A New Party?

A NEW PARTY?

The two current political parties -- Republican and Democrat -- have allowed themselves to become part of a system that seduces them into supporting special privilege, access, and power to people who can afford to “pay to play”.  Neither party is able to break this cycle.  In fact, the use of foreign funds for election campaigns, of lobbyist funds for junkets and parties, of PAC funds to win close electoral races, of inside information that enables some to prosper, and of a revolving door that sets some up with cushy jobs after their terms are over -- all of these maneuverings have negatively affected our system of government.  It stinks, and everyone knows it, but they are unable - or unwilling - to do anything about it.  The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, allowing corporate entities to overwhelm our elections process with third party ads, has essentially put a stamp of approval on this destruction of our democracy. 

Unless something drastic is done, we will never see a change in this mess.  Something drastic must be the advent of either a new political party, or a coordinated Movement, that will harness some of the upset and anger of the Tea Party movement and merge it with the outrage of the Union Protests in Wisconsin.  Can it be done?  Who knows, but it’s worth a try.

What might be the platform of such a party?  I offer the following elements as a starting point:

1)    Amendments to the Constitution:  in order to change the basic structure of our system
--Term Limits for Congress and the Courts
--Balanced Budget,  line-item veto, and 2/3s vote for raising taxes
--Disallow all corporate entities from contributing to campaigns; only small contributions and fed. Funds allowed; maximums imposed on every race and on individual contribution amounts
--No more earmarks
--Disallow funds as emoluments or gifts from lobbyists to legislators 
--5-year restriction on former government employee lobbying or consultation
--Disallow congressional rules that require other than majority vote on legislation or procedures
--Congress may not exempt itself from laws it legislates
--Ordinary citizens shall be involved in auditing and oversight of all governmental entities
--Add petition by the people as a way to have Congress call a constitutional convention. 
--Involve ordinary citizens in non-political commissions to re-structure districts based on population.

2)    The primary focus of this new Party must be on the branch of Government most neglected by our system: the People of The United States in whose name the Constitution was established in the first place, and about whose rights the first Ten Amendments clearly speak.  Amendment X particularly speaks of the people as having powers not already delegated to other governmental entities. Amendment XIV extends the people’s power in that no State may abridge the privileges or immunity of citizens; may not deprive any person of life, liberty or property and demands due process and equal protection be available to all citizens.  Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI protect the right of citizens to vote.

    Although the constitution refers to the people in the context of governmental branches, it does not set forth a specific check that they have as an entity on the other branches.  For that reason, constitutional amendments are necessary to allow citizens to serve inside all areas of government.  Once that is done, legislation can be used to define and expand the role of citizen advocates/representatives.

    This new party must not allow the government of the people, by the people, for the people to perish.  Therefore, this Party must advocate for the right of citizens to be on the inside of governing.  They must be EVERYWHERE their tax dollars are being spent.  Every government-supported or contracted entity must have ordinary citizens involved in their operations in some way: as advisors, as auditors, as members of boards, commissions, committees, etc.    The time has come for this “representative democracy” to expand its representation so that ordinary citizens are advocating for other citizens at every level of  government.
    Thus, the name of this new Party ought to be something like:  “The Peoples’ Party” or “Citizens’ Party.”

3)    This new party must concentrate its efforts on attacking the current locus of power and corruption that is capturing our lawmakers, dismantling governmental protections for ordinary people, and taking over the management of our government entities through their use of corrupt monetary power.   The right wing radicals have unfortunately thrown a veil over this center of power, and blamed government rather than the barons of Wall Street, Multi-national corporations, and financial entities, for the scary economy that we find at present.  They are wrong-headed and their bamboozling of the people is contemptible. 

    Let’s be clear:   since about 1980, there has been a Plan afoot to make the rich richer; to take over political power so that this could happen.  It started quietly in 1980, when the administration of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush “began a massive decades-long transfer of national wealth to the rich.” (Roger Hodge, The Mendacity of Hope ).  It is incredible that right-wing Republicans have tried to convince us that government has engineered a massive transfer of wealth to middle and poorer classes through programs that address human needs, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Health Care Reform. As with too much of the rhetoric of the far right, this is hogwash.  The flow of wealth is entirely toward the rich.

    Consider points made by Bill Moyers in an article titled: “The Rule of the Rich”:
    A)--between 2001 and 2008, about 40,000 US manufacturing plants have closed, and six million factory jobs have disappeared over the past 12 years, representing more than one in three manufacturing jobs.  The free market at work?  No, wage repression at work!
    B)--since 1980, while the economy continued to grow for most of that time, the average income for 90% of all Americans increased by just $303 in 28 years.  A small percentage at the top level -- maybe 2% -- benefited handsomely, and continue to do so in hard economic times.
    C)--that fraction at the top earns more than the bottom 120 million Americans; by 2007, the wealthiest 10% were taking in 50% of the national income;
    D)--while sales fall, and lay-offs continue, profits in big corporations are rising, and there is a profit accumulation that is obscene in many cases.  As the chief economist at Bank of America told the NY Times: “There’s no question that there is an income shift going on in the economy.  Companies are squeezing their labor costs to build profits.”
    E)--an article in a recent Wall Street Journal described how the super-rich earn their fortunes: with overseas labor, selling to overseas consumers, and managing financial transactions that have little to do with the rest of America.
    F)--the rich have formed their own financial culture increasingly separated from the fate of the rest of us.  Little wonder “that so many of them are hostile to paying more taxes to support the (ever-crumbling) infrastructure and the social programs that help the majority of American people.”
    G)--all of this is the outcome of thirty years of policy decisions about tax law, industry and trade, and military spending; policy decisions  paid for by the 1-2% who used their vastly increased wealth to assure that government -- under Republicans and Democrats alike -- did their bidding.
    H)--the ratification of this plan came in Jan. 2010 when the Supreme Court in Citizens United ruled that corporations are equivalent to “persons” who have the right to speak out during elections by using their wealth to purchase political ads.  Our government and our elections have been bought off by a Plutocracy, which is the rule of the rich; political power controlled by the wealthy: the privileged few who make sure that the rich get richer and that the government helps them in that Plan and Mission (could also be described as an Oligarchy).

    This newly proposed party of the People (or Coalition of Progressives) must never be taken in by the Plutocrats.  Power and privilege never give up anything without a struggle, and a People’s Party must be willing to enjoin that struggle.  More thoughts next time…

Assault on the Middle Class: TAX LOOPHOLES

I spoke in an earlier Blog about the important legislative initiatives that President Obama should take to frame the debate with Republicans and Tea Party members.  Unfortunately, the President has allowed the debate about cutting government spending to be framed by those who have already railroaded him into extending tax cuts for the richest 1-2%, and who now want to debate how much should be cut from the modest 12% of discretionary funding in the federal budget, and from entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that most affect the middle class and the poor. 

