In last night’s second presidential debate, hosted at Hofstra University in New York, the candidates came out swinging. It was clear that President Obama’s handlers had taken him to the woodshed over his first debate performance, notwithstanding his own assessment of the debate–that he had won it handily–and he was prepared to engage Mitt Romney aggressively.

Indeed, the candidates sparred over issues on the economy, entitlements, energy, and foreign policy, with Obama claiming that his first term has been a resounding success, and Romney tearing the president’s performance apart and laying out his own plan to add 12,000,000 jobs in his first term. The debate was animated, and the candidates relentless in their resolve to hold their ground . . . looking as though they were ready to take it out to the parking lot on a few occasions.

Obama was tireless in his efforts to convince viewers that he has turned in a stellar performance in his first term, and that he deserves their nod for a second. Romney turned and spoke to the audience, saying, “I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you’re going to get. You’re going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can’t afford four more years like the last four years.”

At an especially contentious point near the close of the debate an audience member asked Obama about the administration’s failure to provide the requested security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. “Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?”

After glossing the question over with a dose of the Administration’s convoluted double-speak, Romney laid bare the Administration’s vacillation and cover-up of the terrorist attack that murdered our diplomats in Benghazi.

Obama fired back indignantly, “The suggestion that anybody in my team … would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do.” Of course, that is exactly what Obama and his administration do, but he made the claim with a straight face. Obama then claimed that he had designated the assault a terrorist attack from the beginning, calling it that the following day in a Rose Garden press conference.

Romney bristled at the remark, reminding the public that Obama and his people had claimed repeatedly for the next 14 days that the assault was a “spontaneous demonstration” spawned by the existence of a YouTube video. Moderator Candy Crowley (CNN) was quick to interrupt, waiving some papers she had picked up, saying, “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror.”

Obama asked her to repeat it, and she dutifully complied. “He — he did call it an act of terror.” Romney seemed confused by the assertion, based on weeks of Administration obfuscation, and said he wanted to get the claim into the record.

After the debate Crowley was forced to recant her assertion, based on the actual presidential transcript of Obama’s Rose Garden statement, which makes it clear that Obama was doing his best to include the word “terror” without actually saying the incident was a terror attack. After mentioning 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, the president had stated, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He then moved on to the Libya attack, not calling it a terrorist attack, and sent out Administration officials for the following 2 weeks with the story about a “spontaneous demonstration” turned violent. Certainly, no news agencies reported during that time that the president had claimed the assault was a terrorist attack.

In fact, the Administration’s position has been that Obama is personally responsible for wiping out al-Qaeda, having dispatched Osama Bin Laden with his own bare hands, and that his policies have brought peace to the Middle East and the friendship of Muslims everywhere. The reality is much different, of course, but it is that narrative which drove the Administration’s efforts to cover up the terrorist attack on on our diplomats in Benghazi.

Overall, the debate was a feisty display of unmitigated testosterone . . . and the presidential candidates were a little testy too. Crowley did the same thing that moderators in the first two debates did–cover for the Democrat, interrupt and cut off the Republican, and ensure that the Dem gets more speaking time; over 3 minutes more in this debate.

Although there appears to be a general consensus that Dems will believe that Obama won the debate and GOP will believe Romney won, political pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group in Nevada, a swing state, during the debate, made up of undecideds, most of whom voted for Obama 4 years ago. The conclusion of this focus group was that although Obama turned in a good performance, it was nothing more than empty rhetoric, too little too late, and that another 4 years of his policies would be toxic to our nation. In contrast, they nearly unanimously agreed that Romney is a seasoned businessman who understands the economy and how to create jobs, and that it is time to put him into the White House. That cannot be good news for an administration hopeful that Romney’s momentum would be slowed if the president performed well.

PUBLIUS

The vice presidential debate between VP Joe Biden and GOP challenger Paul Ryan was anticipated by liberals as the party’s opportunity for payback following the spanking their fearless leader took in the first presidential debate last week at the hands of Mitt Romney. Feeling that Obama had simply failed to put in the necessary time to adequately prepare for the debate, Joe Biden was removed from the campaign trail and sequestered in debate rehearsal for nearly a week.

