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.

TIME TO TALK EDUCATION

With the media beginning to hold forums, and with the Obama administration’s attention to a reform movement called “Race to the Top”, it’s time to turn our attention to one of the most critical public issues that we as a democratic society must face squarely with all the vigor and thoughtful debate that we can muster.  I speak, of course, of an issue that goes to the heart of who we are as informed citizens of a democratic republic: public education.

But we need to start much further back than many politicians or proponents of change and reform seem willing to go.  In my humble opinion, the question of education reform should NOT start with whether the legislation that goes by the laughable nickname of “No Child Left Behind” needs to be amended or discarded, or kept intact.  We need to get much more basic about this particular reform movement. 

We are in deep trouble as to our standing in the education arena.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranked as follows in 2003 in several areas of education:

The U.S. ranks 18th in reading
Finland ranked first, with an average score of 543.

The U.S. ranks 6th in college students aged 20-24 
Slovenia ranks first, with 46.1% of all 20 to 24 year old residents enrolled in college.

The U.S. ranks 28th in three year old students
Belgium ranks first, with 99.6% of all three year old children enrolled in school.

The U.S. ranks 4th in money spent per student on secondary education
Luxembourg ranks first, at $18,144.

The U.S. ranks 8th in expenditure on education
Mexico ranks first with 15.1%.

The U.S. ranks 12th in college faculty to student ratio
Sweden ranks first, with 114.2 teaching staff for every 1,000 college students.

CBS News had some interesting comments on these rankings:

“(AP) The United States is losing ground in education, as peers across the globe zoom by with bigger gains in student achievement and school graduations, a study shows.
Among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree.
By both measures, the United States was first in the world as recently as 20 years ago, said Barry McGaw, director of education for the Paris-based Organization for Cooperation  and Development,  said that the United States remains atop the ‘knowledge economy,’ one that uses information to produce economic benefits. But, he said, ‘education's contribution to that economy is weakening, and you ought to be worrying.’
The report bases its conclusions about achievement mainly on international test scores, and top performers included Finland, Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and Belgium.
Given what the United States spends on education, its relatively low student achievement through high school shows its school system is ‘clearly inefficient,’ McGaw said.
In all levels of education, the United States spends $11,152 per student. That's the second highest amount, behind the $11,334 spent by Switzerland.
The very best schools in the U.S. are extraordinary,‘ McGaw said.
‘But the big concern in the U.S. is the diversity of quality of institutions — and the fact that expectations haven't been set high enough’.”

John Stoessel of ABC News gave us this more recent assessment in January, 2006:

“A recent Gallup Poll survey showed 76 percent of Americans were completely or somewhat satisfied with their kids' public school.  Education reformers like Kevin Chavous have a message for these parents: If you only knew.
Even though people in the suburbs might think their schools are great, Chavous says, ‘They're not. That's the thing and the test scores show that.’
Chavous and many other education professionals say Americans don't know that their public schools, on the whole, just aren't that good. Because without competition, parents don't know what their kids might have had.
And while many people say, ‘We need to spend more money on our schools,’ there actually isn't a link between spending and student achievement.
Jay Greene, author of ‘Education Myths,’ points out that ‘If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better.’
He's absolutely right. National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.
To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey. We didn't pick smart kids to test in Europe and dumb kids in the United States. The American students attend an above-average school in New Jersey, and New Jersey's kids have test scores that are above average for America.
Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them ‘stupid.’

Lov Patel, the boy who got the highest score among the American students, told me, ‘I'm shocked, because it just shows how advanced they are compared to us.’
The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

Chavous, who has worked to get more school choice in Washington, D.C., said,  ‘Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom‘.”

It is not an exaggeration to say, then, that the news about our education system is not good, and is getting worse.  To throw more money at the problems – and call that “reform” - without a thorough analysis and debate would be in some sense a criminal act.

So, where do we begin?  In my opinion, we must decide what the national PURPOSE of public education is in our Country.  I challenge you to try to find any such statement that exists as an overarching statement at this moment.  There is a purpose statement for the Department of Education, but that’s different.  To what end do we have public education?  Why have public education at all?  What reason or reasons are behind our immense system of education in this country?  How can we know what our system requires if we don’t even know why we have it in the first place?

