Thursday, February 12, 2004
IOWA PORK CHILD
My new column at the American Spectator.
. . .
THOSE POOR, OPPRESSED CHILD MOLESTORS
If there was any doubt which side of the law and order debate the Des Moines Register editorial board is on (the law abiders or the criminals), then it was removed in yesterday’s editorial supporting the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Iowa law requiring molestors to live 2,000 feet from schools and day-care centers.
Even if the 2,000-foot restriction were constitutional, it is an excessively blunt instrument when a finely tuned policy would be more effective. Witnesses, including parole officers, counselors and psychologists, testified that not all "sex offenders" are created equal, and while some who prey on children should be kept far from schools, that is not true for all.
I wonder how many of the Register editorial board members who have kids wouldn’t feel the slightest bit of discomfort if one of those “sex offenders not created equal” were to move in next door to their kid’s school? But most of them live in neighborhoods that are too pricey for your average pederast, so it is the rest of the folks who don’t live in such neighborhoods who’ll have to suffer the consequences of the Register’s desire to be compassionate.
Then there is this gem:
There is no research supporting the idea that residency restrictions prevent offenders from offending again, yet there is good reason to believe that this sort of policy could cause them to backslide. Among the 16 offenders who testified, many were traumatized by their inability to find suitable housing, on their own or with supportive family members. That, the experts said, produces the sort of stress that causes them to fall back into criminal behavior.
Oh, those downtrodden pedophiles! They have a hard time finding housing because of the law! Thus, when they reoffend, it is the law that made them do it! Did it ever occur to the folks at the Register that convicted pederasts may not be the most credible people on the face of the planet? That maybe, just maybe, they’d have a vested interest in playing up their supposed hardships? Of course not. The rights of criminals have to be protected at all costs.
. . .
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PUH-LEEEEEEZE RAISE TAXES!
Can there be any other way to describe the Des Moines Register editorial board’s relentless attempt to convince everyone that teachers are starving and school children have to walk to school naked, backwards, and through 20-foot-high snow drifts?
Last week it was Storm Lake that was in dire straights, and the next day it was Council Bluffs. This week began with the travails of Mason City, in which the Register informs us, “The crisis in Iowa schools is real.”
Yesterday was Burlington’s turn to get swept up in this avalanche of pity. Here we learn that:
Burlington is one of 165 districts out of 370 that will get less money through Iowa's school-aid formula next year even with 2 percent allowable growth and if the $45 million is figured in. They all have declining enrollment. The problem is costs have been rising much faster than enrollment has been declining.
Well, thanks for finally admitting the truth: that the districts getting the least funding are the ones seeing declines in enrollment. As for costs “rising much faster than enrollment has been declining,” care to back that up with some facts?
No? Well, then let me provide some: the fact is Iowa employs over 3,700 more teachers today than it had ten years ago when enrollment was higher. If costs have risen, it’s because we spend money on things that aren’t necessary.
In other words, the crisis in Iowa’s schools is not real.
. . .
CAN THE FEDS GET IT RIGHT?
Now that Federal prosecutors have decided to drop the subpoenas against the Drake tyrant supporters protestors, I have to wonder what, exactly, they were thinking. As Shawn Macomber said in an email to me about this story, “I hope the Feds know the precedent they're setting by making moves like this and then backing down. There will be loud protests at every hearing like this from now on. The government should figure out if its right or wrong before delivering subpoenas.”
It also plays right into the hands of “We’re Oppressed By the Bush-Ashcroft Justice Department” Crowd. They’ll drag it up every chance they get as “proof” that their paranoia is well founded.
Moreover, there will be even more angst about the Patriot Act, more vapid nonsense from the usual source, and more sanctimonious self-importance as exemplified below:
. . .
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
SO WHAT DOES KERRY'S VICTORY MEAN?
Boy, as if that isn't the rhetorical question of the decade. Barring some unforeseen slip up by Kerry, or a miracle surprise by Dean or Edwards, Kerry is ABN—All But the Nominee.
I think Edwards will last until the end of February; by then his funds will have pretty much dried up. Wesley Clark is gone, showing that he had more sense than I gave him credit for.
As for Dean, he'll probably continue as long as the delusions of grandeur dance in his little head. Kind of like Kucinich or Shaprton. Sad, really.
. . .
MOST ELECTABLE LIBERAL
The standard buzz is that Democrats are going for Kerry because they think he is the most electable--that is, he is the candidate best able to beat Bush in November. The electability claim needs to be qualified. Democrats are looking for the most electable liberal in the race.
