Milwaukee School Vouchers: Democrat Party Kowtows To Another Special Interest

I know lots of teachers. Many of my friends are teachers. They know I am a friend to good teachers everywhere.

I am also, however, an enemy of unions generally and teachers' unions specifically. Their goal is not the improvement of education, but the guarantee of employment and ever-increasing pay and benefits for all teachers, regardless of performance. Additionally, these folks see their union positions as opportunity to exert political influence.

Brendan Miniter called school choice "the new Civil Rights struggle." Indeed, it is. Given the disintegration of low-income families--especially minority families--school choice and the opportunities a good education affords may be the best chance many of these children have.

Democrats and teachers' unions want to kill every voucher, scholarship, school choice program they can. They already did away with the one in Washington DC--a program that helped thousands of low-income students avoid failing schools. Milwaukee's wildly successful voucher program is next on their list.

At the National Press Club last week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that he opposed school choice: “Let me explain why. Vouchers usually serve 1 to 2 percent of the children in a community. . . . But I don’t want to save 1 or 2 percent of children and let 98, 99 percent down.” It was a bizarre statement: Why not simply let more than 1 or 2 percent enjoy the benefits of school choice? In Milwaukee, they actually do. It’s the largest urban school-choice program in the country, dwarfing the size of the one in Washington, D.C., whose de-funding by congressional Democrats has drawn so much criticism. Roughly one in five of Milwaukee’s school-age children receive vouchers. All of them must fall below an income threshold. Researchers say that the program is beginning to show systemic effects. In other words, it doesn’t merely help its participants. It also gives a lift to non-voucher students because the pressure of competition has forced public schools to improve.

The principle is choice--liberty, really--applied to education. When I speak to union-enthusiast teaching friends of mine, they talk endlessly about some new initiative or program that will make public education better.

The point of adding choice and competition to education is that these things will introduce the flexibility and incentive into education that will empower teachers and administrators and parents and students to find the education that best suits them.

One-size-fits-all public education doesn't achieve the egalitarian utopia in which its adherents believe, it holds the smart kids back and leaves those who need extra or specialized attention behind.

If the Democrat party really were, as it says, "for the children," it would resist the influence of campaign contributions from teachers' unions and wholeheartedly endorse choice in education.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Media Bias In Virginia

This is suppression of speech. There are already so few conservatively inclined news outlets, once Obama signs off on a new Fairness Doctrine, even the wildly successful conservative talk radio will be lost to Democrat regulators' definitions of equal speech. And you thought this stuff only happened in Soviet Russia.

Brendan Miniter from todays WSJ Political diary on the depth and breadth of liberal media bias:

This presidential campaign has seen its share of biased reporting in favor of the Democratic candidate, but two Virginia newspapers have done something that was suppose to be taboo in journalism. The Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Virginia Pilot knocked down the wall separating the newsroom from the ad department. But instead of the ad men pressuring news reporters, it was the newsroom dictating terms to the ad department.

The National Rifle Association sought to take out ads in the run-up to Election Day criticizing Barack Obama's record on guns. According to Editor & Publisher, the pro-gun ads were to run in at least three states, printed on the plastic bags in which subscribers receive their morning newspapers. One state targeted by the NRA was Virginia, which Mr. Obama hopes to poach from the Republican column tomorrow. But the Virginia Pilot rejected the ad outright, while the Times-Dispatch initially accepted it and then changed its mind.

What happened? The ad met a wall of resistance from the paper's newsroom and some in the executive suite. In a story explaining why it eventually rejected the ad, the Virginia Pilot quoted its own business development manager Alan Levenstein: "We want to make sure that we provide equity for all sides, make sure that there is a level playing field."

Huh? Issue ads aimed at influencing the political process are routinely published by newspapers. If readers might misconstrue an ad as an editorial endorsement, editors afford themselves the right print the word "advertisement" prominently on the ad. And anyone with an opposing view is free to take out their own ad or write a letter.

Thankfully, some newspapers understood the real issue here: editorial bias. The Lexington Herald-Leader told its readers that, unlike the Virginia papers, it had "decided to distribute the bag because of [the paper's] belief that free speech extends to advertising."

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Tony Snow, RIP

For years we watched Tony Snow on Fox News. He was fair in reporting and persuasive in arguing a point and advocating policy. Though we never knew him personally, we always knew him to be a strong and ardent defender of conservatism. He was a good example.

In the aftermath of the Scott McClellan disaster, Tony Snow was, well, awesome. Longtime observers of the office of Press Secretary say Tony Snow was the best ever. And he was very good in a very difficult time for the Bush Administration and the country. He was loyal and competent and very, very good.

Today's Political Diary (h/t: S. Lybbert) ran a few pieces about Tony Snow which seem only appropriate to reproduce here.

John Fund on Tony Snow:

It took C-SPAN only a few hours after news that Tony Snow had died to begin airing the last major public speech he gave -- a closing address to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last February.

The former White House press secretary was at his rhetorical finest in telling conservatives: "We've got more work to do and we have to do it as a team." He directly addressed those conservatives who were considering not supporting John McCain as the Republican nominee by suggesting they see a bigger picture. "You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don't be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer. . . .This may be a time of testing. But it's not our swan song. Not by a long shot. Instead . . . this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best -- turn adversity into strength."

It didn't take long after C-SPAN aired this speech for a viewer to call McCain headquarters and urge them to run excerpts at the Republican convention in Minneapolis as part of a tribute to the departed White House aide. Don't be surprised if Tony Snow is called on to rally the troops one last time.

John Podhoretz:

"[Tony Snow] wrote, he edited, he wrote speeches, he hosted television shows and radio shows and gave endless speeches. In all these pursuits he was agile and deft and successful. But I think it's safe to say that it turned out Tony's greatest achievement was his time as White House press secretary. At this crucial job, a central one in American political life, he proved to be the best -- the best ever, without qualification. He could speak with fluency, honesty, wit, and clarity on every subject under the sun; he remained poised, unruffled . . . sure of himself at the podium in the press room. Tony was a fascinating type. He was, literally, the opposite of a paranoid. He was a 'pro-noid.' He assumed people liked him. It is a rare quality for any person. It is almost unheard-of in Washington"

Brendan Miniter:

On Saturday conservatives lost a strong voice for their ideas and the world lost a thoroughly decent man. I knew him in a different capacity. I got to know Tony nearly a decade ago through a mutual friend, Ken Smith. Ken, the deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Times, himself died of liver cancer in July 2001. An article Tony wrote in response to Ken's death couldn't help but come to mind this weekend. "Suffering often does grotesque things to people: It transforms them physically and spiritually; twisting the body and desiccating the soul. But Ken never became bitter or morose. He didn't milk his plight to elicit pity," Tony wrote.

Ken remained himself, shared his kindness and never let on how much pain he was in. Later Tony would say that by keeping his dignity, facing his terminal cancer with the same conviction that he had used to build his life, Ken had performed one last service: He showed us all how to face our own mortality. A few years later, Tony returned to Ken in a column headlined "How to Be Sick." He wrote: "There are things far worse than illness -- for instance, soullessness."

I last saw Tony several years ago as he was heading out the door of a Starbucks in Alexandria, Va., on his way to work. He wasn't rushing. He had time for a man who was asking for spare change. Tony reached into his pocket, dug out several coins and at least one bill and handed it to the man. I saw Tony step closer to the man and heard him ask how he was. As the door closed, I couldn't hear what else he said, but as Tony walked away both were smiling.

*UPDATE 17 July 12:22pm PST: Today a funeral will be held for Tony Snow. In honor of the man and in addition to what we posted earlier, check out this NRO Symposium.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.