It appears that the President has chosen not to frame the debate in a direction that would call attention to the favoritism shown by Congress to the rich and powerful.  This is totally regrettable.  In my opinion, he should be relentless in pointing out that two wars in the Middle East favor private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater who have taken advantage of those conflicts to reap millions, if not billions, of dollars in contractual profits.  He should be concentrating on the fact that rich corporations, banks, and brokerage firms have stolen money from the American taxpayer, and that no one has gone to jail or even been charged with crimes against the people (where’s his Justice Department?) -- talk about waste, fraud and abuse…!  He could also be talking more about how rich corporations are holding their massive profits hostage, not wanting to spend for jobs and new equipment because their profits have soared.  Is the President “dithering” while the middle classes are being consumed in the inferno created by the right-wing radicals? 

There is no greater fraud and waste in government than the loopholes and incentives built into the U.S. Tax Code.  It is time to examine some of them, and to demand that they be excised or modified to give everyone a fair shake, and to prevent the ability of a privileged few from escaping the full payment of their tax obligations.  What an opportune time -- TAX TIME -- to frame the debate differently, and to point a finger where it belongs.

According to an article on FiscalTimes.com, the USA has one of the top corporate tax rates in the world: 35%.  However, the actual amount in corporate taxes that the government collects (“the effective tax rate”) is lower than those of Germany, Canada, Japan and China, among others.  Those loopholes will cost the U.S. government an estimated $628.6 billion over the next five years, according to a 2010 report from the Tax Foundation.  Here’s what that Fiscal Times article says are some of the major loopholes for corporations to quietly wriggle through while the rest of us make up the lost tax revenue:

1)    Inventory Property Sales
    Foreign income of American companies is taxed in the country in which it is generated, and the U.S. gives a tax credit for that amount in order to avoid double taxation. Some companies have accumulated a glut of such tax credits (the “inventory”), and in order to use them up, they artificially boost foreign income through a “title passage rule” that allows companies to allocate 50 percent of income from U.S. production sold in another country as income generated by that foreign country (the “property sales”).

2)    Graduated Corporate Income
    This policy places the first $50,000 of a corporation’s profit at a 15 percent tax rate, with higher profit levels garnering higher tax rates, until it tops out at 35 percent for taxable corporate income exceeding $335,000. The result is that an owner of a small corporation pays only 15 percent in taxes on the first $50,000 of profit, leaving more left over potentially for reinvestment and growth. So what do larger corporations do?  Of course: they divide up their company into smaller entities that can qualify for this tax break!

3)    Research and Experimentation Tax Credit
    Intended to spur research and development within companies, in its simplest form this break allows for a 20 percent tax credit for “qualified research expenses.” There are more complex applications, as well. Detractors complain that it is paying corporations to do research they would have done anyway.

4)    Deferred Taxes for Financial Firms on Certain Income Earned Overseas
    Because most financial firms conduct their foreign operations as branches rather than as subsidiaries, as most companies in other industries do, they do not benefit from the tax breaks afforded to foreign subsidiaries. To compensate, this loophole enables financial firms to treat income from their foreign branches as if they were subsidiaries, along with all of the attendant tax benefits.

5)   Alcohol Fuel Credit
    This is a tax credit for the production of alcohol-based fuel, most commonly ethanol, which is made from corn. The credit ranges from $0.39 to $0.60 per gallon. In theory, the credit is meant to encourage alternative forms of energy to imported oil. It is largely responsible for propping up the price of corn, and is extremely popular in corn-producing states like Iowa and Illinois, primarily benefiting food and agricultural conglomerates in these areas. 

6)    Accelerated Depreciation of Machinery and Equipment
    This one allows companies (airlines & manufacturers using large equipment) to deduct for all of the depreciation of a piece of equipment at once (as opposed to over the, say, 20 years it actually takes the item to depreciate). This is the equivalent of the U.S. government giving the company an up-front, interest-free loan. Congress recently made this expenditure temporarily even larger for 2011, to encourage investment in equipment.

7)    Deduction for Domestic Manufacturing
    This loophole enables a tax deduction for manufacturing activities conducted by American companies within the United States. It covers conventional manufacturers, but also extends to industries like software development and film production. The intent is to keep manufacturing from being outsourced.

8)    Deferral of Income from Controlled Foreign Corporations
    Multinational companies can defer paying U.S. income taxes until they transfer overseas profits back to the United States, under this law. In practice, many companies leave much of their profits overseas indefinitely, thus paying only the tax in the relevant foreign country, which is likely far lower than the U.S. rate, and avoiding U.S. taxes permanently. The list of corporations enlisting this loophole is seemingly endless, and the estimated 5-yr Cost to Government is $172.1 billion.

The article goes on to assert:
America's corporate tax rate is 35 percent.  But 115 companies on the S&P 500 pay less than 20 percent in taxes, according to a study by the Capital IQ and The New York Times. That's not even counting 37 companies like Citigroup and AIG that received more in tax credits than they paid.  All this thanks to loopholes in the immensely complicated tax code.
Business Insider tracked down the data from Capital IQ (2005-2009 aggregate data) to identify some of the large corporations that pay less than 5 percent in taxes:

#15 Boeing Co. (BA)
Pre-tax income: $17,587 million
Taxes paid: $796 million
Tax rate: 4.46%

#14 Amazon.com (AMZN)
Pre-tax income: $3,512 million
Taxes paid: $152 million
Tax rate: 4.33%

#13 Broadcom Corp. (BRCM)
Pre-tax income: $1,228 million
Taxes paid: $41 million
Tax rate: 3.32%

#12 Host Hotels & Resorts Inc. (HST)
Pre-tax income: $1,116 million
Taxes paid: $34 million
Tax rate: 3.05%

#11 NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG)
Pre-tax income: $5,343 million
Taxes paid: $154 million
Tax rate: 2.88%

#10 TECO Energy, Inc. (TE)
Pre-tax income: $1,620 million
Taxes paid: $37 million
Tax rate: 2.31%

#9 Allegheny Energy Inc. (AYE)
Pre-tax income: $2,538 million
Taxes paid: $58 million
Tax rate: 2.28%

#8 NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA)
Pre-tax income: $1,817 million
Taxes paid: $41 million
Tax rate: 2.24%

#7 Xcel Energy (XEL)
Pre-tax income: $4,334 million
Taxes paid: $77 million
Tax rate: 1.78%

#6 NextEra Energy, Inc. (XEL)
Pre-tax income: $8,572 million
Taxes paid: $149 million
Tax rate: 1.74%

#5 Plum Creek Timber Co. Inc. (PCL)
Pre-tax income: $1,355 million
Taxes paid: $22 million
Tax rate: 1.62%

