The current debate within the Republican party is how to pay for Hurricane Katrina. Three options are spending cuts, tax increases and borrowing.
Spending cuts, especially of pork barrel projects like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, are an appealing option. However, House Majority leader Tom DeLay (TX-22) claims that federal spending has been cut to the bone. On the other hand Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says there should be cuts in outlays across the board. The House Republican Study Committee has also released a list of spending cuts with the the beginning of “Operation Offset.”
Friday, September 23, 2005
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Exciting and Frustrating Times
I have been following and supporting Sen. Graham for a year now. Things are both frustrating and exciting. Frustrating because Social Security reform seems to be permanently stalled. Exciting because when Senators Reid and Frist met the other day his name came up as a potential nominee for the United States Supreme Court.First, the Supreme Court. Sen. Graham's name was mentioned as one of four compromise nominees when senators Reid and Frist met about the Supreme Court. This is exciting, but also evokes mixed feelings. Excitement because I could be watching someone I admire getting confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
There are mixed feeling present because it would mean he leaves the Senate. I would be sad but proud if this were to happen. However, it is not likely because President nominates. It is likely we will get whatever he wants, although, I hope he advises the Senate of the nominee.
Now, the frustration over Social Security reform. This initiative seems to be permanently stalled. The Republicans are focused on private accounts and the Democrats refuse to consider these accounts. It is frustrating because all the focus has been on the accounts even though Sen. Graham has brought up the key issue: solvency. The bill he has cosponsored (S. 1302) does not address this. His bill (S. 1878) from the last congress did. It was a lot tougher than either of us imagined.
There are mixed feeling present because it would mean he leaves the Senate. I would be sad but proud if this were to happen. However, it is not likely because President nominates. It is likely we will get whatever he wants, although, I hope he advises the Senate of the nominee.
Now, the frustration over Social Security reform. This initiative seems to be permanently stalled. The Republicans are focused on private accounts and the Democrats refuse to consider these accounts. It is frustrating because all the focus has been on the accounts even though Sen. Graham has brought up the key issue: solvency. The bill he has cosponsored (S. 1302) does not address this. His bill (S. 1878) from the last congress did. It was a lot tougher than either of us imagined.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Graham’s Great Compromise: Nuclear Options and Judicial Filibusters
Last night Senator Lindsey Graham assisted 13 colleagues in brokering a compromise to move the Senate forward from the debate on judicial nominations and be able to do America’s business. He would have been a “yes” vote if the vote to change the rules occured. However, we have averted the vote for now.
This move by Sen. Graham infuriated groups like Focus on the Family and their affiliates. They wanted all the judges and no compromise. They called the compromise disaterous. However, Graham felt that it was important so we could get back to the business of the Senate. He acknowledged that people back home would be upset for a while and then would be happy about what gets done.
This move by Sen. Graham infuriated groups like Focus on the Family and their affiliates. They wanted all the judges and no compromise. They called the compromise disaterous. However, Graham felt that it was important so we could get back to the business of the Senate. He acknowledged that people back home would be upset for a while and then would be happy about what gets done.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Free-Market Principles of Education Policy
School choice means allowing parents to choose the schools their children attend, without financial peanlty if they choose private schools. Public funds follow the child to the school he or she attends. Choice empowers parents, enabling them to demand better results from educators. Competition for students discourages the growth of bureaucracy, and other barriers to achievement.
1.Allow parents to choose. Parents and other legal guardians should be allowed to choose the schools their children attend. They should not be penalized financially for choosing a private or religious school.
2.Funding should follow the child. Tax dollars raised for education should go to schools choosen by parents, not to bureaucrats far from the classroom.
3.Schools should compete. To finance their operations, schools should have to rely on tuition, includiung tax-funded tuition, paid by parents who choose their children’s schools.
4.Empower school leaders. Principals and other school leaders should be free to create missions and programs they believe will be most attractive to students and parents.
5.Empower teachers. School choice would free teachers from their current dependency on teacher unions, allowing them to act as true professionals.
6.Give parents adequate funding incentives. Tuition vouchers or tax credits should be sufficient to enable parents to choose high-quality schools, including secular schools that are not subsidized by churches, temples, or mosques.