It would help to know what other countries say as to the purpose of their educational systems, especially in those countries that lead in certain categories of comparison.  We also need to hold regional conferences all over this country to give ordinary citizens, teachers, pupils, parents, administrators, etc., an opportunity to develop PURPOSE statements that might be used to feed into a national (White House?) conference which could perhaps develop a national Statement of Purpose, a Mission Statement, plus a set of goals and objectives that could lead us to a real reform of the current system.

Yes, this would take time -- a fair amount of time -- but it’s been done before, particularly as preparation for the White House Conference on Aging held in 1981, and it worked!  Yes, it took a better part of a year to hold all the regional Conferences, but the results were solid, and produced some important recommendations and subsequent legislative enactments that are still benefiting senior citizens. 

We have a choice: keep going along as we are (holding to the status quo in education); throwing money down a dark hole, not knowing for what reason or purpose we are spending that money, and all the time losing the global race to have the best educated citizenry;
OR: we can act deliberatively and deliberately to bring about real reform by deciding, first of all, why we have public education; what it’s outcomes are meant to be; what goals we need to set; what objectives and actions we need to fund to accomplish our educational Purpose and our Mission, and to meet the goals that have been set.

ARE YOU ANGRY ENOUGH TO FORGET WHAT’S IMPORTANT?

Apparently, there is a lot of anger abounding out there.

*  Some are angry about unemployment
*  Some are angry about housing foreclosures
*  Some are angry about government size
*  Some are angry about deficit spending
*  Some are angry about illegal immigration
*  Some are angry about government intervention
*  Many are angry about political party dithering
*  Many are angry about the failures of institutions - both public and private
*  Many are angry at Wall Street and BP
*  Many are angry about government’s inability to solve societal problems and needs:  jobs, poverty, better education, dependence on oil, climate change, etc.

There is nothing wrong with anger in itself.  It is a valid emotion.  What really matters is how we use our anger.  Anger can be the path to destruction, or a stimulus to newness, or something that ends up creating immobilization and inability to act.

Just how angry are you?  Angry enough to jettison all reason, to do something stupid just to make a point, or to get back at the “powers that be”, or to “throw the bums out.”   It’s time to address this question because soon it will be time for elections, and elections are a mechanism for expressing opinions, and needs, and desires.  However, just expressing anger through one’s vote is probably not very useful.  Think about it. 

For instance, are you angry enough to throw out all incumbents?  The real question is: what do you get in their place?  Unfortunately, you immediately get another incumbent!  Someone who may be more power-hungry, greedy, and unresponsive than the last “incumbent”. To vote against someone is not as responsible as voting for someone who demonstrates an ability to make a difference in your life and the life of your community.  We must, above all, take the measure of the abilities of each candidate, and not simply be led to vote for anyone out of anger - yours or theirs.  We must question their views and not just accept slogans and “talking points” and negative campaign techniques.  What does each candidate offer in depth toward the solutions to the problems that affect you the most?  Voting for what you think they might do once in office cannot substitute for making them indicate clearly what they want to do, expect to do, and know that they can do. 

Are you angry enough to vote simply to throw out a particular Party in order to balance and check the power of another party? It rarely works, but often leads to worse inaction and gridlock.  One of the things you must know in order to vote responsibly is to what principles are candidates committed because of their Party affiliation?!!  Why?  Because once in office, those same candidates who ran “against Washington” or “against Albany” or “against the establishment”, are going to become an integral part of that establishment, and their Party leaders will not only be expecting them to adhere to party ideology and principles, but to vote the Party line more often than not. 

The concept of the political “maverick” is pretty much a myth.  John McCain is proving it right now, Scott Brown is not doing much better, and the newly elected Governor of Virginia already has his problems because he expressed some negative aspects of his party’s views.   Politicians have declared their “independence” at times, but remain “team players” even though they may not always vote with their Party.   Watch out when you vote for Party mavericks or independents-- you will get outcomes that you didn’t expect because they will mainly uphold their Party’s principles once in office.  Therefore, be sure of the “brand” for which you are voting:  will they pretty much support Wall Street and breaks for Big Business, or for the Middle class and Labor Union issues?  Will they be supporting privatization of government programs, or programs under government control and administration?  Will they support tax cuts for the richest members of society, or targeted tax cuts and incentives for the middle class?  Will they favor private entities to solve societal problems like poverty or need for jobs, or will they favor government programs to do that?  Will they support war as a major way of solving problems with other nations, or support other less bellicose means like negotiations and alliances?  Check the “brand” carefully before voting. 

