Feinstein will endorse D.C. vouchers

[jos]

This DLC cretin stabbed her party in the back by supporting D.C. school vouchers. Barring a fillibuster, she may have handed the right-wingers a big win. Why she is so "popular" in supposedly progressive California is beyond me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22782-2003Sep3.html

[Le Taz Hot]

1. I know Carlos is going to jump in and disagree with me here

but her rightward turn has only happened since the Bush* cabal has taken over. She's obviously been taking orders from the DLC. Not that she's ever been what I consider liberal, but, up until the last 2-1/2 years, she hasn't been quite THIS bad.

She's going to face some serious challenges in 2006 from the base and from the Greens. "Conventional wisdom" says she's a shoe-in, but if the Dems manage to run a progressive candidate against her in the primaries, someone who would be acceptable by the Greens, she's in BIG trouble.

My personal favorite to challenge her seat is Maxine Waters. (Enter Carlos telling me that "white people will never vote for Maxine.")

[jiacinto]

2. Maxine Waters can't win a statewide race in California

No one is going to vote for "The Black Woman from Watts". I hate to say in those terms, but that is how most voters are going to see Waters.

Feinstein won by 2,000,000 votes in 2000. I don't think she has anything to worry about unless she really screws up or gets involved in a horrible scandal of some sort.

[BuddhaGirl]

3. so, it's okay for you to refer to Maxine Waters

as "The Black Woman from Watts," yet you have a conniption and scream anti-semitism if anyone refers to Joe Lieberman as "Holy Joe"??

Give me a break :puke:

[JI7]

5. i think

i think he means that's how others will view her and that's why he believes they wont vote for her. i'm sure it's not his own opinion and he himself would vote for her if he lived in california and if she was the democratic nominee. don't you think i t's a fair point to mention the prejudice people may have ? although he could have said so in a different way.

[Walt Starr]

12. I noticed that double standard too

:shrug:

[jiacinto]

55. I put in quotes

That means that I didn't refer to her like that, but that's how voters will see her.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

62. I think the poster was referring to what others call Waters

not using the term herself.

However, most people here use "Holy Joe" without quotemarks, and it is a nickname they are personally using to describe him, rather than quoting what someone else calls him or can be expected to call him. Just my two sense.

[Le Taz Hot]

6. Well, Carlos, I have a completely different perspective.

First, I'm a 48-year resident of California so I think I have a better inside track than reading demographic tables from 2000 miles away.

Second, "no one" is a pretty all-inclusive word. Care to reconsider? Maxine would bring in a considerable number of Angelinos, minorities, women and liberals (Democrat and Green). Add them up and they spell MAJORITY.

Feinstein won by 2 mil in 2000, but MANY things have changed since then, including:
1) The Howard Dean grass-roots phenomenon that is getting traditionally non- or weak voters back into the process.
2) Feinstein's own right-wing actions. She voted to go to war, she voted for the Patriot Act, she voted for Homeland Security, she voted for the bankruptcy bill -- all Democratically weak positions (as many DLC presidential candidates are now finding out).
3) Thanks to the recall effort and Bustamonte throwing his hat into the ring, we are seeing RECORD NUMBERS of Latino voter registrations coming in. I believe Maxine, with her LONG history of Civil Rights activism, pro-worker's rights record, pro-education record, and many other issues, will have a better chance of gaining the oh-so-critical Latino vote here in California.

[nolabels]

10. If ever Excomunication was needed for the Democratic Party .........

this person is a prime example. I would even indorse term limits if it would get her out and not put even more rich elites and sniveling lap dogs in the place.

This person is so far on the other side of the political spectrum that she probably rates higher than a few repubs from other states in the eyes of the neo-cons. When Clinton left office her cover as a moderate was blown.

I have yet to see one progressive thing that she has supported. This is person is part of the reason people in California get turned off to politics.