The VP debate was moderated by ABC News political correspondent and Obama cronie, Martha Raddatz. If one were to read a sterilized transcript of the debate, he would come away with the impression that each candidate expressed his party’s view on the issues presented by Radditz, and that there was no reason to think that bias or chicanery played a major role in the debate.

For those of us who watched the debate on television, however, that’s not how the evening went. In fact, Radditz ran interference for Biden all evening, tossing him underhanded pitches and assisting him to make clarifications, while interrupting and cutting off Paul Ryan a total of 82 times while he attempted to make his points, and allowing Biden to do the same more than 30 times. Overall, Biden was afforded a minute and a half more talking time than Ryan.

During the entire debate Biden laughed, smirked, scoffed, grunted, snorted and chuckled during Ryan’s speaking time in an animated and exaggerated display. The behavior was not only unbecoming the office of the Vice President, but would have been considered reason for being kicked off even a high school debate team. One must wonder why the VP and his debate coaching team made a conscious decision to have him carry on in such a disturbing and unprofessional manner, especially when they well knew that the broadcast would provide a split screen view to the 54 million viewers.

Although one could argue that each candidate adequately delivered his ticket’s respective message, conservative and leftist, the debate will go down in history as one of the most bizarre displays of strange behavior by a sitting vice president, bordering on drunken and obnoxious.

PUBLIUS

We observed a brief exchange in social media between a liberal and conservative, based on a quote posted by the liberal: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

The implication is the same always proffered by the left–that government wastes its revenues on defense spending at the expense of social programs, and should reduce spending on defense and increase spending on social programs.

The argument, on its surface, is one that causes the good hearted to stop and reflect. Certainly, we all want to assist those in dire circumstances, and as a society we have made a social pact to protect those who have fallen from a secure position in life. We seek to lift up the weak, and to champion the oppressed.

But is it true that we spend more on defense than on social uplift?

As we look at the question, we must first ask ourselves, what is the role of government? For instance, is it the duty of the San Francisco city government to provide aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean? We all know it is not. But why is it not? Because different levels of government have different duties to their citizens. With all levels of government working together to provide for the needs of their citizens, so the theory goes, all needs are covered.

So, starting at the top, what is the duty of the federal government to its citizens? The constitution mandates that the federal government be delegated certain duties by the states and their citizens, duties, like national military defense, that cannot be provided by state or local governments very well. Those duties, and powers to fulfill them, are limited by the constitution. These limited powers enable it to provide for the common defense, free the flow of commerce, coin money, establish weights and measures, provide for immigration, bankruptcies, postal services, patents and copyrights, declare wars, establish a Navy and Army, and to establish duties, imposts and excises to pay for the national government’s activities. That’s it.

So if the federal government has no constitutional delegation to provide schools, hospitals or firefighters, how do we get those? We get them from state and local governments. In fact, at the state and local level we find almost all “social uplift” programs. Do states, counties and cities have to provide social uplift programs? No. Do they choose to? Yes.

So how much money do all levels of government spend each year to pay for all levels of government and the services they provide? Here is what we will be spending in the next year:

Federal Gross Spending $3.8 trillion
Intergovernmental $-0.7 trillion
State Direct Spending $1.6 trillion
Local Direct Spending $1.7 trillion
Total Spending $6.4 trillion

Armed with this information we can now make some simple comparisons.  For instance–How much is the defense budget? It is $830 billion, or $0.83 trillion. As anyone can see, defense is only 14% of total spending. But how does defense spending stack up to educational spending? In this same time frame we will spend approximately the same amount on each (see our article of June 11, 2012, NEA Report Card: F).

So if America spends around 14% of its annual taxes on defense, and a like amount on education, where does the remaining 72% go? It goes to healthcare ($1.1 trillion), welfare ($0.8 trillion), public employee pensions ($1.1 trillion), etc.

Those on the left have created a myth of government spending that they share among themselves that says that most taxes go to defense spending (which actually pays for the employment of millions of Americans), and social programs get the leftover crumbs. In fact, it is not true at all–it is quite the opposite.

