Negotiating with the Enemy

     Image a conversation between an offensive football lineman, whose assignment is to open hole in the defensive line so the running back can score touchdowns, and the defensive lineman whose assignment is to prevent that from happening.

    Or consider a  conversation between a baseball pitcher trying to get a batter out and the batter trying to hit a home run, or a basketball player wanting to drive to the basket for a layup and the defensive center intending to block that attempt.

     What kind of conversations could this be?  What do Democrats say to Republicans who are committed to the defeat of Democrats next year?  How does any team negotiate with an opposing team?  It's not possible.  Can you imagine how the conversation is going between Democrats and Republicans concerning the President's budget?  Does the commitment to making Obama a one-term president enter the discussion?  Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans have become not a first and second team of an American team but different teams.  Once the party out of power was like a second team which wanted to play but pulled for the party in power because it wanted to win more than it wanted to be in the game.

     Well, that's what the President and Democrats face in dealing with Republicans:  Republicans will not give in to anything that will allow Obama to succeed in effecting a successful economic recovery.  Remember, they must make him a "one-term president."  They don't even give him credit for those things that have been successful.  Everything Obama has recommended Republicans have called either a failure or a job-killer--even when then weren't.  They do this because they believe the American people won't know the difference.

      The Republican threshold for compromising on anything will be the point where they are reasonably sure that the President will be perceived to be a failure.  Democrats' line in the sand must be considerably short of that point.  Republicans are trying to get the president involved in the funding debate, but funding is the job of Congress.  He must stay uninvolved until they come up with funding he feels meets his threshold for being able to act with reasonable certainty on behalf of the American people.

      The prospect of compromise would be better were the difference of opinions was merely philosophical.  Give and take could be win-win for both parties.  But this conflict is not about win-win but about victory.  Voters need to decide if they have sufficient reason to place their trust liars.

     There is good reason to believe that Republicans will shut down the government  unless they get what they want.  Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is an example of how the Tea Party picked to run--and subsequently elected--egotistic congressional representatives with fringe beliefs and one-track minds.  

      It's time for the American people to determine if they want the President to decide what is the best mix of spending cuts and taxes, or if they think House Republicans can best do that.  Maybe it's also time for Democrats to throw into the compromise mix making the tax cuts for the middle class permanent and extending unemployment benefits for the unemployed to Jan. 2013.  Offer Republicans a concession of $30 billion in spending cuts.  That would put the ball in the Republicans' court to make a better offer.

     The President reserves the responsibility to veto any spending cuts that prevent him from having the mix that he feels offers the best chances to hasten the present recovery as well as minimize the chances that this kind of recession will ever happen again.  The American people believe that President Obama is the person best qualified to do that.  That's why he was elected president.  And none of the Republicans who are trying to promote Obama's failure is sufficiently qualified or trustworthy to make even the very long list of potential Republican presidential candidates in 2012.  The President, however, likely will have no bill to veto.

     Despite Jesus' saying not even the angels in heaven will know when the end of the world will come, it's being predicted by certain members of the Christian community that the end will come in May of this year.  Nostradamus has predicted that the end will come at the end of next year.  If either is true, that's too close for comfort.  But whether the end of the world occurs in May or not, Tea Party Republicans could bring at least be bringing the United States, as we have known it, to an end. 

     Consider the effort of Texas Republicans to change the practice of limiting the class size of public elementary schools to 22 students.  They claim a change that averages 21 students per class is necessitated by the need to cut the state budget. 

I haven't heard the explanation, though, why having 21 students per class would cost less than having 22.  Five teachers teaching 22 students each teach110 students, whereas, five teachers teaching 21 students each only teach 105 students.  How is that less expensive?  Maybe the answer rests beneath the surface.  You see, there are several ways to achieve a 21-student per class average.  

     Of course having 21 students in every class averages 21 students per class.  But so does having five classes with 30, 30,15,15 and 15 students average 21 students per class.   The difference, in the latter example, is that some students could be in classes with as many as 30 students while other students are in classes  with as few as 15 students.  Which students do you think will be in the classes with 15 students?  And which teachers do you think will be teaching them?

     The world may be coming to an end.  And Texas, Wisconsin and Tea Party Republicans provide more evidence that a lot of Americans still may not be ready.

Quality-Control in Public Education

     The vast majority of Americans believe that the United States needs a strategy plan for pursuing, and eventually achieving, world-class education for all American children.  