Talks a good game sometimes, but her votes show otherwise

[xxqqqzme]

21. I'm w/ you

going 2 Dem function & committee meetings - Feinstein is in trouble. She is a DLC (democratic LOSERS council)and the dlc is fading fast in CA. If a dynamic progressive runs against her in the primary - she will lose! Her support of the war is a very large negative among dems; plus she played undecided on Owens' nomination - that should have been a no-brainer. I should not have to call or write her to support progressive issues. Another dem that has abandoned her base! If there is a progressive challenger, I'll work 4 that person.

[thebeaglehaslanded]

28. Don't forget that she also voted to investigate Clinton

when impeachment talk began. I'm embarrassed that she's my senator, and I will work for any reasonable Democrat who chooses to oppose her reelection. Feinstein and Joe are birds of a feather.

[jiacinto]

56. You said you were a radical in another thread

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the voters aren't as "radical" as you are?

[salin]

13. Funny, in my five years in California

I never heard her refered to in that way. :shrug:

[Forkboy]

34. And another negative comment to black people

[Cha]

4. Go Maxine! A Woman for all the People!

[Le Taz Hot]

7. I truly love this woman

she appeals to my radical, activist soul, she does. And I would LOVE to get a chance to work for her campaign, unfortunately, I'm not anywhere near her district. However . . . if she challenges Feinstein for her Sentate seat (probably won't happen), I'll be FIRST in line to volunteer.

[Cha]

25. Great! I love her, too! And have only just come to know Maxine..

through the 2000 selection! But she was always out there standing up for what was right and getting shot down by the amoral, greedy, derelicks.

[Atlant]

9. I must need better sunscreen!

> Enter Carlos telling me that "white people will never vote for Maxine."

If it's true that white people wouldn't vote for her, then I must need
better sunscreen! I guess this "Judgement Day SPF-1,000,000" stuff just
isn't doing it!

Atlant

[aquart]

53. My sister in San Diego would. So would her husband.

They have really white-stay-out-of-the-sun-or-burn-so-bad-you-go-to-the-emergency-room skin.

[Laughing Mirror]

8. as a product of the DC public school system

i would like to know where are all the wonderful private schools that children armed with vouchers are supposed to go

in my old neighborhood in SE DC, a trip to a good private school in NW required getting up at 5:30 in the morning and making at least two transfers on buses that were never running on time to get there

[PurityOfEssence]

11. I'm sure Jesus will provide

That IS what all this is about, lest we forget.

[bleedingheart]

15. good question

what private schools in washington are affordable to everyone and will take anyone??? remember private schools have a right to be exclusive...

[realFedUp]

19. you should tell us more about the DC schools

Wonder how those DC private school dwellers will
feel about this?

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Then you should have no problem with this bill

Since absolutley no one will take advantage of it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. If you fund it, they will come

The DC public schools stink to high heaven (or hell, which is more appropriate), so the voucher idea provides poor people with a chance to get out. If there is funding, trust me, there will be schools.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. The Frumpenstein Monster strikes again

Blankly staring from dazzled patrician eyes, she valiantly strides to the fore to commit another act of forthright imbecility.

Let's just destroy all public education so the po' will have no choice but parochial and other primitive mind control "school substitutes".

[wryter2000]

16. Arrrggghhh!

Over on the Estrada thread I said I might take back my pledge never to vote for her again. The pledge is back on. She sucks!

[rucky]

17. Here's Feinstein's Reasoning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26038-2003Jul21.html

...I believe that education is a local issue and that if the mayor wants this program, it should be given the chance to work.

The program would provide scholarships up to $7,500 to pay for tuition, fees and transportation to any private school in the District. These scholarships would go to children whose parents earn less than 185 percent of the poverty level ($34,040 for a family of four), and priority would be given to students in the worst schools. My understanding is that a lottery would determine admission when there are more youngsters applying to a school than spaces available.