All of those $ trillions are up for grabs to an array of government employee unions, special interests, and administration cronies and contributors, and are funding all manner of social and anti-social programs and movements. This is why Mitt Romney, noting that the federal government borrows 40% of its budget every year (to be paid by a future generation), indicated in the first presidential debate that government spending must be pared back to essentials until the economy returns to full employment.

With all of those fingers in the $6.4 trillion pie (which does not include unfunded obligations), it may be a little difficult for a Romney-Ryan administration to serve the American people without offending a few hogs at the trough.

PUBLIUS

In the first of three presidential debates held Wednesday evening GOP challenger Mitt Romney won a decisive victory over the incumbent, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama’s performance was lackluster, to say the least, while Romney appeared energetic, friendly, and in command.

Obama began his opening statement informing the audience that America should not look at the past, implying we should ignore his record, but to the future. For the entire 90 minutes Obama explained why the federal government should be expanded along with Americans’ tax burden.

Romney’s opening statement echoed the recent statement made by Vice President Joe Biden, that Obama’s first term policies have “buried the middle class,”and he laid out his 5 Point plan for reversing America’s current economic calamity.

Romney was on the offensive all evening delivering blow after blow to the President’s record and devastating economic policies, and the President stammered and stuttered while trying to explain why Americans should entrust him with the presidency for another 4 years.

Obama repeatedly attempted to simply recite campaign rhetoric and democratic party talking points about his own record and the proposed economic fixes proffered by Romney, but Romney just as often set the record straight in an authoritative and convincing manner, in what appeared to be a humiliating challenge to the president’s heretofore unchallenged “facts.” At one point Romney chided Obama that because he had 5 sons, he was used to people telling him untruths and simply repeating them in an attempt to persuade him of their veracity, but that the technique was wasted in the presidential race, because although Obama was entitled to a private plane and house as president, he was not entitled to “private facts.”

Romney clearly got in some of the best lines of the evening, describing Obama’s economic policy as “trickle down government.” When Obama accused Romney of being the defender of big oil company tax breaks, Romney retorted that most of the $2.8 billion tax breaks go to small and middle sized oil exploration companies, not big oil, and that the amount is a mere pittance compared with the $90 billion that Obama palmed for his cronies in the wind and solar industries–an amount that equals 50 years of oil tax breaks. Romney quoted a friend who recently observed that Obama doesn’t just pick winners and losers in meting out government billions to green companies, he just picks losers, referring to the recent insolvency of many of the recipients, being run by big contributors to the president’s campaign.

Romney further chastised Obama’s assertion that his plan is to “invest” in 100,000 new teachers to boost America’s failing education system, when the $90 billion he had wasted on “green energy” projects would have hired 2 million teachers.

Obama appeared perturbed for most of the whipping, staring off at moderator Jim Lehrer or smirking and tensing his jaw as he looked down at his own notes. Romney looked presidential as he explained free-market economics to a befuddled Obama.

The exhibition was a resounding victory for Mitt Romney, and signs of a re-energized base were apparent as preliminary polls reflected the victory. Democrats were trying to spin the outcome in a favorable light, but the Internet and Twitter reflected that democratic supporters were very disappointed by the president’s inability to explain or defend his first 4 years in office, or to make a case for a repeat performance.

PUBLIUS

We hear so much these days of “fairness.” Indeed, liberals have been beating the drums hard that it is time for the “rich” to start paying their “fair share.”

In reality, 47 percent of the country pays no federal income taxes whatsoever, and the top 25 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the total burden. The top 1 percent pay 36% of all federal income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 58%!

In truth, this distribution scheme is unfair, but it is not those who now bear a significantly higher portion of the burden who should be made to shoulder even more of the load.

Presidents Kennedy and Reagan both understood that to stimulate economic growth and bring more money into government’s coffers, it is necessary to LOWER taxes on those who shoulder the burdens, and free up the economy.

In his annual budget message to Congress, President Kennedy explained the reasoning behind lowering tax rates:

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased — not a reduced — flow of revenues to the federal government.”

This is exactly what Mitt Romney plans to do to stimulate economic growth and to balance the federal budget–combined with numerous other things, like making the nation energy independent.

