under the guise of various programs…. If we want the best, we had better be prepared to pay for it.” Bruning Praised Obama’s Stimulus Funding: “The additional support is important to maintain the quality of life we enjoy in our state.” Bruning Funded His Office With Obama Stimulus Money: “I would have voted against the stimulus and TARP (the bailout of financial institutions),” Bruning said during a press conference announcing the Tea Party Express’s endorsement last year. However, Bruning’s office has been awarded more than a million dollars in stimulus dollars through six grants. Bruning Supported Higher Gas Taxes and Social Security Taxes: “A 50 cent increase in the gas tax, which would raise about $50 billion in revenue would probably cost each driver about $300 a year. … Increase the tax on Social Security benefits. Only 18 percent of those people who receive benefits would be affected if the tax were raised for individuals earning more that $25,000 or couples earning more than $32,000.” Bruning Supported Higher Sales Taxes and Property Taxes: “Johanns said lawmakers had voted for a “double hit” to taxpayers. Not only did senators vote to raise the sales tax, he said, they in effect raised property taxes because the bill also would permit schools to exceed state spending limits to improve teacher pay.” Bruning Lobbied the Senate to Confirm Eric Holder: Bruning signed a letter stating, “We believe that Mr. Holder has the knowledge and experience necessary to run the Department of Justice and work with us to enforce our laws.” Bruning Lobbied the Senate to Confirm Thomas Perez: Bruning supported radical attorney Thomas Perez who is now leading the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Texas’ voter ID law. Bruning stated, “[Perez] is a nationally recognized civil rights lawyer whose breadth and depth of experience make him an ideal choice to lead the Civil Rights Division, .. [w]e are confident that Mr. Perez would be an exceptional Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division and urge you to consider his nomination.” Bruning Requested an Earmark from Senator Ben Nelson: “In the wake of a fundraising appeal by Attorney General Jon Bruning attacking Sen. Ben Nelson for his support of appropriations earmarks, Nelson promptly pointed to a $500,000 federal earmark that he said Bruning requested and accepted in fiscal 2009.” Bruning Supported Abortion: “I think a woman should have a right to choose. I’m not saying I personally believe in abortion, but I think a woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body. Personally, I think life begins in the tenth week of gestation upon the inception of brain waves in the fetus. Regardless, I don’t want the government making this decision for women.” Bruning Backed Gun Control: “I believe in gun control. … Many types of handguns and ammunition, however, need to be regulated.” Bruning Wanted to Force the Boy Scouts to Accept Homosexuals: “I believe homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. They ought to be able to be Boy Scout leaders, soldiers and anything else they want to be.” Bruning Opposed Reagan’s Economic Policy and Personally Attacked Him: “I would love to persuade you that trickle-down economics was a farce or that Ronald Reagan was incapable of understanding complex policy arguments.” Bruning Supported Affirmative Action: “I believe in affirmative action. If a woman or a black person takes the place of a white male in a law school entering class, we’re all better off.” Bruning Supported Massive Increases in Education Spending: Buying into the canard that public schools fail because they don’t have enough money, during his 2000 campaign for the Unicameral Bruning pledged to: “Increase state funds for professional development of public school teachers and administrators. Increase state funds for school capital improvements (e.g. buildings and infrastructure). Increase state funds for hiring additional teachers. Provide state funding to increase teacher salaries.” Bruning Supported Race-based Admissions at Colleges and Universities: When he was running for the Unicameral, Project Vote Smart asked “Which of the following state agencies should take race and sex into account when making employment decisions?” Bruning only replied NO for “Public Employment” and “State Contracting” leaving “College and University Admissions” blank indicating his continued support for race based admissions in Nebraska. Bruning Supported a Two Dollar Increase in Car Taxes: “Bruning is asking the Legislature for a $2 increase in vehicle title fees to replace federal grant funds for drug prosecution that are in jeopardy and help fund seven additional methamphetamine prosecutors in the Attorney General’s office.” Bruning Waived a Company’s Settlement, Accepted Their Campaign Contributions, and Then Bought a Vacation Home With the Company’s President: “According to OpenSecrets.org, Nelnet employees have contributed $12,900 to Bruning’s Senate campaign, making the company his ninth largest contributor.” … “In the summer of 2007, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning waived a $1 million settlement reached with a student loan company accused of improper business practices. … A year after the controversy, Bruning and two top Nelnet executives purchased a $675,000 house together near the Platte River.” This list of Jon Bruning’s mistakes is just the beginning. There are many more. The May 15 primary is less than two weeks away. It’s time for conservatives to unite behind Don Stenberg.
See original here:
Jon Bruning Loves Eric Holder. Ronald Reagan and the Boy Scouts? Not Exactly.