     This must start with a national curriculum for every course being offered or perceived to be needed in America's schools.  The curriculum for each course would be determined by our best public school and college teachers in both content and pedagogy.  .Each curriculum would contain content that range and challenge from basic thru world-class content.  Students and parents would have access to these curricula, including via the internet, and quality-control would be built into the process of building such quality.  

       The teachers' responsibilities would be to enable student to master the content, commensurate with their abilities, their interests and the amount of time they either can or choose to spend trying to master content.

      Administrators' responsibilities would be to enable teachers to become the best teachers they can be, commensurate with their abilities, interest and the amount of time and money they can or choose to spend preparing themselves to be successful teachers.

      School board responsibilities would be setting world-class goals for student performance that, while providing adequate education at basic levels, also sufficiently challenge students thru world-class levels.  

    That curriculum would be available for adoption by each state.  States would be permitted to make substitutions for 10% of the content.  But substitutions would have to be of comparable contents and challenge at comparable levels.

     If we took the curriculum at either Stanford University, Chicago University, Harvard University or Rice University and taught them at all four schools, the quality of education would likely not vary very much.  The same would be true of Cal Berkeley, University of Texas, University of Minnesota and University of Pennsylvania.

     Common curricula enable training institutions to know what to teach future teachers in the content areas, and how to teach it in the departments of education.  Universities would even teach teacher-trainers how to best teach what they teach.  All of these people would be talking to each other about common problems, solving them together, and making everybody else better because of it.

     What's wrong with that?  I'm guessing, but I'll bet wherever firefighters and policemen policewomen are trained, they are trained the same way, to do the same kinds of things, given a set of circumstances.  I'd bet surgeons learn to do the same  things for particular kinds of surgeries.  And when someone announces a new, more effective way of doing something, it's passed on to others.  The military does not have different ways to train recruits at its different locations.  There are correct ways to handle guns, deploy troops or fly airplanes.   Oil refineries refine oil in the same ways, even different refining companies because, if cars don't perform properly because of poor gasoline, refineries can't get away with blaming cars.    

     Why, then, the difference in education?  It's the absence of quality controls.   

     Contrary to what the pay for educators suggest, providing opportunities for each student to receive the best education possible is the hardest job.  The only things that limit what children learn--and are prepared to learn in the future--is the quality of education offered in their public schools and the times they are inspired, encouraged and want to invest taking advantage of the opportunities.   The quality of that education is limited only by the ability of educators to provide it after investing the time needed to learn how to do it  That means students will learn more as educators themselves learn more, and as students are motivated and enabled to do so.  So the crucial question is: How can we improve the performances of educators? 

     Every educator from the superintendent to the classroom teacher would have a  job description that specifies the expectations of each position in terms that board members can understand.  Consistent with those descriptions, each would have a plan of action in writing describing in detail how they will fulfill those expectations:  Administrators would have weekly or monthly plans and teachers, daily plans.     

     Copies of these plans would be on file at the home schools of teachers and in the administration building for review by appropriate administrators and board members at their discretion.  

     Logs of administrators' daily activities would document what they've done, when it is done, why it was done, and reference evidence of effectiveness.  Plans, logs and their assessments would serve as bases for staff and board discussions at special monthly meetings on instruction and suggest ideas for future improvement.

   The board would hire an ombudsman, who could never become district superintendent, to oversee compliance with board policy regarding instruction and preparations for instruction at all levels.  The ombudsman (or woman) would make monthly reports to the board and the community, and would be held responsible if student performances during each grading period fail to measure up to monthly reports and expectations of improved performance..

     One board meeting would be conducted each month, devoted exclusively to instruction; instructional planning; evaluation of student, teacher, and administrator performances; parental and community involvement, and such other things that can impact student performance in the future.  

     That's the kind of quality-control in education that produces higher salaries for educators, a better educated workforce, and a brighter economic future for America.  Without quality-control, quality education is left to chance--a slim chance.

Ronald

The Devolution of America

     The present state of politics and economics in America brought to mind a most unusual response by a politician, following George H. W. Bush's being elected president in 1988.   A Reporter asked then Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo if he would seek the party nomination in 1992.  Cuomo's responded that he wasn't sure because he would "be pulling for President Bush to succeed."   The present climate in Washington causes one to wonder what happened to the days when who was president was less important than his ability to lead the nation toward solving its problems.  