There is a story that I heard years ago about the fairness of the distribution of tax burdens that I think will be instructive. It’s precise origin is unknown as far as I know, but I would like to give proper credit if I could find the person who developed it.

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

That is how our tax system really works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction — and it is they who stimulate the economy when we leave their earned income in their hands to spend in the economy. As that money passes through many hands, the wealth is distributed naturally, and it is taxed each time it changes hands.

But tax these too much, as we have, and attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier, as we now see in the case of many French, German and American citizens whose wealth has been threatened to the point of removing it from their native countries’ borders.

PUBLIUS

Communists Sue Democratic Party For Stealing Platform

Reprinted from Red Square

In a surprise move, the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) has announced a lawsuit against the Democratic Party and its leadership for the alleged theft of intellectual property. The plaintiffs claim that the entire so-called “new” Democratic agenda is, in fact, the product of a decades-long, painstaking campaign by CPUSA theorists, agitators, and underground subversive cells – which makes it the intellectual property of the Communist Party USA, protected by American copyright laws. “They stole our entire platform, rebranded it ‘progressive’, and claimed it as their own,” declared a CPUSA spokesperson at a press conference in San Francisco. “And we communists say, not so fast! Not in this country anyway, where we still have property rights and the rule of law, thank God! Actually, let me rephrase that…”

The Communist Party representative explained that government ownership of the auto and financial industries, redistribution of wealth, and free rationed healthcare have always been among the glorious CPUSA objectives: “We held on to these goals through all the difficult years of factional infighting, purges, denunciations, and heroic espionage on behalf of the Soviet intelligence services.

“This may seem like a foreign idea to you, but we sacrificed everything for it – our friends, our neighbors, and our nation. We suffered from all kinds of ulcers and split personality disorders by blindly following Stalin’s directives. We risked our chances of promotion within US government agencies by dutifully advancing Soviet foreign policy. And for what? So that some spoiled Democrats could ride on our backs to power while throwing us crumbs in the form of minor cabinet appointments?

“It’s just like taking someone else’s hard-earned income and redistributing it! … Never mind, bad example… It’s like infiltrating a respectable organization and taking over its management while engaging in subversive propaganda and the rewriting of history… Whoops, bad example again… It’s like being devoid of moral standards and rejecting all the norms and values of Judeo-Christian civilization… No, that was totally inappropriate. Scratch that…

“It’s time we got our fair share of credit from the current administration. As a gesture of good will, we would be pleased to accept the credit in the form of stimulus checks, subsidies, and loan guarantees for our members. If not now, when?”

CPUSA lawyers presented documents to the press showing that the Democratic platform of 2010, almost-line-for-line, reiterates the CPUSA platform of 1963. As the lead attorney for the plaintiffs pointed out, even a casual reading shows that while the rhetoric occasionally varies, the underlying policies are nearly identical.

“If the public knew that all the Democrat ideas are ours, we’d have more high-paying jobs in the Obama administration,” remarked the CPUSA spokesperson. “While all our members can’t be czars, we should at least get royalties. We can’t survive on government handouts alone, not yet anyway.”

This announcement seems to overturn past communist policy favoring the liquidation of czars and royalty.

The Democratic National Committee has declined to issue an official comment on the lawsuit, but a high-ranking White House official stated privately that this development is the result of an historically inevitable “convergence of opposites” – a philosophical concept outlined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – whereby the American public catches up with the glorious promise of communism, while the CPUSA becomes so American that it becomes embroiled in litigation. “Don’t quote me on this,” he added, “but Barack and I believe we can easily reconcile whatever minor differences we have with the CPUSA, and work together to prepare Americans for the final march, in well-organized and neat columns, towards our radiant progressive future.”

Special thanks to Will Beria for contributing to this story

; )

In his acceptance speech as the GOP vice presidential candidate at the RNC convention, Congressman Paul Ryan laid waste the false assertions of the Obama campaign while detailing the reasons for his support of Governor Mitt Romney and his plan for America’s comeback.

