What a great idea from David Wu (D-Authoritarian) Eliminate the jobs in the textbook publishing field; and insure government control of the information in the text. It’s a win-win for Democrats. Allow politically connected ‘non-profits’ to insure the right ideas are included; achieve absolute conformity of thought and eliminate jobs in the private sector. (I’m sure that some of the workers will make the transition to government bureaucrat.)
(a) Grants Authorized- From the amounts appropriated under subsection (i), the Secretary is authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to carry out the activities described in this section, including creating, updating, or adapting open textbooks. The Secretary shall award grants in a manner that will result in the creation of a comprehensive slate of high quality course materials for introductory courses in a variety of subject areas.
(b) Eligible Entity- In this section, the term ‘eligible entity’ means–
(1) an institution of higher education;
(2) a professor or group of professors at an institution of higher education; or
(3) a nonprofit or for-profit organization that produces open textbooks.
Just what we need! Textbooks controlled by the government.
What will be included? What will be left out?
One thing is for sure; anything that support “Global Warming” will be in ‘inconvenient’ information will be out. Politically correct ‘information’ will be in.
And it will all be decided by those friendly bureaucrats in Washington DC; with the input from politically connected ‘non-profits’ like ACORN.
Control the texts, impose conformity and control is easy.
The government has no resources. Everything it spends was created by private individuals and still belongs to taxpayers. All government can do is take from the industrious, the inventive, the hard-working and the frugal to dispense on the inefficient, the lazy, or the irresponsible. Government spending bites the very hand that feeds it.And these resources no longer exist. We’re now over $12 trillion in debt. Including future unfunded liabilities and those Washington assumed as a result of assorted bailouts and other mischief, the average family owes $471K and counting courtesy of government. The resources are gone.
Democrats wasted them on silly, self-defeating welfare programs and Republicans wasted them on silly, self-defeating foreign policies. Sometimes in fits of bipartisanship, they combined to waste them on even greater concepts. Government has no remaining resources, but to our peril it does have a printing press.
No matter what grandiose terms our elected leaders couch it under, there are only three ways to pay for this largesse. Certainly they can deprive productive enterprise of the resources necessary to generate economic growth via confiscatory taxes. But the disincentives ensconced in progressive taxation render it self-defeating. Washington can borrow, thus diverting capital from those endeavors actually prospering society. Another economic retardant. Or, they can inflate their way out of the mess by debasing our currency.
But remember; “Things appear to be the darkest just before they go completely black.”
It’s going to be like the 2008 crash. No one will see it coming until it’s here. Then it will seem obvious.
Yeah, it’s Bush’s fault. As well as every President since Herbert Hoover. We heard the story of killing the golden goose but never understood it.
In response to a Republican lawmaker who requested a probe into dismissed complaints against the New Black Panther Party, the Justice Department’s Inspector General said he has been unable to investigate because he lacks the authority.
Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine wrote in a four-page letter to Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia that Congress stripped him of the power to investigate all alleged wrongdoings within his department.
So he has been kept in place so the Justice Department can say they have an Inspector General. But they have removed his investigative powers to keep him from actually doing anything?
Why would Congress do this? Who included this in a bill and at whose behest? And why have those who knew about this kept it so quiet?
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes” indeed.
The essential problem was posed by Plato in The Republic, his work on government and morality. The perfect society as described by Socrates, the main character in this Socratic dialogue, relies on laborers, slaves and tradesmen. The guardian class is to protect the city. The question is put to Socrates, “Who will guard the guardians?” or, “Who will protect us against the protectors?” Plato’s answer to this is that they will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a “noble lie”. The noble lie will assure them that they are better than those they serve and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege; they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it.
But what if they just leave the watchmen in place, but remove their powers?
Don’t look now. But even as the bank bailout is winding down, another huge bailout is starting, this time for the Social Security system.A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.
Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation’s biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing — in other words, a taxpayer bailout.
You know, with the problems we are having in the economy due to government meddling in the mortgage area, with the billions poured into a “stimulus” that used political rather than economic conditions to decide who got the loot’ and the continuing support for “Sub Prime” lending, does not lead me to having any confidence that they are going to be able to deal with the SS problem.
The attempt was made during the Bush Administration but not only was it blocked by the Democrats, but they have bragged about it ever since.
Here’s excerpts from testimony by my Representative Peter DeFazio, before the House Subcommittee on Social Security in Feb and Mar 2002.
I am in the middle of a series of 15 town hall meetings I’ve been holding throughout Southwest Oregon to discuss Social Security with my constituents.
If there’s one thing I want those who attend my town hall meetings to take away from those gatherings it’s that Social Security is NOT in crisis. It is a fundamentally sound program that can remain so for the next 75 years and beyond with only minor changes.
For virtuous tax competition, we usually think of Hong Kong. But who would have thought of Chicago as a lower-tax refuge?