7.Allow schools to succeed or fail. Entrepreneurs and teachers should be free to start or manage schools, and schools that fail to attract students should be allowed to close.
8.Preserve the autonomy of private schools. The autonomy of private schools should be recognized as being in the public interest. New regulations should not be imposed on private shools, and public schools as well as private schools, should be deregulated.
9.Teach democratic values. The failure of public schools to teach civics and democratic values is a compelling reason to adopt school choice.
10.All parents should be free to choose. Teh goal should be to allow every parent to choose, require every school to compete, and give every child the opportunity to attend a safe and effective school.
1.Allow parents to choose. Parents and other legal guardians should be allowed to choose the schools their children attend. They should not be penalized financially for choosing a private or religious school.
2.Funding should follow the child. Tax dollars raised for education should go to schools choosen by parents, not to bureaucrats far from the classroom.
3.Schools should compete. To finance their operations, schools should have to rely on tuition, includiung tax-funded tuition, paid by parents who choose their children’s schools.
4.Empower school leaders. Principals and other school leaders should be free to create missions and programs they believe will be most attractive to students and parents.
5.Empower teachers. School choice would free teachers from their current dependency on teacher unions, allowing them to act as true professionals.
6.Give parents adequate funding incentives. Tuition vouchers or tax credits should be sufficient to enable parents to choose high-quality schools, including secular schools that are not subsidized by churches, temples, or mosques.
7.Allow schools to succeed or fail. Entrepreneurs and teachers should be free to start or manage schools, and schools that fail to attract students should be allowed to close.
8.Preserve the autonomy of private schools. The autonomy of private schools should be recognized as being in the public interest. New regulations should not be imposed on private shools, and public schools as well as private schools, should be deregulated.
9.Teach democratic values. The failure of public schools to teach civics and democratic values is a compelling reason to adopt school choice.
10.All parents should be free to choose. Teh goal should be to allow every parent to choose, require every school to compete, and give every child the opportunity to attend a safe and effective school.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Choice Proposal: Social Security and Private Retirement Accouonts
Proposals abound for fixing our Social Security system. Some want to leave it just the way it is, another group wants to require investment in private retirement and still others desire only to provide the option to invest in a private account. There are six bills in between the House and Senate (4 House, 2 Senate)that have not gotten a committee hearing yet. There is also a resolution in committee in the Senate to disallow consideration on any bill that includes Private Retirement Accounts as even an option for reform.
A thorough review of the proposals led me to conclude that the most insightful, innovative, best layed out reform plan was that proposed on 18 November 2003 by Senator Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC). Graham’s bill (S. 1878) would allow for younger workers to take the option divert 4% points of their OASDI (old age, survivors and disability insurance) taxes into a Private Retirement Account (PRA) that would be much like the Thrift Savings Plan, in which all federal employees have the option to participate. There is a cap of $1300 on diverted funds. The remainder of the taxes would stay in the current system. For those who opt out of option 1 the remaining two options offer individuals the security of the traditional system with major differences. The second, like the first changes the benefits determination formula so that benefits are more in line with the CPI and wage growth, with PIA up to 120% of the poverty level and Incresing benefits of widows and widowers to about 75 % of what would be recived if both spouses were alive. The third option is the traditional system.
A thorough review of the proposals led me to conclude that the most insightful, innovative, best layed out reform plan was that proposed on 18 November 2003 by Senator Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC). Graham’s bill (S. 1878) would allow for younger workers to take the option divert 4% points of their OASDI (old age, survivors and disability insurance) taxes into a Private Retirement Account (PRA) that would be much like the Thrift Savings Plan, in which all federal employees have the option to participate. There is a cap of $1300 on diverted funds. The remainder of the taxes would stay in the current system. For those who opt out of option 1 the remaining two options offer individuals the security of the traditional system with major differences. The second, like the first changes the benefits determination formula so that benefits are more in line with the CPI and wage growth, with PIA up to 120% of the poverty level and Incresing benefits of widows and widowers to about 75 % of what would be recived if both spouses were alive. The third option is the traditional system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)