#4 Western Digital Corp. (WDC)
Pre-tax income: $2,507 million
Taxes paid: $40 million
Tax rate: 1.6%

#3 HCP, Inc. (HCP)
Pre-tax income: $614 million
Taxes paid: $9 million
Tax rate: 1.42%

#2 Carnival Corporation (CCL)
Pre-tax income: $11,250 million
Taxes paid: $126 million
Tax rate: 1.12%

#1 Range Resource Corporation (RRC)
Pre-tax income: $1,228 million
Taxes paid: $7 million
Tax rate: 0.53%

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that these corporate entities must be treated as individual citizens in terms of (political) free speech rights, isn’t it incumbent upon them to act in a responsible manner in terms of paying their taxes like other individual citizens?  It’s time to “call them out”, and to demand that they all pay a minimum tax of at least 20-25% on their profits!  And, to prevent them from passing that extra burden on to the consumer, there must be stringent laws with huge penalties (like 33% of profits) to prevent that from happening!  Because they are able to reduce their tax burdens to less than 5%, they force upon the rest of us the extra burden of paying for their less-than-fair share.  That’s right middle-class America -- YOU are paying not only inflated rates for their services and products, but for most of their tax burden in order for YOUR government to operate. 

YOU are being thoroughly bamboozled by these corporate entities mainly because you not only allow them to avoid paying their taxes, but because you allow them and their cronies (lobbyists, law firms, congress people, and media) to convince you that our fiscal problems mainly result from entitlements and social programs that benefit the middle classes and the disadvantaged.  YOU are paying for their neglect, their cronyism, their  profits and their robbery from the public purse.  Their stealthy stealing is  immensely increasing your personal and governmental debts. 

It is time to stand up against the rich corporations that neglect their public duty; we just can’t afford to take it anymore!

FOREIGN AID PRINCIPLES and PRIORITIES

Let us come back to foreign aid.  Ron Paul may be right in one respect about foreign aid: it does deserve our criticism, but not our abandonment!  After all, abandonment of foreign aid would be an undue restriction placed on the constitutional powers granted to the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy: to make Treaties, to appoint ambassadors, to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers.  Taking away that executive power would only serve to enhance the power of Congress in the realm of foreign policy; and we don’t need a contentious Congress trying to decide by Committee deliberation, where, and for what reason, to place a particular piece of foreign aid.

As I said two blogs ago: “We desperately need a new set of priorities for how foreign aid is to be utilized, a well-defined set of goals and objectives, and a system of measurable outcomes that can be evaluated to ensure that our money is being used to enrich others around the globe rather than to exploit them. 

If we’re going to have a set of new priorities, we first have to define our principles on which to base those priorities.  I suggest the following as a beginning for discussion:

1)    Foreign aid shall be distributed primarily to enhance the human rights, dignity, freedom, and well-being (health, education, social services, income, etc.) of individuals and communities throughout the world;
2)    Foreign aid shall not be given to any dictatorial regime that restricts the rights and freedoms of its people, unless:
    a)  measurable actions toward the granting of those freedoms and rights are set forth in a written Plan of Action 
    b)  the benchmarks or measures are met on an annual or 2- year timetable  
    c)  those action steps or outcomes are evaluated every year, or two years, by a group drawn from the UN, the World Court, the Red Cross/Red Crescent, global Human Rights groups, and the US Congress.
    d)  current and future aid shall be based on the report and recommendations of the Evaluating Commission; except that no aid  shall be continued or granted if the country is found to be less than 75% in compliance with its Agreement/Plan.
    e)  in the case of the up-to 25% of actions found to be out of compliance, a new agreement shall incorporate new targets and steps toward compliance, in order to receive continued funding; however, further non-compliance after the first two years shall result in a comparable percentage of aid reduction.
3)    In no case shall U.S. foreign aid be used to enhance the military might of another nation unless:
    a)  that nation is assisting the U.S. in a declared war against a mutual foe;
    b)  such aid will enable that nation to defend itself against outside aggression or internal terrorism; 
    c)  such aid will be used in a mutually defined effort to defeat the forces of terrorism.
    However, all such exceptional military aid as defined here shall be allocated according to specific measurable written guidelines contained within an annual or two-year Agreement which shall be evaluated by representatives of global organizations dedicated to the promotion of peace and prosperity for all nations.  The non-compliance rate found in such evaluation shall result in an immediate comparable percentage reduction in aid.  
    Any use of U.S. military aid to suppress, oppress, or harm a country’s own populace shall be immediately terminated.
4)    No foreign aid shall be loaned, granted, allotted, or given to any country or national entity until:
    a) a signed and approved application has been submitted to the Department designating the general aims, purposes, and intended outcomes for that aid;
    b)  a detailed Agreement/Plan is submitted to the Department defining the exact, agreed-upon purposes, objectives, and measurable outcomes expected for the said aid;
    c)  an effective distribution system is approved and a strict accounting method is in place for the use of said money;
    d)  a detailed plan for evaluation of all designated outcomes is included in the Agreement/Plan 
5)    All taxpayer dollars loaned, granted, allotted, or given to a foreign country or national entity shall be reported on an annual basis to the American people  in a readily accessible and discernible format, especially through electronic means.  All new grants or allotments shall be reported on a monthly basis. All such reports will specify:
    a)  the amount(s) granted and to whom;
    b)  the purposes and reasons for the grant;
    c)  the goals and objectives defined for the recipient country;
    d)  any evaluations or recommendations received for continuation or denial;
    e)  any criticisms submitted by other countries or reputable organizations;
    f)  decisions for continued funding or denial

Other points for discussion and resolution might include:
1)    There must be a national foreign assistance strategy put in place that encompasses the principles, purposes, and objectives for our foreign aid programs.  Part of that national strategy must be the designation of one agency responsible for the coordination of all foreign assistance.  The State Department seems the most likely candidate for this so that all diplomacy and foreign aid can be coordinated, and given equal standing with defense and internal programs.  However, the idea of a separate cabinet-level Department of International Development is also worth considering.
2)    The purpose of every allocation of foreign aid must be made clear so that diplomatic (strategic) use is not confused with development objectives.
3)    Along the lines proposed by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, there should be a permanent Quadrennial Review of diplomacy, of foreign policy, and of  international development efforts carried out under our foreign aid.  The Report of this Review should be made easily accessible to all people.

I do not pretend to have all the answers on distribution of foreign aid.  Far from it.  In fact, I think the Obama Administration has done an admirable job in defining the goals and objectives (their Categories and Sectors) of current foreign assistance.  What is lacking is the strategy for using those Goals and Objectives in determining who shall receive aid, and the use of measurable outcomes, and their intense evaluation, to ensure that the purposes, goals, and objectives are actually met by every entity seeking and receiving our aid.