This program is part of a larger effort to dramatically improve the District's education system, including a $13 million effort to improve student achievement and teaching at public schools and a $13 million grant program to renovate the District's charter school program....

According to the most recent census, the District spends $10,852 per student annually -- the third highest level of per-pupil spending in the nation -- yet test scores lag far behind. In the most recent math and reading assessments administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress:

• Seventy-six percent of D.C. fourth-graders performed below grade level in math, and only 10 percent read proficiently.

• Seventy-seven percent of eighth-graders performed below grade level in math, and only 12 percent were proficient in reading.

Based on the substantial amount of money pumped into the schools and the resultant test scores, I do not believe that money alone is going to solve the problem. This is why I believe the District should be allowed to try this pilot -- particularly for the sake of its low-income students.
(end snip)

I can't really argue with too much of this. The schools are failing, and money isn't solving the problem. It is a pilot program, which will succeed or fail on its own merits. The Mayor should be the one calling the shots over his own district.

AND the package is not only about vouchers - it appears that $26 million in funding for public schools is attached to the bill. I'm sure that this funding is being held "hostage" by the republican-controlled congress.

[Eloriel]

18. I can't get past her first sentence

...I believe that education is a local issue and that if the mayor wants this program, it should be given the chance to work.


And *I* believe that if a policy is wrong, if it weakens public education, if it leaves children behind, then said mayor ought to be told to get a grip or get out of town.

This absolutely, 100% does it for me re Feinstein. Waaaaay too many straws on that camel's back.

Eloriel

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. You have to wonder why a solidly Democratic city like DC wants vouchers

The Mayor, most of the City Council, and the School Board are Democrats. They are not right-wing extreamists. Perhaps are they are tired of a system which is clearly not working.

[wellst0nev0ter]

30. I Wonder

If Fienstein and other voucher hustlers understand that the "high per-pupil spending" is the direct result of expensive federally mandated yet unfunded special-ed programs that are more prevalent in districts like Washington D.C.?

Naaah. . .

(Fun with facts: in 1989, per pupil spending for special-ed students nationally was $8,630 while per pupil spending for regular students was $3,752. Total enrollment in puplic schools fell by 6 percent in the previous decade while special education enrollment ballooned to 20 percent during the same time. At that time, 30 percent of all monies appropriated for education went to special education students, which represented 12 percent of the student population.)

[dolstein]

23. God forbid the government should give money to poor people

I don't get it. DU'ers screamed bloody murder over welfare reform. Here's a program that would give millions of dollars worth of vouchers to DC's poorest families in order to give them the same opportunity to choose between public and private schools that wealthier families already enjoy.

I am well aware of the criticisms of voucher programs. But these criticisms seem to be addresses here: the vouchers go only to poor families, no discriminatory schools can participate in the program, children are assigned to schools by lotter and not cherry picked, and no resources are being diverted from the public schools (to the contary, public school funding will actually increase). Besides, it's just a short-term exeriment, not a permamnent program. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, we scrap it.

I'm sure that Republicans are supporting this for the wrong reasons, but that shouldn't mean that Democrats need to ignore all the "right" reasons for supporting this. Democrats used to stand for equal opportunity and innovative social programs. But we seem increasingly wedded to the educational status quo.

[goobergunch]

26. link for public school funding increase?

I don't have time to dig through the whole D.C. appropriations bill...

[dolstein]

27. It's there in the Washington Post article

Here's the relevant portion:

<<The votes this week would pave the way for a five-year program providing federal grants of as much as $7,500 per student to subsidize private school tuition for at least 2,000 low-income children in the District. The Senate measure, unlike the $15 million House bill, also provides about $26 million in additional funding for the District's public schools, including charter schools.>>

So the Senate bill would provide $15 million in new funds for vouchers, but on top of that would provide an additional $26 million in funding for the public schools. Looks like a win-win situation to me.

