Going for Broke

The AP reports, in a story ominously titled "Bush Says He's Working Hard on Economic Turmoil"--gee, what else can he do to screw things up?--that the White House has a plan as to how to stop our economy from going Chernobyl. The story claims:

"The American people can be sure we will continue to act to strengthen and stabilize our financial markets and improve investor confidence," the president said.

Bush did not specify what those steps might be. White House press secretary Dana Perino said she could not comment on them, either. "That's something I'm not at liberty to talk about," she said.

Perino went on to say: "After all, if we said what we were going to do, the terrorists would know. Then they could thwart all our striving. You know, keeping the free world free, except for having to pay for huge companies that fail. That part's not free, but it's the price we have to pay to live in a democracy, at least in the ways we define democracy. Not that we can tell you those or else the terrorists would know."

Asked for a comment about the economy, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain replied, "When I spent five and half years in a cell in Vietnam I would have loved to have an economy to worry about. Now I have to go and find Spain on a map, excuse me." When asked the same question, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin said, "Maybe the country could just have a baby? That always picks me up."

Taking Candidates to School

You might have noticed that in all the heat of the presidential campaign so far, the candidates have rarely asked the Bushian question, "Is our children learning?" Luckily, some people are trying to learn what the candidates have to say about education, and a quick summary of that is in Education Week this week (subscription required). Here's one key passage:

But in at least one area, the differences between Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are clear: education spending.

Sen. McCain pledged in a speech last month “to make government in Washington more efficient” and to “freeze discretionary spending until we have completed top-to-bottom reviews of all federal programs to weed out failing ones.”

Sen. Obama, meanwhile, has proposed about $18 billion annually in new federal education spending, including programs aimed at expanding early-childhood education and bolstering teacher training.

Now, if you ask me, if we were going to "complete top-to-bottom reviews of all federal programs to weed out failing ones,” the Iraq War would be first to go. But what do I know--if you check McCain's economic, well you can't call it a plan as he didn't offer any concrete numbers, McCain's economic sketch, let's say (or perhaps we should call it an answer about economics a beauty pageant contestant might give?), we have to win the war in Iraq to fix the economy. Just think how much money we could save with a war in Iran, too!

But I digress. Meanwhile, the right wing think tankers are lining up to back whatever McCain says, as the Republicans pay their bills, of course. Here's a lackey for the Heritage Foundation from that same Ed Week article:

Dan Lips, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, based in Washington, said that federal education spending has risen by more than 40 percent since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind law more than six years ago, and that the boost hasn’t led to a significant increase in student achievement.

He noted that federal appropriations account for just 9 percent of all K-12 education spending nationally, and he suggested that states and local governments would be better positioned to finance and implement many education programs.

“Federal funding comes with strings,” Mr. Lips said. “I think people should recognize that there isn’t simply a pot of additional funding buried under Capitol Hill that could be used to improve schools.”

Alas, Lips' ideas aren't a logic lock. First, he's fudging the bit about federal education spending increasing. Sen. Kennedy, one of NCLB's original sponsors, had this to say about the most recent Bush budget in February:

President Bush’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget provides no increase in overall education funding – freezing funding at $59.2 billion in discretionary education funding.

President Bush’s paltry proposed increases in funding for the Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act and a $300 million voucher program are more than offset by the elimination of 48 programs ($3.3 billion), including Perkins career and technical education, Tech Prep, Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants (campus-based aid), LEAP, Education Technology State grants, Even Start, Smaller Learning Communities, Arts in Education, School Counseling, and Special Olympics Education Program. He also proposes significant cuts to numerous other programs including Safe and Drug-Free Schools State grants, Teacher Quality State grants, and funds for Teaching American History.

Indeed the NEA, which obviously has a stake in this discussion but let's hope most people realize it wants better schools, too, has a handy PDF based on Department of Education stats that points out just how many millions each state is behind in promised funds under NCLB. Glad to see California leads the way at $9.2 billion for the years 2002-2008. So that shoots a hole in Lips' claim that "states and local governments would be better positioned to finance and implement many education programs." They might be better positioned, but they don't have the money. After all, California is trying to come up with a budget that closes a $15.2 billion deficit this year.

I do have to agree with Lips' line, “I think people should recognize that there isn’t simply a pot of additional funding buried under Capitol Hill that could be used to improve schools.” There's no buried pot of funds under the Capitol. The funds are buried in the wallets and bank accounts, if they get to have any, of our children. At least that's where the Iraq War funds are "buried." And the Heritage Foundation has no problem with that.

No More Years

To honor Tim Russert, who sadly passed away today, here's a clip from an interview with John McCain that he conducted on Meet the Press on June 19, 2005. Thanks for getting to the heart of the matter on this one, Tim:



(hat tip, Crooks & Liars)

McCain Loses to the Turnip, Too

Two men share a microphone...and other things.

See if you can tell McCain and Bush apart at this nifty quiz.

And then find out how much better it would be to vote for a carrot rather than McCain.

A Banner Moment

The AP reports:

The White House said Wednesday that President Bush has paid a price for the "Mission Accomplished" banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq.

Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Bush's dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq.

[...]

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday.

Perino continued, "It's hard to fit a lot of words on a banner, as the font size has to be large. So you could say it wasn't a mistake in content as much as a graphic design problem." Perino also urged people to think, but not too hard, about how the war is going today and not about bad visuals from the past that they shouldn't waste their time remembering.

She said what is important now is "how the president would describe the fight today. It's been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy."

As she said those words, a banner behind her read Taking the Fight to the Enemy*. Only those closest to Perino could read the tiny type next to the asterisk at the bottom of the banner: "Over the backs of our dead soldiers, a mere 49 in April alone."

Perino concluded, "Don't worry--five years from today when I'm working for President McCain we'll say how you misunderstood what I said, and that has caused a lot of heartache. But what's important is how the president describes the fight."