RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

The Republican National Committee will soon hold elections to potentially replace its gaffe-prone chairman Michael Steele, and today, FreedomWorks held a forum for those vying for the job. All the candidates present — Steele was conspicuously absent — touted their fundraising ability, but Mike Duncan, a former chairman running for another term, took the opportunity to wax poetic about campaign finance. Despite the recent troubling and unprecedented explosion of money in politics, Duncan called money “the mother’s milk of politics,” and argued, “there is not enough money” in politics:

DUNCAN: Money is the mother’s milk of politics. There is not too much money in politics, there is not enough money. When you consider that we spend $7 billion in this county a year on potato chips. We spend $4 billion, a little over $4 billion, according to the National Retailer Association on Halloween — on costumes and candies.

Watch it:

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, this year’s election saw a flood of money into politics, with corporations, special interests, and wealthy individuals spending like never before. Nearly $4 billion was spent on the 2010 cycle, making it the most expensive midterm in history, with more spent by outside groups this year than during all the midterms since 1990 combined. A disturbingly large portion of this was secret money spent by front groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, which do not have to disclose their donors. This system allows a tiny group of individuals to have an outsize impact on American democracy. For example, in August, an astonishing 91 percent of the millions American Crossroads raised came from just three billionaires. And while the Chamber claims to represent hundreds of thousands of businesses large and small, the vast majority of their funding comes from just 45 mega-corporations.

But it’s not surprising that Duncan would support this flood of special interest money in politics, as Republicans benefited most from secret money, and spent more than Democrats overall. According to a New York Times analysis, eight of the top ten outside political groups were GOP-aligned, including the top four.

However, the American people do not agree with Duncan that there should be more money in politics, especially when it comes to corporate money. A PCCC poll from last week showed that by a double-digit margin, voters would support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and once again restrict corporations from directly spending on elections. Meanwhile, a People for the American Way poll from June found that 85 percent believe that there is too much corporate money in politics. And a poll from the 2008 presidential campaign found that “Americans by 3-1 think too much money is” spent on politics.

End ED — From the Left!

Posted by Neal McCluskey

It’s no secret that expelling the U.S. Department of Education is something that a lot of libertarians, and conservatives who haven’t lost their way, would love to do. What’s not nearly so well known is that there are also people on the left who dislike ED. Now, they don’t dislike it because it and the programs it administers clearly exist in contravention of the Constitution, or because its massive dollar-redistribution programs have done no discernable good. They dislike it because, especially since the advent of No Child Left Behind, it strong-arms schools into doing things left-wing educators often disagree with or resent, like pushing phonics over whole language, or imposing standardized testing. Many also truly believe in local control of schools, though often with power consolidated in the hands of teachers.

Case in point is a guest blog post over at the webpage of the Washington Post’s Valerie Strauss. The entry is by George Wood, principal of Federal Hocking High School in Ohio and executive director of the Forum for Education and Democracy. He writes:

Everybody dislikes bureaucracies, but for different reasons. The “right” complains they are unresponsive, full of “feather-bedders,” and a waste of taxpayer money. The “left” complains they are unresponsive, full of people who are too busy pushing paper to see the real work, and too intrusive into local, democratic decision-making. Maybe we should unite all this new energy for making government more responsive and efficient around the idea of eliminating a bureaucracy that was probably a bad idea in the first place.

Remember that the Department of Education was a payoff by President Jimmy Carter to teacher unions for their support. Before that, education was part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

That’s where I propose returning it. Here are several reasons why:

First, the current structure of the national Department of Education gives it inordinate control over local schools. The federal government provides only about 8% of education funding. But through through NCLB, Race to the Top, and innovation grants, they are driving about 100% of the agenda. Clearly this is a case of a tail wagging a very big dog.

Second, by separating education from health and welfare, we have separated departments that should be working very closely together. We all know, even if some folks are loath to admit it, that in order for a child to take full advantage of educational opportunities he or she needs to come to school healthy, with a full stomach, and from a safe place to live.

But the federal initiatives around education seldom take such a holistic approach; instead, competing departments engage in bureaucratic turf wars that, while fun within the Beltway, are tragic for children in our neighborhoods.

Third, whenever you create a large bureaucracy, it will find something to do, even if that something is less than helpful. After years of an “activist” DOE, we do not see student achievement improving or school innovation taking hold widely. We have lived through Reading First, What Works, and an alphabet soup of changing programs with little to show for it.

In fact, DOE has often been one of the more ideological departments, engaging in the battles such as phonics vs. whole language. Who needs it?

Who needs it, indeed!