[jos]

29. Win-win for whom?

For the folks in the Cato Institute, that's who. It's the old foot in the door, an effort to privatize public education. Those who claim the compromise is worth it typify the type of inside the beltway mentality within the Democratic Party that has brought it to its current state.

[dolstein]

35. Your post represents left-wing interest group politics at its worst

Oh come on. What is SO BAD about giving 2000 poor families the opportunity to send their kids to private schools they otherwise couldn't afford, especially when it's paired with a funding increase for public schools of $26 million?

Are you honestly saying that you'd rather the public schools be $26 million poorer, and that these children remain trapped in a schools their parents don't like simply to deprive the Cato Institute of a political victory? Goodness gracious, that's pathetic.

All this time I thought the Democratic Party stood for increasing the opportunities available to the poorest of our citizens, and increased funding for public schools. The senate bill would do both. But damnit, the teachers unions don't like it, so we won't do it. What a wonderful message to send to families in the Distrct.

[w4rma]

39. Solution: Properly fund the public school system

It's really that simple. Grade school corporatisation was a waste of money in Texas and it'll be a waste of money in D.C.

Give the public school system enough money to work with and it'll do fine.

[dolstein]

44. This INCREASES public school funding

You seem to be against increasing public school funding if, in order to get that increased funding, you also have to allow some of the poorest families in DC to send their kids to private schools they couldn't otherwise afford. I don't get it. Why should you object so strongly to allowing poor kids to go to the same private schools that kids from wealthier families go to, especially when the public schools will get more money to.

[jos]

43. Your post represents DLC politics at its worst

Bash the unions. Link arms with the far right Cato Institute. Move towards privatization. Blur the line between church and state.

I'm for all for redistributing wealth. If you want to increase the earned income tax credit, or institute an outright negative income tax, fine. But if you want to buy into the right-wing privatization agenda, never. Your thinking represents 1990s, Republican-lite Democrats. Compromise core principles. Just the type of thinking the party's base is in revolt against.

[dolstein]

46. How is spending more money on the poor AND the public schools bad

Please explain to me why Democrats should oppose increased spending for both the public schools and the poor.

Sorry, I don't get it.

[jos]

31. Are you reading from a DLC talking points sheet?

Or from the Cato Institute's?

Instead of seeking to improve the public schools, vouchers are an effort to privatize them. Despite what the Supreme Court may say, money going to religious schools blows another hole in the wall of separation between church and state.

Why am I not surprised that a Lieberman supporter would be in favor of this? I hope Dianne and Bob Kerrey join Joe's team. They deserve each other.

[dolstein]

36. The senate bill would INCREASE funding for DC public schools

How many times to I have to repeat this? $26 million more for public schools. $15 million for vouchers. 2000 poor kids get the opportunity to attend private schools they otherwise couldn't afford. Those who remain in the public schools get the benefit of additional funding.

Are you saying you'd rather do without the extra money for publc schools and leave poor families with fewer options just to deprive the Cato Institute of a political victory?

[jos]

42. No

I'd rather see $41 million go to the public schools.

[dolstein]

45. I'd like to win the lottery -- that's not going to happen either

Sorry, but $41 million isn't an option, not in a Republican controlled Congress. Why are you afraid to address the real choice here? The real choice is between increased public school funding plus vouchers and no increase in public school funding and no vouchers. Do you honestly believe the second option is preferable? Please tell me who benefits from that?

[jos]

47. I know you DLCers don't like to hear it

But there is such a thing as standing on principle. I would not compromise on my opposition to vouchers.

[dolstein]

48. So basically you're saying screw the poor and screw the students

Basically, you'd rather keep two thousand of the poorest families in DC from having the same educational opportunities available to wealthier families, PLUS keep the DC schools from getting an infusion of $26 million, all for what? Just to hand the Cato Institute a political defeat?