I do contend that those leaders, like Ron Paul, who criticize without offering detailed analysis or detailed plans for improvements or alternatives, are lacking in depth and in leadership qualities.  There are no easy answers to the dilemmas, conundrums, mistakes,  or problems created by our foreign policy or our foreign aid programs.  However, abandonment of foreign aid is a terrible idea.  Positive reform and remedies are much more difficult, and require a persistence and tenacity that seem sorely lacking in many of our current “leaders”.  Let us hope that the mere musings of a Senior Citizen are not the only result of the Egyptian “revolution” and of Ron Paul’s simplistic criticisms.

Does Egypt’s Revolution Teach us Anything About Foreign Policy?

Let us hope that the Egyptian Revolution puts us all on a path to better governing and governance!  Let us hope -- no, let us resolve -- that their victory for human rights can be our victory as well.   We Americans, from the perspective of  a very young (representative) democracy, must be willing to have an ancient civilization teach us something vital: that the very basic yearning for freedom, liberty and justice is not limited to a small group of people, but exists everywhere, in all peoples.  It is not our right, nor our responsibility, to “spread democracy”.  It is, rather, our responsibility to support the yearnings, the dreams, the aspirations of others toward democratic ideals that should guide our foreign relations and our foreign aid.

Egypt may have taught us some other very important lessons.  One, that human contact and relationships are vital to our relations with other groups.  It can probably never be determined or revealed how important was the contact between our military personnel and their counterparts in Egypt.  That contact was built on mutual ties of education, trust, goodwill, and common ground that were forged in our military schools.  We need to use the idea of common ground to forge more such relationships with other countries through education and training around common goals; and not just in the military.   The support of education and training in other cultures, the support of mutual education and training within this country; the support of person-to-person mutual learning and teaching - as through the PEACE CORPS -- is absolutely vital to our national interest and to the aspirations of others in other countries. 

Second, the propping-up of military and other kinds of dictatorships, is not a good way to use our taxpayer dollars.  The billions that Hosni Mubarak and his family accumulated for themselves out of our foreign aid, and what it could buy for them, is ludicrous.  More specifically, the use of foreign aid to dictators for the express purpose of buying our armaments and weapons for their own use is a travesty.  We are the leading purveyor of arms to other countries.  That must stop because we cannot “buy” the allegiance or the loyalty of dictatorships and expect that it will serve us in the long run.  It will, instead, put us in the bind in which the Obama Administration found itself ; namely, when a dictator is challenged by his or her own people, we have grave difficulty deciding who to support: the people, or the dictator who has served our bought interests for a number of years.  We must free ourselves from that conundrum, and change our approach to supporting dictators, once and for all.  Oh yes, and just so we don’t forget:  the American arms bought by dictators, and given to dictators, have ended up helping to oppress their people, especially when the people decide they have had enough and then rebel.  “Order” is then the key word, and order is restored by repressing the people with the tanks and guns and who knows what (tear gas canisters!) that we Americans supplied through foreign aid.

Third, this Egyptian Revolution may not succeed.  And why not?  Because there is no recognized leader amongst the people ready to lead.  Because there is a “culture” of bribery for getting things done simply because people need to enhance their dismal pay with bribes.  Because there is a forced absence of democratic institutions and practice (like a free press), of voluntarism and organizing, of alliances and coalitions -- all focused on helping neighbors; on the well-being of the community; on the rights of each and of all.  You can’t have a democracy - or democratic practices - without the attitudes and ideals that support that way of thinking and acting. 

Our foreign aid must be attuned to those needs, and must find a way to encourage people in all lands toward a democratic mind-set and a democratic approach to solving and resolving problems; indeed, a way of living.  How do we do that?  I don’t know exactly.  I can only say it has something to do with the principles of community organizing: the very strategies that have been so denigrated and attacked (remember ACORN?)  by a certain group in this country.  It is a tragedy that we ourselves have allowed the rights and aspirations of the poor, the homeless, the poorly trained and educated, even of children and the elderly, to be restricted, held down, trod upon and unfunded.  What are some of those community organization principles and programs?  Advocacy for oneself and for each other; formation of coalitions and grassroots organizations; community linkages (networking); voter training; job training; child-care provision and early intervention and education; in-home parent support and training; access to legal aid;  nutrition and adequate meals; mutual aid; home maintenance -- it goes on and on because there is always something more that one can do for oneself and for/with the community.

Let us come back to foreign aid.  Ron Paul may be right in some respects about foreign aid: it does deserve our criticism, but not our abandonment!  After all, abandonment of foreign aid would be an undue restriction placed on the constitutional powers granted to the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy: to make Treaties, to appoint ambassadors, to receive ambassadors and other public Ministers.  And taking away that executive power would only serve to enhance the power of Congress in the realm of foreign policy:  and we don’t need a contentious Congress trying to decide by Committee deliberation, where, and for what reason, to place a particular piece of foreign aid.

With this small detour, we shall look next time at some principles and practices that might guide our foreign aid.

FOREIGN AID: Eliminate or Re-structure?

Ron Paul,  Libertarian Republican Congressman from Texas, wants to eliminate all foreign aid.  In light of the situation in Egypt, one can understand a reaction to the $1.5 billion annual request in foreign aid to Egypt (and to other Middle Eastern countries in varying amounts), but Paul’s over-reaction is typical of politicians blinded by their ideologies to the larger realities of the wide world.  Can we not count on our Congressional leadership for more thoughtful and intelligent leadership?  Probably not.  Strangely enough, this attitude harks back to the proposals of a certain staunch conservative (some called him worse), named Jesse Helms who proposed in 1995 that the Agency for International Development be replaced with a foundation that would channel foreign aid for education, health and agriculture through grants to companies and nonprofit groups.

This is not to say that Dr. Paul doesn’t make any sense.  His is not the only critic of our foreign aid policies, and of the process by which our largesse is distributed. Many independent “watch-dog” groups have said that our foreign aid:

Props up dictators and provides opportunities for them to line their own pockets;
Often does not get to the people who need it because of corruption in the distribution system;
Finds its way back to this country through contracts with U.S. corporations;
Reduces free trade by forcing recipient countries to buy U.S. goods and services;
Too often involves the financial and political interests of the current Administration;
Rewards political and military partners rather than advancing humanitarian causes ;
Is used as a political weapon for the US to make other nations do things “our way”;
Promotes aggression and war through sale of military weapons or transfer of cash that can be used to buy weapons;
Since 9/11, has been cast too frequently in terms of “contributing to the war on terrorism” as the top foreign aid priority.