Both GOP candidates have been much maligned in a barrage of false attacks from Obama’s campaign, accusing them of everything from killing strangers’ wives to attempting to kill millions of seniors by destroying Medicare. Ryan fired back detailing how Governor Romney and he have a plan that will save Medicare from the Obama raids that have cost the program $716 billion, and will secure the program for several generations to come. He offered personal stories of how Medicare had helped him and his mother care for his grandmother while she was in sharp decline with Alzheimer’s, and how his own widowed mother was now utilizing its important benefits.

Representative Ryan, generally accepted as the nation’s leading congressional economic expert, further detailed how the Obama administration’s policies have plunged the nation into economic decline, and outlined the GOP plan to bring the economy back through tried-and-true fiscal policies which include lowering taxes as well as regulatory barriers to small business success. He recounted the President’s many failures, like channeling many billions of taxpayer dollars to political contributors and cronies.

“It all started off with stirring speeches, Greek columns, the thrill of something new,” Ryan reminisced. “Now all that’s left is a presidency adrift, surviving on slogans that already seem tired, grasping at a moment that has already passed, like a ship trying to sail on yesterday’s wind.” The line that brought the greatest response was “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.”

Ryan detailed tongue-in-cheek generational differences with Mitt Romney, but emphasized their shared philosophies, faith and goals for America. Pointing out Mitt Romney’s litany of successes in life, Ryan questioned at what point did hard work and success become a negative, as the Obama campaign has been claiming.

Echoing the need for “plain talk” with the American people about the serious nature of the nation’s fiscal problems raised the evening before by Governor Chris Cristie, Ryan pledged, “We will not duck the tough issues, we will lead.”

PUBLIUS

President Obama and his associates on the left follow the Keynesian theory of economics, the idea that when economies wane, government deficit spending will reignite the flame. To that end the Obama administration has spent trillions of dollars in 3 years, 40% of which has been borrowed, and on which the country is now paying unsustainable interest.

The national debt stood at $10 trillion when Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office just 3.5 short years ago. That nearly incomprehensible amount represented the unbridled deficit spending of generations of fiscally irresponsible presidents and congresses—Democratic and Republican. It was the cumulative debt of the nation, spanning more than 200 years.

Candidate Obama said that President Bush and congress had forced the national debt up by $4 trillion in 8 years, and called it “irresponsible and unpatriotic.” (Obama video below) The editors agree. But how much more irresponsible and unpatriotic is the addition of $6 trillion to that amount in just 3.5 years? It is treason, by Obama’s reasoning.

The national debt will turn over to $16 trillion in mere days, a 60 percent increase during Obama’s short time in office. It represents a massive federal government spending spree reminiscent of a teen who mistakenly believes he has won the lottery. If Obama is re-elected the national debt will exceed $22 trillion by the end of his second term. To get a handle on the enormity of this number the editors have consulted mathematicians who tell us that America probably does not have 22 trillion leaves on its trees. Plus, this is only actual dollars out the door; it does not include the herculean amounts of entitlement obligations not on the books, which add $ tens of trillions over the next two decades.

Let’s get back to our current debt. What’s the problem with a $16 trillion debt, you ask?

When Americans turn off the alarm clock in the morning and hustle off to work, the first $1.2 billion they generate every day must be siphoned off of the economy just to pay the current interest on the national debt. That amount grows each day as additional money is borrowed to run the government, and as unpaid interest on the debt compounds. It will never be decreased at current rates, but only increase, because we are never paying down the principle we owe, but adding to it at the rate of $10 million every minute! Your great-great-great-grandchildren will still be paying the interest on the money Obama’s government borrows today.

The federal budget is up to $3.8 trillion a year, with multiple stimulus packages filled with crony payoffs and pork barrel spending wasting additional trillions, without any economic return to the American people. The economy is worsening, with real unemployment and underemployment over 15 percent. Americans’ personal wealth has shrunk by 40% since Obama took office.

Government leaders should have put the country on a fast-track to pay off the national debt 20 years ago . . . and 10 years ago . . . and 3 years ago. Candidate Obama promised a balanced budget in his first term. Now, those on the left boisterously proclaim that the only answer to reducing the deficit and debt is to raise taxes “on the wealthy.” In fact, as we demonstrated in our article of May 17 of this year Bringing Fairness to Taxes, “the top 25 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the total burden. The top 1 percent pay 36% of all federal income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 58%.” Indeed, Obama’s confiscatory tax hike scheme would deplete the wealth of the job creators and the proceeds would run our federal government for a mere 9 days.