As I have touched upon repeatedly since last week’s election, now is the time to launch a serious offensive against the U.S. Department of Education. I have largely concluded that because of the wave of generally conservative and libertarian legislators heading toward Washington, as well as the powerful tea-party spirit powering the tide. But this is a battle I have always thought could be fought with a temporary alliance of the libertarian right and educators of the progressive left who truly despise top-down, one-size-fits-all, dictates from Washington. There are big sticking points, of course — for instance, many progressives love federal money “for the poor” — but this morning, I have a little greater hope that an alliance can be forged.

truth aboutbench craft company rip off

RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

DUNCAN: Money is the mother’s milk of politics. There is not too much money in politics, there is not enough money. When you consider that we spend $7 billion in this county a year on potato chips. We spend $4 billion, a little over $4 billion, according to the National Retailer Association on Halloween — on costumes and candies.

Watch it:

End ED — From the Left!

Posted by Neal McCluskey

Everybody dislikes bureaucracies, but for different reasons. The “right” complains they are unresponsive, full of “feather-bedders,” and a waste of taxpayer money. The “left” complains they are unresponsive, full of people who are too busy pushing paper to see the real work, and too intrusive into local, democratic decision-making. Maybe we should unite all this new energy for making government more responsive and efficient around the idea of eliminating a bureaucracy that was probably a bad idea in the first place.

Remember that the Department of Education was a payoff by President Jimmy Carter to teacher unions for their support. Before that, education was part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

That’s where I propose returning it. Here are several reasons why:

First, the current structure of the national Department of Education gives it inordinate control over local schools. The federal government provides only about 8% of education funding. But through through NCLB, Race to the Top, and innovation grants, they are driving about 100% of the agenda. Clearly this is a case of a tail wagging a very big dog.

Second, by separating education from health and welfare, we have separated departments that should be working very closely together. We all know, even if some folks are loath to admit it, that in order for a child to take full advantage of educational opportunities he or she needs to come to school healthy, with a full stomach, and from a safe place to live.

But the federal initiatives around education seldom take such a holistic approach; instead, competing departments engage in bureaucratic turf wars that, while fun within the Beltway, are tragic for children in our neighborhoods.

Third, whenever you create a large bureaucracy, it will find something to do, even if that something is less than helpful. After years of an “activist” DOE, we do not see student achievement improving or school innovation taking hold widely. We have lived through Reading First, What Works, and an alphabet soup of changing programs with little to show for it.

In fact, DOE has often been one of the more ideological departments, engaging in the battles such as phonics vs. whole language. Who needs it?

Who needs it, indeed!

http://ddfghhdfxd.com/

RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

DUNCAN: Money is the mother’s milk of politics. There is not too much money in politics, there is not enough money. When you consider that we spend $7 billion in this county a year on potato chips. We spend $4 billion, a little over $4 billion, according to the National Retailer Association on Halloween — on costumes and candies.

Watch it:

End ED — From the Left!

Posted by Neal McCluskey

Everybody dislikes bureaucracies, but for different reasons. The “right” complains they are unresponsive, full of “feather-bedders,” and a waste of taxpayer money. The “left” complains they are unresponsive, full of people who are too busy pushing paper to see the real work, and too intrusive into local, democratic decision-making. Maybe we should unite all this new energy for making government more responsive and efficient around the idea of eliminating a bureaucracy that was probably a bad idea in the first place.

Remember that the Department of Education was a payoff by President Jimmy Carter to teacher unions for their support. Before that, education was part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

That’s where I propose returning it. Here are several reasons why:

First, the current structure of the national Department of Education gives it inordinate control over local schools. The federal government provides only about 8% of education funding. But through through NCLB, Race to the Top, and innovation grants, they are driving about 100% of the agenda. Clearly this is a case of a tail wagging a very big dog.

Second, by separating education from health and welfare, we have separated departments that should be working very closely together. We all know, even if some folks are loath to admit it, that in order for a child to take full advantage of educational opportunities he or she needs to come to school healthy, with a full stomach, and from a safe place to live.

But the federal initiatives around education seldom take such a holistic approach; instead, competing departments engage in bureaucratic turf wars that, while fun within the Beltway, are tragic for children in our neighborhoods.

Third, whenever you create a large bureaucracy, it will find something to do, even if that something is less than helpful. After years of an “activist” DOE, we do not see student achievement improving or school innovation taking hold widely. We have lived through Reading First, What Works, and an alphabet soup of changing programs with little to show for it.

In fact, DOE has often been one of the more ideological departments, engaging in the battles such as phonics vs. whole language. Who needs it?

Who needs it, indeed!

advertising enlargement stretcher

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Forum Making Money

RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

End ED — From the Left!

RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

End ED — From the Left!

RNC Chairman Candidate Mike Duncan: ‘There Is Not Enough Money’ In Politics

End ED — From the Left!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me