Let’s first put “foreign aid” in perspective.  In FY 2009, the Bush Administration’s foreign aid request for the Department of State and USAID, equaled $39.5 billion.  Although we do not have the  Obama Administration’s budget figures for 2011, there will probably be some cuts in aid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps lowering this figure by a few billion dollars.  What is important to understand is that the total foreign affairs budget in the FY 2010 federal budget was just 1.7% of the total budget for operating the federal government (according to a Forbes article).  This percentage may be even less under the FY2011 budget being proposed by the Obama administration.  For anyone serious about reducing the deficit, it is doubtful that foreign aid is the most productive place to start. 

The United States leads all developed nations in the total amount of foreign aid given to other nations (probably because the USA is the richest nation and this figure encompasses all foreign aid, including private sector contributions!).  However, the USA is rated the 21st stingiest of 22 developed countries in terms of the percentage of governmental foreign aid given in relation to its GNP.  Denmark is actually on top in that latter category, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the USA manages just .17%.  Not only is the USA the second stingiest in proportion to its GDP, but the largest portion of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share.  

Unlike Ron Paul’s simplistic analysis, let us realize that “foreign aid” is a very complicated subject, involving different sources of aid and various reasons for the aid in the first place.  Generally, different types of foreign aid support different objectives. 

The Clinton Administration emphasized the promotion of “sustainable development” as a new post-Cold War strategy for the programs under the aegis of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), centered around six inter-related goals: broad-based economic growth; development of democratic systems; stabilization of world population and protection of human health; management of the environment; building human capacity through education & training; meeting humanitarian needs.

Early in the G.W. Bush Administration, these goals were modified around three “strategic pillars”  of 1) economic growth, agriculture & trade; 2) global health; and 3) democracy, conflict prevention, and humanitarian assistance.

Under the Obama Administration, foreign assistance is divided into 35 “sectors” under seven categories, which are: 1) Peace and Security; 2) Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance; 3) Health; 4) Education and Social Services; 5) Economic Development; 6) Environment; 7) Humanitarian Assistance.

More than $58 billion per year goes to foreign assistance through more than 20 federal agencies; roughly $38 billion of that is managed by the USAID and the State Department within the just-described categories.   However, Americans have always given beyond their taxes to support humanitarian causes throughout the world.  It is estimated that private American charitable donations equal about $250 billion each year; 75% of that coming from individuals (corporations are particularly poor philanthropists). 

And, what about that other $20 billion that doesn’t go through the State Department or USAID?   The USA also provides assistance to friends and allies to help them acquire US military equipment and training (about 23% of total US foreign aid).  Foreign Military Financing  (FMF) is a grant program that enables governments to receive US military equipment or to access equipment directly through US commercial channels (most FMF funds support the security needs of Israel and Egypt: F-16 Jet fighters, Apache attack helicopters, and other equipment, like the teargas canisters used against the peaceful demonstrators in the Fahrir Square in Cairo--made right in the good old USA).  Peacekeeping funds are also used to support voluntary non-UN operations and training, especially for the Afghan army.

The total US commitment to international health, particularly HIV/AIDs programs, is somewhat larger than that run through USAID and the State Department when budgets for domestic “non-foreign aid” agencies (like HHS and Labor) are included.  The same is true of Economic Support Fund grants, much of which target countries of importance in the war on terrorism.  ESF funds can be used as cash transfers to help stabilize economies or to service foreign debt.  Let’s not forget that a relatively small 8% of total US foreign assistance is combined with contributions from other donor nations to finance multi-lateral development projects through such international organizations like UNICEF, the UN Development Program and the World Bank.  In addition, there are programs related to foreign affairs that go through the budgets of several other federal agencies, including Agriculture, Energy, HHS, Commerce, Homeland Security, and even Interior.

Conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers demand cut-backs in spending, but because they never target specifics, their generalized cut-talk borders on irresponsibility, and on ideology-based rather than reality-based information.  Once again, a little perspective is helpful: the federal government invested $100 billion (TARP funds in 2008) in Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo in order to prop up the US financial sector, but spends half that on foreign aid. 

So what am I calling for?  Well, in my opinion, the Ron Pauls of this world are on the wrong track!  We don’t need elimination of foreign aid; we need a new way of looking at it and of providing it, because:

--We are too politically-motivated  about who receives our aid, often having to fit or adjust our own goals and objectives for political ends.
----People of other countries are driven to hate us for economic aggression, hypocrisy, and power-mongering through our aid programs.
--We think “money is power” and that commercialism trumps morality.
--We are trying to buy the loyalty, morality, commerce, style of government and fealty of other countries.
--We are perhaps the loudest self-congratulators of our own largesse; we claim goodness because we are generous.
--Our motives are often not seen as charitable but as manipulative; we are not trusted.
--We think our way is best; know little about the rest of the world, and think that our “exceptionalism” means that other countries are not “in the same league.”

These attitudes are not serving us well.  They taint our true humanitarianism and the caring attitudes of our people.  Foreign aid should be an expression of our recognition that the world is not alien; it is our larger community and we do have a basic responsibility for it’s well-being.

We desperately need a new set of priorities for how foreign aid is to be utilized, a well-defined set of goals and objectives, and a system of measurable outcomes that can be evaluated to ensure that our money is being  used to enrich others around the globe and not to exploit them. 

More on this next time.

REPUBLICANS MUST BE CHALLENGED

Now that Republicans have administered a “shellacking,”  President Obama needs to compromise where he can, but most of all, he must start sending bills like the following in quick succession, to challenge Republicans to vote yes or no.  Obama cannot play defense; he cannot simply be reactive to Republican proposals.  He must play offense; he must challenge Republicans on as many important issues as possible or he will face an even stronger GOP in 2012.

+ Substantial Jobs bill with infra-structure repair included; use funds from a pay cut for Congresspersons and others cuts (see below) in Congress’s perks
+ Across-the-board budget cuts by 5%, including all departments, even DoD
+ Balanced budget Amendment including line item veto (build on Oct., 1982; Jan. 1997; Feb. & July 2005)
+ Income Tax reform bill  closing major loopholes favoring the rich and large corporations
+ Health Care Reform  amendments: proposing reforms and including limited Republican concepts: tort reform and across state-line availability.  But also allow Medicare to negotiate drug costs; and make Medicare available to more people
+ Clean energy bill with incentives for alternative sources and reduction of  loopholes/incentives for Big Oil: include one or two Republican ideas
+ ”Sunset” legislation: all programs must have an end date certain
+ Reform of Congress‘s budget: challenge Congress to cut and end certain programs:  Chaplains, limos & drivers, end offices of attending Physicians in both houses (use naval & army doctors to improve VA system instead), end junkets, abolish Office of Former Speakers (and offices of Party Leaders), curb the franking privilege, cut all travel budgets by 30%, cut personal staff, printing. 
+Education reform bill: to force Republicans to deal with the overall Purpose and Mission of public education
+Omnibus Budget bill:  it must be used, not just as a budget bill, but as a platform for forcing Republicans to “put up or shut up”.  It must be strategic in the way money is allocated; it must be political as well as policy-making; it must force change that people can see and feel. 

