Wednesday, February 29, 2012

State government extends its grip on preschool and child care in Minnesota.

While it doesn't receive much attention, the state continues its efforts to extend it's control and regulation of all child care, preschool programs in Minnesota.

Karen Effrem and Education Liberty Watch point that

In three different and very significant ways, the Dayton administration has admitted that their ultimate aim is to have the state control the curriculum standards first for those governing all preschool and childcare programs in the state that “volunteer” to become involved in the Parent Aware Quality Rating System (the QRS), the Race to the Top preschool grant program, or the early childhood scholarship program regardless of whether these programs are public, private or religious. This seems to be the foundation for then controlling ALL preschool curriculum. (More on that in future alerts).

Minnesota’s Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant application neatly ties all three situations together. The document unabashedly states (p. 87):

“Minnesota’s Early Learning and Development Standards (called the Early Childhood Indicators of Progress, or ECIPs-see C1) for children birth to five are at the foundation of [Parent] Aware. Parent Aware Program Standards require that instruction and assessment be aligned with the ECIPs and the ratings are built on the ECIPs, which function like a scaffold. For example, ELD Programs must ensure that their staff members are familiar with the ECIPs before earning 1 star, and to reach 3 or 4 stars requires both familiarity with the ECIPs and also alignment of curriculum and assessment with them.” (Emphasis added)

In other words, the Parent Aware QRS, even though “voluntary,” mandates a top-down government run curriculum in order for programs to receive the highest ratings, and therefore all of the financial and policy goodies that accompany those top ratings. Adherence to program standards of the QRS that include curriculum alignment to these standards is then the cornerstone of both the Race to the Top Application and the early childhood scholarships. The quality rating system was the top point garnering criterion on the $500 million Race to the Top application which also requires statewide preschool standards and wide participation by preschool programs, including private and religious ones, which comprise more than 80% of the childcare market in Minnesota. The scholarships were a high priority of some of the lead House education negotiators during the final closed negotiations of the shutdown at the end of the 2011 session. The Dayton Education Department recently and arrogantly reported (January 26th) to the House Education Finance Committee that, despite the lack of statutory authority to use the QRS in distribution of those scholarships, they are going to allow use of scholarship funds only at programs that earn 3 or 4 stars, i.e. that require these standards, and parents may not conscientiously object to these standards if they want a scholarship. Are we seeing a pattern here?
Why is this a problem? It further usurps and injects government in family matters and the raising of children. It sends the message to parents that the government will take over more of their responsibilies and it injects politically correctness on a number of family and social concerns.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Obamacare not popular with the American people.

According to a new poll, lots of Americans in swing states don't like Obamacare.
A newly released USA Today/Gallup poll shows that, by a margin of 13 percentage points (53 to 40 percent), swing-state voters want Obamacare to be repealed. The poll included registered voters in 12 key states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Michigan. By a margin of 15 points (53 to 38 percent), registered voters in those state think it was “a bad thing” that President Obama’s signature legislation was passed.

When asked how Obamacare would affect their family’s “healthcare situation” in “the long run,” swing-state voters said Obamacare would make it “worse,” rather than “better,” by a margin of more than 2 to 1 (42 percent “worse,” to 20 percent “better”). That’s not a great result for legislation that the Congressional Budget Office says would cost about $2.5 trillion (see chart) —or about $7,000 per American and nearly $30,000 for a family of four — over its real first decade (2014 to 2023) alone. That’s a lot of taxpayer money to spend to make Americans’ health care worse.

Moreover, by the overwhelming margin of 4 to 1 (76 to 19 percent), registered voters in these 12 states say that Obamacare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional. Nationwide (not just in the swing states), a clear majority of Democrats — 56 percent — agree that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Even the Obama White House admits that, without the individual mandate, Obamacare would be “cost prohibitive,” “would lead to double digit premiums increases,” and “would significantly increase the cost [of] health care spending nationwide.” In other words, without its unconstitutional linchpin, Obamacare would be even more of a policy disaster (even if less of an affront to the Constitution) than it already is. That’s why, without the individual mandate, Obamacare never would have been passed — and why, if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate (as it should), it should strike down the whole thing.


Monday, February 27, 2012

Obamacare is anti-marriage in a big way.

President Obama's federal health care plan is anti-marriage. It penalizes individuals who want to get married.
Diane Furchtgott-Roth, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, said that it discourages women to marry -- and discourages them from working once they are married. She said in her testimony:

Say Sally is a single mother earning $44,130, putting her and her baby at 300 percent of the poverty line. They would be eligible for the health insurance premium assistance credit. But what if she wants to marry Sam, the father of her child, who earns $43,560, and is at 400 percent of the federal poverty line? Their total earnings, at $87,690, would exceed the 400 percent poverty line for a family of three ($74,120). Married, they would no longer receive help with their health insurance premiums, despite both earning the credit when unmarried.

Furchtgott-Roth believes that the government needs to be encouraging marriage instead: "It makes healthier families and smarter children," she said during the question and answer period.

What's important to understand about these figures is that the subsidies provided by Obamacare are based on income relative to the poverty line.