A look at the exit polls demonstrates this. The polls show that Democrats are most concerned about health care/medicare, economy/jobs, and the war in Iraq. With a few exceptions like South Carolina and Oklahoma, the reasons Kerry voters give for their choice track those concerns pretty closely. And on those three issues, Kerry is fairly liberal. On health-care he wants government to pick up the tab for the most expensive cases and get all private involvement out of medicare. On the economy and jobs he wants targeted tax credits for manufacturing and college education, to prevent corporations from going overseas, and dump about $90 billion on state governments. If you're a liberal, he's a bit suspect on the war in Iraq since he voted for the resolution, but he has fudged it by saying he thought Bush would spend more time on diplomatic efforts before going to war, and he later voted against the $87 billion appropriation. That seems to be good enough for many liberal voters when they weigh that against the other liberal choices.
Of the five candidates that actively campaigned in the Iowa Caucus, the most liberal were Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, and John Kerry. Kucinich was not electable for what should be obvious reasons (and if they aren't obvious, go get your head examined.) The run-up to the Iowa Caucus might be dubbed Why-Howard-Dean-Isn't-Electable Show, culminating in the now infamous post-defeat speech. Gephardt was about as good as Kerry on the health care/medicare and economy/jobs issues, but he had backed the Iraq war to the hilt. That left Kerry as the default option.
Finally, if beating Bush in November was the sole concern then Democratic voters should have pulled the lever for Joe Lieberman. After all, he was the most moderate of the bunch. But it was exactly his moderate leanings that did him in. The Democrats still want someone who at nominally represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." A candidate who never backed down from his support of the Iraq war just wasn't going to cut it.
In short, the electability issue has more to do with temperament than ideology. Democrats want a liberal, but they want one who doesn't come off as a kook. That's John Kerry.
. . .
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
VILSACK FOR VEEP?
My new column at National Review Online.
. . .
GUESS WHAT THE DES MOINES REGISTER WANTS CONGRESS TO DO WITH BUSH’S BUDGET?
Like you couldn’t guess:
Bush's desire to continue to reduce taxes comes as the United States faces a $521 billion deficit forecast this year. Tax cuts this year account for a $272 billion loss in revenue. The president's plan defies the basics of running a household budget: If you're deep into your credit cards, the last thing you want to do is run up another charge account.
Assuming that $272 billion number is correct (and it’s probably not given that the underlying assumption is that tax cuts have no effect on economic growth), it also means that the economy and increased spending account for $250 billion of the deficit.
But will the Register stomach spending cuts? Yeah, right:
Bush's budget proposes deep cuts for parks, forests and wildlife refuges, and would make it easier to sell public land to private parties. It increases funding for social services provided by religious and community groups while decreasing desperately needed dollars for housing and child care for the poor, something millions of low-income Americans depend on. Though it increases funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, the dollars likely aren't adequate.
I wonder what their definition of “deep cuts” is? Probably something like a mere reduction in the rate of growth in some cases. But even if there are cuts, I’m sure all of those programs are vitally necessary to the well-being of our nation. Surely nothing wasteful or redundant.
The Register once again proves Thomas Sowell’s dictum: “There are basically only two ways of reducing a deficit — cut spending or collect more taxes. When you see liberals in politics and in the media going ballistic about the deficit, you know that they are not thinking about cutting spending.”
. . .
Monday, February 09, 2004
IT IS SO NICE…
…having other Iowa bloggers out there now. Previously, I would have felt guilty about not getting to the Wes Des Moines hospital controversy. Sorry, but no blogger can get to everything, even everything in a relatively small state like Iowa.
So, if you’re interested in reading some fine commentary on the West Des Moines hospital controversy, go to Tusk and Talon, and Cedar Pundit.
And if you want to read some non-fine commentary, go to the Des Moines Register editorial page, which approved of the ruling against the hospital. As Jeff puts it, “It’s official. I know I’m on the right side of this issue.” Or, as Cedar Pundit jokes, “Pravda Has Spoken.”
. . .
WHAT CRISIS?
According to the Des Moines Register, the Storm Lake School District shows that in Iowa “the crisis in schools is real.”
And what is going on in Storm Lake that is so terrible? Massive teacher layoffs? Children sitting on the floors with nothing to read or write with? Yeah, right:
…some elective courses at the secondary level may have to be cut next year…The need for instructional assistants to help in the classroom is great, but if there's not enough money, some of those positions may have to be cut, too.
Oh please. That sounds like some reasonable cut backs to make.
This is a crisis in which few, if any, teachers have been laid off. Some crisis. In fact, during the last two years, in the midst of a budget crisis the state has hired 240 new full time teachers.
Indeed, the Register lets this little gem slip:
The teachers' contract alone - with automatic increases for education and experience, plus higher health-insurance premiums - will cost the district $239,000.
Note to the Register, when you’re making a case that schools don’t have enough money, you don’t help your case by mentioning the size of the teachers’ pay raise.
. . .
AND WHILE I’M ON THE SUBJECT…
The Register then follows it up with this editorial suggesting ways that schools can become more efficient! In other words, the schools aren’t using the money they get as well as they could. According to the editorial, the schools case for underfunding “would be stronger if they would campaign just as hard for efficiency.”
No kidding!
. . .
|
. . .
|