And finally, be careful to know who is supporting each candidate.  Where is their financing coming from?  To whom are they beholden?  Who wants their ear for their own ends and not yours?  Who has supported their third party ads?  These are sometimes the most telling questions because the answers are very revealing as to what they will do as office-holders, and whose “agenda” they will support once in office.  Campaign financing is often the “dirty little secret” that tells an unwelcome truth about a candidate: for whom she or he may be the mouthpiece, the puppet, the surrogate.

So, tune out the rhetoric; forget the negative ads; eschew the empty slogans, and use your anger in a constructive way.  Examine the “brand” (party ideology) represented by each candidate; find out what changes they will support in office; make sure to discover who gives them financial support.  Then vote responsibly! 

Meeting Expectations

 

Some people just can’t help themselves.  Richard Hanna is one of them.  He is meeting my expectations just as I thought he would.  That’s right -- Richard Hanna has run a campaign of misdirection and generalities, just as I expected he would!  He has come out in favor of saying “No” to everything that the Republican leadership wishes -- like the extension of unemployment benefits to 2.5 million people while at the same time supported extending tax cuts for the richest 2% (without any indication of how to pay for that extension).  That certainly met my expectations.  Then, of course, I have searched and searched for anything comparable to an actual Hanna plan for reducing spending and supporting jobs for the middle class.  There is none.  I found only vague references to these problems but no specific measures for solving them.  Again, he more than met my expectations.

I more than sympathize with the gentleman who wrote in the Observer-Dispatch-D recently that the voters of this area need to put their faith in the Republican party and its candidates.  I got the distinct impression that this poor man is living in a world that has passed him by -- a world in which moderate and progressive Republicans existed, like Sherwood Boehlert and Jacob Javits.  That brand of Republican is gone, gone, gone, as is their moderate approach to solving the nation’s problems.  The neo-conservatives who came to power with the Reagan administration have effectively destroyed that brand of Republicanism.  So, if you have the same expectations for Richard Hanna that you might have had for a Sherwood Boehlert -- forget it -- it’s not going to happen.  Richard Hanna, as a freshman Congressman, would be beholden to the Republican leadership of the Congress -- radical Right-wingers like John Boehner and Eric Cantor -- for committee assignments, getting bills considered, consideration for his district.  In other words, he would have to go along to get along; unfortunately that means cow-towing to the radical Right.  Hanna knows it, and Voters need to know it too!

If your expectations extend to: improvement of the economy and more job opportunities (not favored treatment for the very banks, wall street firms, insurance companies and businesses that are holding back on creating jobs while their profits increase), new and creative opportunities for Central New York like high-speed rail, reasoned alternative energy and environmental improvements (not the vague improvements touted by Republicans), then you need to vote to re-elect the progressive moderate in this race: Congressman Michael Arcuri, who has already proven that he can deliver all this and more for the people of Central New York, and has even been named “Legislator of the Year” for the bills he has written or co-sponsored.  

CONSERVATIVES and the CHOSEN FEW

 

What is “conservative“?  It depends on whom you ask, but  the New World Dictionary defines it this way: “tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these.”

Just what are they trying to preserve?  What do these conservatives want and is this what most of us want, or is it what will benefit just a chosen few?

Foremost, they apparently want to cut taxes and limit spending.  This may sound familiar because it’s been touted by every Republican administration and Republican-controlled Congress for the last 60 years (and probably longer). 

This is what they really mean by “Cutting Taxes“:
--  cutting the “death tax”, (i.e. the inheritance or estate tax), so that those who are rich can pass on to their heirs what they have garnered without having to pay for it; 
--    cutting the “capital gains” tax, so that the few who make their money through major investments can continue to escape the burden of paying adequately for what they have accumulated for themselves;
--    substantial cutting at the upper level of the “income tax” rates so those who should be paying more can actually get away with spending less;
--    providing “tax loopholes” so that those with substantial incomes can continue not to have to pay their fair share (just ask Warren Buffet, who said one year that he paid less in income taxes than his receptionist!); 
--    granting special “tax incentives” to big and small businesses so that those who want to escape certain costs (labor, health insurance, workers’ comp, etc.) can do so.  All of these incentives are “corporate welfare” from the government so the robber barons can invest more, make more, buy more, charge more -- and in the end can continue to compensate their political benefactors through large campaign contributions.