The President must beat Republicans to the punch; propose some of their ideas before they can get their act together.  But, for every compromise this involves, challenge Republicans to a choice, one of which shows them to be major hypocrites.  Every time Republicans propose discretionary program cuts that will hurt the poor or middle class, counter with an equivalent cut of Congress’ budget

McConnell’s prime objective is to turn the President out of office.  There is no compromise with that kind of attack.  The President must attack Republicans at every turn, and back them into a corner.  It would help to form an attack group (through the DNC) and have them out there attacking everything Republicans try to do, all the time, unrelentingly.  Use surrogates to make the attacks.  The President should stay somewhat above the daily fray, compromising by offering Republican ideas before they do, but making them look bad by getting them to vote against the people and their own conservative principles.  He cannot stay out of it entirely; he has to be the spokesman for Democratic ideals and principles, but he should use the bully pulpit when necessary and appropriate, and when it will pay dividends for him and others in his Party.

Get busy Democrats, and stop letting Republicans set the public agenda!

A Belated “Thank You” (In Jest?)

This is meant to be a belated (facetious) “thank you” to the overwhelming numbers of Independents and Seniors who helped elect the substantial number of Republican/Conservative/Tea Party candidates to the House and the Senate.  You have enabled us to “take back” our failing government and to set this country on its proper course toward smaller and less interventionist government.  And, to think it was so easy to do (especially with all that money that flowed into the Party’s coffers, and that “soft” (often outsider) money that ended up in districts where we needed a bit of help defeating those nasty Democrats).

You have become, perhaps unwittingly, part of a Master Plan to revolutionize this country’s government, and more especially its economy.  This Master Plan has been worked on for years now, going all the way back to that American hero, Ronald Reagan.  It was tested in several countries before being unleashed here with a vengeance during George W’s wonderful tenure.  Some of those countries were in South America, others in the Middle East, and still others in Africa, but perhaps most determinately, in Iraq.

One of the basic requirements for realizing this Master Plan is some sort of shock to a country’s operating systems, through which people’s fears can be exploited.  In this country, some shocks that could qualify would be: 9/11; Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Hurricane Katrina; the BP oil spill; attempted terrorist attacks like the Christmas bomber.  All of these probably had some effect upon your vote because all have been exploited, not necessarily to get you to vote one way or another, but to raise your fears about government intervention, and government inadequacy, and to help the economy along at the same time by building up large businesses and consulting firms around each of these events and their aftermath.

By now you might be asking: what is this Master Plan?  Good question; it deserves an answer. That answer goes all the way back to the New Deal under FDR’s administration, in the sense that this Master Plan is essentially a counter-revolution to all that comprised the New Deal, especially government control of the economy, the restrictions placed on corporations, and the re-distribution of wealth  through corporate taxes and workers’ salaries.  What was needed was a return to a pre-New Deal form of capitalism even less regulated than before the Depression.  The single-minded message was that with the New Deal everything went wrong; the country got off on the wrong track.  To get back what had been lost, a book titled Capitalism and Freedom became the global free-market rulebook, and would eventually form the economic agenda for the neo-conservative movement so evident in the Reagan and Bush years.

The book, by Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago’s Economics Department, laid out a Master Plan for that needed return to economic (capitalistic) freedom.  It is well-summarized in the book, The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein:

“First, governments must remove all rules and regulations standing in the way of the accumulation of profits.  Second, they should sell off any assets they own that corporations could be running at a profit.  And third,  they should dramatically cut back funding of social programs.  Within the three-part formula of deregulation, privatization and cutbacks, Friedman had plenty of specifics.  Taxes, when they must exist, should be low, and rich and poor should be taxed at the same flat rate.  Corporations should be free to sell their products anywhere in the world, , and governments should make no effort to protect local industries or local ownership.  All prices, including the price of labor, should be determined by the market.  There should be no minimum wage.  For privatization, Friedman offered up health care, the post office, education, retirement pensions, even national parks…. Friedman’s vision coincided precisely with the interests of large multinationals, which by nature hunger for vast new unregulated markets…. Friedman’s war on the “welfare state” and ‘big government” held out the promise of a new font of rapid riches-- only this time, rather than conquering new territory, the state itself would be the new frontier, its public services and assets auctioned off for far less than they were worth.”

If any of this sounds vaguely familiar, it is because this is exactly the Plan that holds sway amongst the newly elected conservative Republicans and Tea Party congresspersons to “take back” our government and to enrich the economic standing of our multinational corporations.  And, dear Independent and Senior Citizen, YOU helped make it happen by your votes.  Thanks again.
And by the way, your votes have done something that is precedent-setting for these United States: not only are the multinational corporations a virtual fourth branch of government (as the New York Times asserted), but they are now the government itself, represented by the majority of millionaires in the legislative branch and the  Supreme Court (the Executive branch has been run by millionaires for decades); the Court that recently gave the corporations carte blanch in terms of funding our elections.  Not only that, but the facile transfer of billions more of taxpayer money into the hands of the large corporations, and large “consulting firms,” through lucrative non-competitive contracts with few if any restrictions, is now assured.

Thus, the diversionary propaganda of WMD in Iraq, of socialism in the Executive branch, of government takeover of health care, of  tax increases if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, of the harm to small businesses if the tax cuts are not made permanent, of the transfer of taxpayer money to the welfare state are all a part of the bamboozling of the electorate to draw attention away from what is actually happening: the control of government by the rich, the enriching of multinationals, the contracting of government services to the very men and women who are actually running the government (or were recently in power).
 
Independents and Seniors: YOU have helped all this to happen, and we cannot thank you enough.  Who would have thought that it would be this easy to enact our Master Plan and to take control of the very entity that will enhance and protect our profits.  Thanks to you the New Deal and the welfare state are on their last legs.  We will not let you down; our goal is clear.

WE ARE NOW A “PLUTOCRACY”

YOU DON’T GET IT, if you don’t realize that our Federal Government can no longer be fairly characterized as a “representative democracy”.  After this last election, we now have what can only be characterized as a “Plutocracy“: control of government by the wealthy.  The Presidency has long been controlled by millionaires, the Supreme Court is made up mostly of millionaires and now our Legislative branch is in the hands of the wealthy; they have seized legislative power.  Probably over 50% of the new 112th Congress will be millionaires (counting all their assets, not just what they must disclose), members of  the 1% in this country who can claim that distinction.  Everything the new Congress does will be based to a significant degree on that fact.