Time after time Keynesian economics has failed. So why do our universities still tout it as the model for our own economy? Why are our government leaders drawing all available dollars, current and future, into the abyss of federal spending? How many jobs were created with the shovel ready projects promised by President Obama as he highjacked $900 billion in the first stimulus package?

Debt creates poverty. Ever family knows this. Those who frequent the check cashing-payday loans establishments have learned the hard way that it is a recipe for financial disaster. So when will our government leaders learn the lesson? We recall well as Jimmy Carter addressed the nation and scratched his head in confusion as he explained that he had implemented all of the university approved, liberal orthodox policies, yet the country appeared to be languishing in a “malaise.” These are people that don’t seem to learn from past mistakes. Debt equals poverty. Perhaps this is why Americans are becoming poorer with every passing day.

There is only one possible solution–the federal government (and state governments) must immediately stop spending. We, the American taxpayer, and the main trustors of the American trust, must cut up the credit cards and end the binge spending of a presidency gone wild.

PUBLIUS

One of the five key elements of presidential contender Mitt Romney’s stronger economy plan is overhauling America’s education system — The Skills to Succeed. The bullet points of this education update are:

-Give every family access to a great school and quality teachers
-Provide access to affordable and effective higher education options
-Focus job training programs on building valuable skills that align with opportunities
-Attract and retain the best and the brightest from around the world

As we wrote in our article of June 11 of this year, NEA Report Card: F, the education problem has been growing in America for decades, as the costs of educating our children skyrocket and students are churned out of the public education system with less and less actual education.

A decades-long growing battle between liberals and conservatives over education is culminating in calls to either get the government and unions out of education altogether, or to entirely overhaul the system.

The first bullet point – affording every family access to a great school and quality teachers is a broadly discussed function of reversing decades of damage done by the teachers’ unions and leftist bureaucrats and administrators. Their intractable resistance to objective standards of excellence and testing of teachers for competency – or even compensation based on merit and results, has left them exposed as the typical “more money for less work” union members they have become. Merit pay for teachers and tuition vouchers for students, to take to any school they desire to attend, will have the immediate and permanent effect of forcing schools to compete for their livelihood—a capitalistic concept quite foreign to the unions and their Democratic partners.

The second bullet point – providing access to affordable and effective higher education options is a cutting-edge concept that is as yet, undeveloped in the public arena. The Federalist Press editors hereby proffer a plan that will revolutionize American higher education.

The major problems with the current system are: 1) costs have artificially skyrocketed and the taxpayer is left holding the bag for much of it while students incur decades of debt; and 2) leftists dominate the system and classrooms, leaving indoctrinated students with little usable education and mush for brains.

The editors propose a new higher education option, patterned somewhat after the current CLEP and DANTES programs. In this age of digital access it is feasible to launch a program that provides students with online classes, with lectures by top experts and stunning graphics and demonstrations. A basic 2 year core curriculum will ensure that all students receive across-the-board instruction in math, science, English, history, etc. Then specialization will occur in 3^rd and 4^th year online classes. This is essentially how colleges and universities are supposed to offer classes now, but they have strayed far from their mandate.

Third and fourth year specialization courses in the government offered online university should emphasize productive degree programs initially; science, engineering, language, history, chemistry, education, pre-medicine, pre-law, etc., with some liberal arts programs being added as the system is more fully developed to accommodate their greater need for interactivity.

To help reduce cheating on exams, a major problem in the current system as well, testing centers should be established for this online university system with certified proctors to administer computerized tests. Students can take online courses at their own pace, and show up to take the exams as soon as they have completed the course.

Costs, which will be only a fraction of the current $500 billion, can be shared by students and the taxpayers. Students can pay a low flat fee for each course, and the federal government can dramatically cut its higher education budget and finance the remaining cost of the online university system.

This proposal will provide higher education for anyone who wants it, and anyone who is self-motivated enough to do the work. It doesn’t get any easier, cheaper or better than this.

PUBLIUS