Sorry, but I fail to see how that's a principled decision. This bill isn't anti-public schools. It INCREASES public school funding by $26 million. This bill isn't anti-poor. It gives $7,500 private school scholarships to 2000 of the poorest schoolchildren in DC. Nobody is being forced to go to private schools. But today, many poor families who'd rather send their kids to private schools are being forced, through economic circumstance, to remain in public schools. I want to increase the opportunities available to poor families. This bill would make public schools better, by providing $26 million in additoinal funding. But it would increase the opportunities available to poor families by allowing more to send their children to private schools. I don't see how anyone loses.

[jos]

49. A trojan horse

There should be no compromise on opposition to vouchers.

[wellst0nev0ter]

32. Sick And Tired Of Missionaries of ANY Label

Telling the people of DC what's good for them. 76 percent of D.C. voters (which includes 85 percent of D.C. blacks) overwhelmingly rejected the vouchers boondoggle. Yet self-righteous politicians are dead set in using them as guinea pigs for a yet-to-be proven educational alternative that ultimately transfers wealth from the tax payers to the private schools.

The Black Commentator has more.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Another option

Would be a viable public school system. But D.C. has tried that for decades and has failed at every turn. Maybe the private sector isn't perfect, but it can't possibly do any worse.

[SidDithers]

57. The private sector worked so well for the energy industry.... nt.

Sid

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Energy still flows

Which is better than the DC school system is doing with education.

[wellst0nev0ter]

59. Great

Then we can relabel students as "clients" :eyes:

[jos]

60. No

Customers :eyes:

[dolstein]

37. These same voters elected a mayor who supports the program

So the issue isn't as clear cut as you think. Besides, this money is coming out of the federal budget. Only a tiny portion of that money is coming from DC taxpayers. It's a huge gift from the federal government -- $26 million in increased public school funding, $15 million in vouchers for poor families.

Sorry, I still don't see the problem.

[AP]

38. vouchers give poor people a miniscule benefit in this generation

and cause a TON of damage in the next generation.

Here's EXACTLY what will happen with vouchers. People will get money to spend on a private education. Private education costs will creep up over the next couple of years because that's what always happens to the prices of private goods when the purchase of those goods are subsidized with public money without there being public limitations on the prices the sellers can charge. Over time, public education will be destroyed and then disappear. Once private education is all that's left, everyone will have to pay for it or go without education. How does that help poor people in 5 years or 10 years. So you help one generation of poor kids, and you totally fuck over their little brothers and sisters and then their nieces and nephews, and then their own kids. That's great for the poor people, huh?

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. One generation

Well, a lot of parents can't afford to look 20 years down the road. They have kids who are in school NOW. And, if those kids are in the D.C. school system, they want them out -- fast.

[AP]

41. What about those kids' little brothers and sisters and their

children.

The miniscule benefit they get in this generation will pale in comparison to the huge costs of the voucher system beginning in about 5 years.

This is about one thing: profits for the private sector. You know why nobody talks about actually investing in public schools? Becaue there's no short term profit in it for the private sector.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Minuscule

The D.C. schools flat out are failing to educate the children. Sending kids off to a private school where they can learn and, as an added bonus, find some safety and discipline, is a good thing.

That will give you time to fix the public schools. In the meantime, let the poor have the same opportunity the rich have to save their children.

[jos]

51. "Let the poor have the same opportunity as the rich"

How come right-wingers only use that line when it comes to trying to privatize the public schools? On every other issue, they'd cry "class warfare" if that line was used.

[dolstein]

52. So your saying that we should deny the poor the same

educational opportunities as the rich because the Republicans are hypocrites?

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. I resent that

I don't give a damn what argument the right uses. Try LIVING in D.C. without the cash to send kids to a nice rich preppy school like all the politicians -- of BOTH parties -- do.

The government has shown they can't fix the D.C. school system. That means they need to provide other options.

[fortyfeetunder]

58. Take DC voucher discussion to GDF

I really would like to discuss the voucher issue in DC -- started a new thread in General Discussion...see you there!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=117&topic_id=680