And YOU thought you were voting for change?  That’s exactly what you’ll get: the small CHANGE that’s left over after they take their cut!  The first act of the new Congress will be to try to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on a permanent basis; the second act will be to take away what little the middle class can count on by cutting discretionary programs, including the new health care reform benefits; the third act will be an attempt to privatize Social Security and Medicare; the final act will be to get rid of all regulations that restrict or control large corporations, and you will again be the fall guy who pays for their excesses. 

In this last election,large percentages of Independents and Seniors helped make this situation happen by voting against their own best interests.  Now, we can all sit back and watch our resources slowly dwindle as the Plutocrats funnel government tax cuts, incentives and contracts to their wealthy partners.  At the same time, we’ll be left to enjoy inflation, stagnation, and health care denigration as our own assets become the fodder for the Plutocratic “revolution”.  The old depression era slogan may become ours again: “Brother, can you spare a dime?”

And to think Independents and Seniors largely voted for these Plutocrats because you thought they would “reform” our government by taking it back for “US”.  How wrong can you be?  They took it back all right, but not for the 98% of us who are below - way below in most cases - the income level of $250,000 per year.  As you pay your taxes this year, think about numerous large houses of gigantic proportions, of luxury cars, of yachts, of lavish parties, of trips abroad, of luxurious clothes and sparkling diamonds, housekeepers and gardeners and much, much more.  Not yours -- theirs!  You will be sending your tax dollars to the care of these Plutocrats who will surely spend it in the pursuit of all these accoutrements.  (Oh sure, there are some who are relatively good public servants touting their concern for the middle classes, but why do we still have homelessness, poverty, inadequate care for returning soldiers, inadequate public schools, home foreclosures, high unemployment, health care costs that bankrupt many, right along with the highest profits and largest bonuses for the big corporations, insurance companies, wall street brokers?  Because those “good” public servants still know on which side their bread is buttered!). 

Finally, don’t be misled by the (largely) Republican cover story that the tax cuts for the 2% should be made permanent because this number includes small business owners and job creators!  As Pearlstein of the Washington Post put it:  “This is simply hogwash, as a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office concluded.  For starters, the job-creating prowess of small business is largely a political myth - particularly so in the recent downturn in which small businesses have accounted for a disproportionate share of the job losses.  More significantly, any firm that has taxable profits of over $1 million is unlikely to be a struggling small business so starved for cash that a modest increase in tax rates would prevent or discourage it from hiring a profit-producing new employee.”  And the same goes for the “job creators” -- the millionaires who run larger firms: they are not going to resist hiring and job creation if it adds to their bottom line!  Besides, a substantial number of the 1% of millionaires and billionaires are no longer in the job-creating sector: they make their millions through investments (like Warren Buffett0. 

So, stop being bamboozled by rhetoric.  The wealthy are in charge.  The voters put them there and now will have to pay for their own voter folly!  Our government has been taken back; BUT not by the average citizen.  It is now totally in the hands of millionaires - Plutocrats - who have little in-depth regard for the needs of the vast 98% of us.  Old Ben Franklin must be spinning in his grave: he thought we could have a representative democracy of shopkeepers and farmers and printers, and artisans and deep thinkers.  Because of our lack of vigilance, and our reluctance to change the current election system, we have created a plutocratic monster that no longer resembles Ben’s dream.  Pray to God we haven’t lost it forever!

One Man’s Initial Attempt to Define the Purpose of Public Education

We have spoken of the need to reach back beyond the rhetoric about public education in this country to ask “What is the Purpose of Public Education?”  We have also mentioned the necessity of emphasis on teaching and learning as two critical parts of educating.  In addition, we have mentioned the importance of the involvement of more citizens in this process, with schools becoming centers of lifelong dynamic learning.  Without further ado, let me introduce what could, at the very least, be a basis for discussion of a general Purpose for our public education system:

“To involve an entire community of learners (administrators, teachers, students, parents, volunteers and other interested citizens) in the teaching of traditional and foundational curricula (history, English, mathematics, science, language, art, technology); at the same time drawing out experiential learnings  and discovering talents, concepts, beliefs, values and facts (some that may have been lost, concealed, suppressed or forgotten) in order to produce responsible and accomplished individuals, informed citizens, critical and independent thinkers, lifetime learners, cultural literates, world-class workers and competitors,  and compassionate human beings willing to advocate for the welfare of the human family.”

If we had such a common Purpose for all public education, what could we reasonably propose as strategies for accomplishing such a purpose?

First:  we would have to hope that States and local school boards would be encouraged to set goals and strategies based on such a Purpose for their local systems, according to what each could reasonably accomplish, and fund!
Second: it would make sense to emphasize the community nature of teaching/learning by involving each teacher-learner in the development of an Individual Education Plan (with input from fellow teacher-learners) that would serve as the basis for a commitment to lifelong learning and discovery.
Third:  work on development of public and chartered specialized centers of teaching/learning that will provide a wide variety of school choice for students and parents; in fact, student-learners might even attend different schools for specified periods of time, depending on his or her individual goals and needs;
Fourth:   develop teaching and learning centers that will be beehives of citizen activity for the community, involving parents, mentors, volunteers and community “teachers” who will provide actual examples of experience, skill and talent as “experience teachers”;
Fifth:   bring teacher-learners to the community and the community to the teacher-learners so that all persons involved will become concerned citizens.  This must be expanded to on-the-job training, internships; learning about work places; plus having workers and executives involved in sharing expertise and personal experience with the teacher-learners.
Sixth:  involve “students” in teaching other teacher-learners;  everyone must be seen as having something to offer others; this is where self-esteem is built.  We all have a stake in teaching and learning; “dropping out” of school must be seen as a loss not only to the individual, but to all of society, particularly to the teaching/learning community. 

What would a new teaching/learning paradigm class look like?
First: it might be in a schoolroom, but just as likely in a community setting like a museum, business, religious center, library, college, park, conference center, all depending on the learning that is being sought.
Second: there will be ergonomic furniture that is adaptable to various configurations, depending on the mode of teaching or learning that is involved;
Third: there will be more people in the room than just students and teachers: mentors, tutors, aides, learning supervisors, parents, and guests might be interacting with each other and with students
Fourth:  lecturing or Socratic questioning will be used only when either can contribute to learning; methods of imparting knowledge or drawing out learnings will vary, and the lead facilitator (formerly known as “teacher”)  will bear responsibility for developing a team methodology and input that will lead to group as well as individual learning based on IEPs.
Fifth:  learning will be a mutual endeavor:  all will be teachers and all will be learners; therefore communications between others in the room will reflect this mutual endeavor: it may be noisy (requiring sound-deadening material in walls and ceilings).
Sixth: there may be diverse stations or learning kiosks throughout the room, so that research and teamwork, and special projects may be done in a particular space; some learners may be out of the classroom in other areas (library, media room, computer room, etc), and, in order to build personal responsibility and integrity, there will be no passes needed; however, there will be a responsibility to the classroom community to sign-out or sign-in just to learn to use time responsibly and to determine where people are in case they are needed.  But let’s get rid of forced dependence and conformity; we need responsible independence and inner integrity to dictate actions.
Seven:  testing and grading are always difficult concepts to change, but change they must.  In a teaching/learning community, testing must be based on IEPs, not on a standard set by someone outside the teacher-learner.  Grading must be a community exercise: teacher-learners must grade themselves based on their own IEP and their own goals; then the community teacher-learners need to give their input based on how they see the progress being made.  IEPs then need to be adjusted to reflect whatever changes, advances, goals and challenges are needed.
Eighth:  bullying from anyone toward anyone else cannot be tolerated; it is a destructive denial of the importance and uniqueness of each member of the teaching/learning community;   
Ninth: in case it is still unrecognized from all of this, let me emphasize that such a Purpose changes almost everything; especially current ways of doing education because it calls for new attitudes and questioning of established ideas and concepts.  Indeed, I can’t even begin to list all of the changes that might potentially happen if such a Purpose were to be adopted nation-wide!