An editorial by The Washington Times gives an example of what this means: The subsidies are suddenly and completely cut off once somebody reaches 400 percent of the official poverty-level income ($63,360 in 2016). The arithmetic is complicated,but what it means is that two unmarried persons earning $32,000 each ($64,000 total) would pay a maximum combined $5,684 in premiums, but if they got married,they would pay about $15,000. That is an astonishing penalty of 164 percent. It is almost impossible to imagine a policy that could be any more anti-family than that.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Judge strikes down provision of federal DOMA. Shows need for federal marriage amendment.

A California federal district court judge struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

One of his
comments:

"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide justification for the legislation,"

"Subjective moral beliefs?" I thought all laws were rooted in morality. Subjective? Marriage as the union of a man and a woman strikes me as anything but subjective. It's been the basis for Western Civilization for a couple of millenium.

An example of blatant judicial activism. Another reason we need a federal marriage amendment.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Is there a Christian position on gambling?

Some wonder if gambling is a sin. There's not a command in the Bible saying, thou shalt not gamble, but some point to its violation of principles found in the Bible. Here's the take of Albert Mohler, prominent evangelical and scholar.

First, it's a huge and growing industry.
The nationwide explosion of legal gambling may well be the most underrated dimension of America's moral crisis. With the expansion of state lotteries, casino gambling, and new technologies, the gambling industry is poised to grow even further in the next decade.

According to some estimates, as much as one-third of the nation's money supply now moves through the gambling industry each year. Looking at a recent annual economic report, management consultant Eugene M. Christiansen determined that "Americans spent more on gambling than they did on health insurance, dentists, shoes, foreign travel, or household appliances."
He believes it's a clear violation of the biblical worldview. He sees it rooted in greed.
The Bible is clear on this issue. The entire enterprise of gambling is opposed to the moral worldview revealed in God's Word. The basic impulse behind gambling is greed-a basic sin that is the father of many other evils. Greed, covetousness, and avarice are repeatedly addressed by Scripture-always presented as a sin against God, and often accompanied by a graphic warning of the destruction which is greed's result. The burning desire for earthly riches leads to frustration and spiritual death.

As the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, "the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil." [1 Timothy 6:10] Greed was involved in Judas' decision to betray Christ, in the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira, and was the root moral issue in the Rich Young Ruler's refusal to follow Christ's command.

In the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, greed is presented as foolishness, and Jesus amplifies this teaching in His parable of the rich man [Luke 12:16-21]. Trusting in his economic prosperity, and planning to build even bigger barns to hoard his wealth, the man is called to account by God, who said to him, "You fool! This very night your soul is required of you." This is not likely to be found as a popular inspirational text at the local casino.
It violates the principle of stewardship of one's possessions.
The Bible presents the stewardship of material possessions as a crucial issue of discipleship. The Christian understands that his possessions and money are not his own, but God's. We are trustees who will be judged for the quality of our stewardship. Those lottery tickets and trips to Atlantic City are going to be hard to explain when God calls stewards to account.
It undermines the work ethic.
Furthermore, gambling is a direct attack on the work ethic presented in Scripture. One of the constant threads through the Old and New Testaments is the dignity of honorable work, and the proper reward for labor and industriousness. The worker worthy of hire is rewarded. Lazy, slothful, and unproductive persons are undeserving of financial rewards, and were a scandal to the early Church. Gambling severs the dignity of work from the hope of financial gain, offering the hope of riches without labor, and reward without dignity.
It takes advantage of the poor; those Christians are called to defend.
Finally, one of the most significant sins of the gambling industry is its treatment of the poor. Rather than offering genuine hope and a way out of poverty, gambling operators prey on those who are most desperate. The Old Testament prophets proclaimed God's devastating judgment against those who "devour" the poor, and yet gambling proponents entice those at the bottom of the economic ladder to risk everything, though they end up with nothing. The concentration of lottery ticket outlets in lower-income neighborhoods is no accident.
Christians haven't thought much about it.
Why are Christians so silent on this issue? Though some denominations have adopted strongly worded resolutions opposed to gambling, the issue is virtually off the moral map of most churches. There is little evidence of any sustained theological consideration of the issue. A review of major textbooks on Christian ethics used in evangelical seminaries reveals not a single chapter on gambling. The issue does not even make the tables of contents!
It's now a growing problem.
In all likelihood, most Christians have no conception of the problem's scope. Once confined to Nevada (and later, New Jersey), casinos now operate in states ranging from heartland Missouri to deep-south Louisiana. In many states slot machines and electronic games are found in gas stations and grocery stores, and lottery tickets are sold in a myriad of outlets. The tentacles of the gambling industry reach deeply into the nation's economy-and the national psyche.
Government is now promoting it.
The most insidious dimension of the problem is the role of government in legitimizing and promoting the gambling enterprise. Though outlawed until 1964, state lotteries now represent the most popular form of legal gambling. Turning vice into an economic virtue, these states take advantage of their most gullible citizens, while touting benefits the gambling revenues supposedly make possible.
Gambling is a vice which corrupts whatever it touches - the culture, etc.
Gambling corrupts the culture, polluting everything it touches. Recent scandals in college basketball are proof positive that gambling is not a problem limited to casinos and horse tracks. Ominously, industry executives see great promise in the development of on-line gambling over the Internet, bringing gambling to every computer terminal and overcoming state regulation.