     But because the goal of Republicans is "to make President Obama a one term president," they are taking "opposition party" to both a new level and a new kind of political competition.  That goal is made more likely if Obama is incorrectly perceived by voters to have both caused and failed to revive the failing economy, and if he can be perceived to have caused whatever adverse conditions lead up to the 2012 presidential election, despite the conditions being caused by circumstances predating his presidency.  

     Consequently, if Obama's failure is the primary Republican goal, then whether Democrats or Republicans have the better plans for the future of our economy really is no longer debatable   Besides, when the President fails, America fails.  Certainly, there are things this president might attempt that would cause all Americans to wish his failure.  But so far there is no evidence that he has either done or sought to do such things. 

     Health-care reform, for example, was an attempt to address the health needs of people who are less able to afford quality care, and at the same time reduce the increasing contribution of health care costs to the nation's debt.  What's wrong with these?  Republican objections to every attempt to benefit the American people are always based on their negative effects on businesses.  

     Businesses make profits because the American people work for them, buy their products and pay for their services.  Businesses don't have to pass tax increases or the cost of health insurance to consumers in order to maintain adequate profits.  Businesses whose profits are adversely affected by new regulations or taxes should be allowed to either pass on some of the costs or receive special tax considerations.  But the economy must be either self-regulating or managed with rules and restrictions that benefit business, the people and a functioning American society.

     But if Republicans are committed to making Obama fail, then everything they do will be toward that end, even if it means letting the government default in debt payments and hope Obama gets the blame.  Politics in Washington have always been partisan but was never before so obviously driven by forces of greed and deliberate class destruction.  

     Barack Obama was elected CEO of the United States.  He is the nation's main advocate, representative and spokesperson.  As such, he sets the agenda for leading the country.  It is an agenda on which he campaigned and was elected president by a substantial majority.   His goals were clear and they were consistent with those he has pursued.   

     The pursuit of those goals, however, often has had to be compromised, consistent with democracy and a government where the people have representation in Congress who are both Democratic and Republican.  But because Obama was elected by a substantial majority of the American people, the goals and the intent of the President's agenda should not be seriously compromised, and certainly not surrendered.  The Congress should recommend, but not attempt to derail the people's intent as expressed in the President's agenda.  

Unfortunately when Republican talk about what "the American  people" want, they are really talking about the American people who give them marching orders and finance their elections.  

     Prior to the Nov. '10 elections, Republicans used polls, not the 2008 elections, to determine what "the people" wanted.  However, since the 2010 elections, they don't use polls; they infer the people intent from those elections.  How absolutely unbelievable can Republicans be and still be trusted?     

     Congress' job is to finance the president's programs and assure that the money is wisely spent.  It is not their job to establish a counter agenda, but rather to make laws that, consistent with sound judgment, support the president's efforts.  If the president fails in his pursuit of those goals, failure should be attributed to the president's programs, not to obstructions by the opposition party whole expressed intent is to cause his failure.

     Although they may act as if they possess a crystal ball, Republicans have no way of knowing whether their economic plan or Obama's economic plan will better secure the nation's economic future.  We do know, however, by their intent that Republicans will oppose any Obama's plan they believe will succeed.  In a time of crisis, the political parties should be working together to help the people's leader succeed.  There would be plenty of time in the future--when times are again normalized--to fight over which party is better for the country at that particular time. 

     Many Americans are presently in need of help because they have been denied equal opportunities to receive a quality education and, hence, get better paying jobs.  Others have become impoverished by conditions they did not create.  Yet, the wealthy want to punish them even more by denying them assistance to help them survive the conditions.  The newly elected House Republicans are acting as if they have a mandate from the American people to be heartless.  

     We're in trouble on many fronts, and our salvation rests the following: (1) middle-class white Americans accepting that reality that most wealthy people don't care about them, either;  (2)  all Americans feeling enough responsibility for their own well-being by continuing to become better educated, being more involved in their children's education, and becoming better informed voters; and (3) American Christians not being persuaded by Christians pretenders who seek to link the teachings of Jesus to the shortcomings of socialism.

     The Christian religion helped lay the foundation for this country.  It undergirds our morality, ethics, and national integrity.  If these attributes no longer matter, then self-control by public officials is no longer a viable option, making more regulations and oversight necessary--but also suspect if no one can be trusted.

      Nearly everything pursued in America nowadays seems to be a race to the bottom.

Ronald