Searching for an Educational Purpose Statement

 

We have spoken of the need to reach back beyond the rhetoric about public education in this country to ask “What is the Purpose of Public Education?” A similar concern is expressed by Walt Kelly who wrote  “Common Sense, A New Conversation About Public Education” to focus public attention on what he believed to be a crisis in our society:

“Is the operating purpose of public education today still a workable premise?  We are caught in a flurry of tactics and never question the premise.  What is the purpose of public education today?  Almost all of the education reforms that the experts propose have some merit.  Yet our public education is still failing our children and our society because today’s purpose of public education is outdated.
The educational model of today evolved with the Industrial Revolution and was designed to produce a new kind of worker: patriotic, civic minded, and obedient to authority.  It is demonstrably not working.  What’s more, it cannot work again in the future.  The entire context for learning is radically different than it was in the 1830’s when our current purpose for public education was born.  We cannot solve this crisis with remedial actions based upon our old map of reality.  We must develop a new and national purpose of public education…that would again produce schools that offer hope and opportunity to their children and communities.”

What follows is one man’s attempt to find the elements that might inform such a Purpose.

From an article titled “School: the story of Public Education in America” on PBS.org, we find a beginning statement of some goals that have been held over time for public education:

To prepare children for citizenship
To cultivate a skilled workforce
To teach cultural literacy
To prepare students for college
To help students become critical thinkers
To help students compete in a global marketplace

In my humble opinion, these various goals make an assumption which may be part of the problem with public education:  all of them assume that students can only be taught.  There seems to be no part for the student to take in his/her own education or learning.  That, it seems to me, is a problem; a problem that needs to be addressed as part of any purpose for public education.  A student writer expressed it this way:
“The heart of the problem is something much more fundamental – that is, the roles of students and teachers. The common belief seems to be that schools should be like a factory. The teachers are the workers, and the students are the products. Ideally students are supposed to sit down, shut up, and absorb whatever the teacher pours into their heads. The idea is to produce as many contributing members of society as possible – a noble goal, but a horrendously misguided approach.
Why not create a system where students are partners with teachers in their own education? Where they are not supervised at all times? Where they can have some measure of control over their own education, and the responsibility that comes along with it?  Many students today correctly view education as something that is forced upon them, which is why so many react poorly to it. Were students truly given a stake in their own education, I believe that they would rise to the occasion.
I know firsthand that students are capable of so much more than school expects of us, yet many of us are not capable of what they do expect of us – unquestioning obedience, dependent thinking, and conformity. If we are ever to see any improvements in education, the bar must be set higher, for both student and teacher alike.”

Dictionary definitions of “education” concentrate on a similar process of imparting something: 1)  the process of training and developing the knowledge, mind, character, etc., especially by formal schooling; teaching; training; 2)  knowledge, ability, etc., thus developed; 3)  a) formal schooling at an institution of learning b) a stage of this (a high school education)  4) systematic study of the methods and theories of teaching and learning.  The basis of the word educate is ‘educare’ from the Latin to bring up, rear or train; but ‘educere’ from the Latin also means to lead or draw out or bring out. So apparently there is another process involved in education which is the drawing out or bringing forth of something.  Another definition of educate is to form and develop (one’s taste, etc.).  Possibly, there is more than one process involved in education: teaching or training, and drawing out.

Perhaps, we need to look beyond “education” to the word “learn” or “learning.” One definition is “to get knowledge” by study, experience, instruction, etc.  Another is to come to know (to learn what happened).  For synonyms, the word “ascertain” implies a finding out with certainty or careful inquiry; experimentation; research, etc.; “determine” stresses the intent to establish facts exactly to resolve doubt;  “discovery” implies a finding out by chance, exploration, etc. of something already existing; “unearth” implies a bringing to light of something, by diligent search, that has been concealed, lost, or forgotten.

Have we, in some sense, been bamboozled by the forces in favor of educating children only by “teaching” “instructing” “training” because anything else is too “messy”?  Have we given in to the forces of order, discipline, obedience, conformity and dependence, thereby avoiding the issues involved in also emphasizing self-discipline, constructive criticism and questioning,  non-conformity and independence; in other words, avoiding a balance in our educational system between teaching and learning?  I firmly believe that to be the case.

Thus, in my opinion, we must offer some additions to the purpose listing from PBS, above.

-To encourage, nurture and enhance the natural talents, skills and dispositions of all learners
-To provide the atmosphere in which students can develop their own educational aims and goals with input from internal and external resources
-To develop a milieu in which all in public educators (administrators, teachers and students) are considered learners for a lifetime
-To provide a spectrum of educational choices to every learner so that “schooling” will meet their individual aims and goals

Adding these to the PBS list, we have what amounts to a multi-purpose statement.  On the one hand, we must teach (input, instill, inculcate, etc) the basic building-blocks of our heritage: math, language arts, history, civics, etc. so that our young people can be given the knowledge they need to do all those necessary things for themselves and their country:  prepare for a good job, be a good citizen, become critical thinkers, be able to compete in a global workplace, become culturally literate.  On the other hand, we must learn how to learn and how to make learning the basis for a new paradigm:  drawing out talents and skills, research, experimentation, chance, discovery, lifetime learning, and full participation must all be part of our national education purpose.

Then the question becomes:  Can we do all of this?  And, the answer is: not under the current circumstances; not with the current mindset; not with the current funding formulas; not with the current buildings; not with the current 19th  & 20th century models, methods and materials. And yet, all of those are the obstacles that we keep funding and keep touting and keep tweaking! 

So, with all that in mind, what can we do to bring about a new purpose, a new paradigm, for our public education system?  In our next blog, we will try to define such a purpose with some ideas as to how to  implement that purpose.