The bright idea comes from Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who is looking to lure employers from Oregon after that state’s voters approved a huge tax increase last week. The tax hike in Oregon “will help our economic development immediately. You’d better believe it,” Hizzoner told the Chicago Sun Times late last week. “We’ll be out in Oregon enticing corporations to relocate to Chicago.”
Oregon raised its top income tax rate to 11% from 9% and its corporate rate to 7.9% from 6.6%, while doubling many small business tax charges and fees. “What happened in Oregon is not good news for Oregon,” explains Mr. Daley. “They believe that anybody who makes $125,000 or more [annually] or businesses or anyone who makes $250,000—they’re gonna start taxing them. They call them ‘rich people.'”
Mr. Daley isn’t buying that. “I’ve always thought America stands for [rewarding success]. You finish high school. You work hard, go to college and you hope to succeed in life. I never knew it’s a class war—that those who succeed in life are the ones that have to bear all the burden. I never realized that. It will be a whole change in America that those who succeed and work hard, we’re gonna tax ’em more than anyone else.”
It’s nice to think that SOMEONE knows there’s a link between higher taxes and higher job losses.
But Chicago has other taxes that are just as onerous. I think the States like Texas or Idaho will stand a better chance of scooping up those jobs.
Among those blue-state voters who do put some effort into their politics, I find there are four mistaken assumptions about government that guide their thinking. Government is an exercise of authority, so it’s wise to have a clear understanding of the nature of authority before voting to expand government.The first, and perhaps most dangerous, assumption is that authority confers virtue. This seems to have become rooted in the American psyche after the exhilaration of victory in World War II, and the perceived success of the New Deal. Many people automatically assume liberal politicians are selfless servants of the people, who only want what is best for everyone. The media actively cultivates this mindset through its worship of bold Big Government initiatives, and the heroic statesmen who make them possible. If solving the problems of society is a noble endeavor, and the only solutions are titanic government programs, then the proponents of such programs must be noble!
And remember tow other things as well. Just because something is desirable doesn’t meant it is possible; and because things are possible doesn’t mean they are desirable.
“Progress” may take you places you don’t want to go.
When David Brooks started writing in the NYT I thought he was, not a conservative, but someone slightly right of center. After reading his latest I am starting to think that there is some time of mind altering substance in the atmosphere at the newspaper.
His latest on Barack Obama;
A year ago, the country rallied behind a new president who promised to end the pendulumlike swings, who seemed likely to restore equilibrium with his moderate temper and pragmatic mind.
In many ways, Barack Obama has lived up to his promise. He has created a thoughtful, pragmatic administration marked by a culture of honest and vigorous debate. When Obama makes a decision, you can be sure that he has heard and accounted for every opposing argument.
But just a paragraph later;
Americans, with their deep, vestigial sense of proportion, have reacted. The crucial movement came between April and June, when the president’s approval rating among independents fell by 15 percentage points and the percentage of independents who regarded him as liberal or very liberal rose by 18 points. Since then, the public has rejected any effort to centralize authority or increase the role of government.
Trust in government has fallen. The share of Americans who say the country is on the wrong track has risen. The share who call themselves conservative has risen. The share who believe government is “doing too many things better left to business” has risen.
The country is now split on Obama, because he is temperate, thoughtful and pragmatic, but his policies are almost all unpopular. If you aggregate the last seven polls on health care reform, 41 percent support it and 51 percent oppose.
So, Americans are rejecting his policies because he is “temperate, thoughtful and pragmatic”? The actions of his Cabinet members and his surrogates are marked by a culture of honest and vigorous debate?
Is that why all the Republican amendments to the Healthcare bill are voted down on Party line votes if they get any vote at all? Are the backroom deals and blatant payoffs of supporters considered honest? Is his idea that “bipartisanship” means allowing your opponents to slavishly support your legislation, otherwise they are “obstructing”?
I think that Brooks would be wise to skip the luncheons with the editorial staff and other columnists. They have slipped something in his salad.
A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office.This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama.
The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs.
The CEOs would have burst out laughing but for the danger that Obama would decide that they are enemies of the state.
Outdated computers? Every time the government tries to update their computers it turns into a free-for-all of corruption and moving goalposts. It was true at the IRS, true at the FBI and it will be true of any new attempt.
First of all millions of dollars will be spent by lobbyists trying to get the contract. The choice will depend on who has the best connections, not technical expertise. Secondly the bureaucrats won’t be able to make up their minds about what they want it to do. And if they do decide one week, they will change their minds the next.
Sounds like not only a pathetic excuse, but laying to groundwork for another wasteful porker of a bill.
Question: What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review? And, Secretary, to you, as well.SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think, following up on that, not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence.
You mean that the tactic of the “suicide bomber” surprised them?
I guess that’s not too surpising when you consider that our inteeligence agencies were taken by surprise by the the Iranian Revolution, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of Hugo Chavez, pretty much anything the North Koreans do, the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 9/11, the lack of WMD in Iraq, the Iraqi resistance,…..pretty much any important development in the world in the past 50 years.
So, they didn’t see this coming? It probably would have been more surprising if they had.