“Limiting spending” to the Conservatives means several different things as well:
--    limit spending on “social” and “welfare” programs and anything that smells of government lending a helping hand to people they think should make do with what they have or who, they believe, should earn their own way; 
--    Cut “entitlements” so that Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, health care do not have to be supported by the rich (but don’t ever touch over-blown defense contracts!);
--    Say “no” to extending unemployment insurance benefits for millions of people during a major recession (but, at the same time, support extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% without indicating how to pay for it!);
--    Finally, “cut the deficit.”  In fact, in the last 60 years (since Eisenhower), every Republican administration oversaw increased deficits during their time in office!  It seems that they like to spend, spend, spend once they get into office -- not on those they call the “lesser” people, but on the rich and the military-industrial complex where the big money is!  Only President Clinton-- a Democrat-- actually reduced the deficit he inherited!

So, apparently conservatives often mean something quite different than the words they use to solicit your support.  Being a Conservative means keeping things the way they are and opposing real change; keeping a certain class in power and others “in their place“; helping those who are “in the bucks” and barely helping anyone else.  All of it contributes to the maintenance of the status quo which happens to favor  Big Oil, Wall Street, Banks, Insurance Companies and them, not YOU! 

And YOU, Dear Voter, are the greatest asset to those who want no change -- because you keep voting for them thinking they will somehow benefit you!!  It will never happen because that is not who they are or why they exist.  To them, you are a joke: the “lesser people.”  They laugh at you behind your back, because YOU help them maintain all that favors the rich and privileged, and enable them to deny entitlements and protections to deserving citizens.  You have a real choice this fall.  Say NO to going backward to the same old failed, trickle-down, self-serving conservative agenda touted by Republicans and tea partiers -- which does not favor 98% of us!!

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS –the only way to real reform!

It’s time to get serious about amending the Constitution of the United States.  Even the Tea baggers’ “Contract From America” agrees with that to some extent!  And - surprise, surprise - I agree with them, to some extent!  Unfortunately, we probably don’t agree on the wording or intent of the needed amendments.

One of the myths we must get beyond is the idea that the Constitution is sacrosanct.  It’s not and never has been.  Yes, the writers - the founding fathers - did a great job in turning out an instrument that contained unique and even revolutionary concepts.  We should always honor that.  However, we have to admit when the Constitution is inadequate, and it is becoming clear that it is inadequate to speak to some of the issues that have come to the forefront in the 20th and 21st centuries, such as campaign finance, earmarks, balanced budget, use of federal funds, term limits, etc.  All of these, and others, are inadequately addressed in the Constitution as presently constructed.  Instead of hoping for the best, or believing that Congress will legislate campaign reforms that actually threaten their livelihoods, we must take the plunge and begin to propose actual constitutional amendments to deal with these unresolved issues.  A movement (organization) called Common Cause was formed to deal specifically with the  issue of campaign finance.  After 40 years, they have brought little change that can said to be revolutionary, although they have influenced some reforms.  It is not something that can be addressed adequately by piecemeal legislation but must be written into the fabric of our democratic system by an amendment to our Constitution.

Of course, the language I have proposed for each amendment is my own.  It has not been “vetted” by any lawyer, nor has anyone else contributed their ideas.  With that in mind, I concede that some wording may be poorly done for an amendment to our Constitution.  Some wording may also lead to “loopholes” that I did not foresee but which might be taken advantage of by some who are always seeking for a way around the law so they can profit in some manner.  But, in all cases, I have at least made clear my intent through the comments attached to each proposed amendment.

All of my proposed amendments are in CAPITAL letters, and all of my comments are in Italics.  So, let’s get started, and let the chips fall where they may.

Article I, Section 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every THIRD 
second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each 
State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. TERM OF OFFICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  SHALL BE LIMITED TO FOUR FULL TERMS OR A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF TWELVE YEARS.

Comment: three years gives representatives space to work on legislating rather than always raising money and campaigning.  A limit of 4 such terms seems reasonable for the representatives in the “people’s” House.  Let more ordinary citizens have a chance at service; we don’t need “professional” representatives who have had little experience in other fields.

Article I, Section 3
    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.  NO PERSON SHALL BE ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF SENATOR FOR MORE THAN THREE FULL TERMS OR A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF18 YEARS.

Comment: Senators should continue to have longer terms than representatives, because they do generally reflect a more deliberative body, and a more experienced background in the legislative and political process.  Nonetheless, they should not be able to mount a career in politics at the expense, often, of the people.  Eighteen years in the Senate is a reasonable limit and should prevent the kind of stagnation that has often occurred with “Senators for Life”.

AMENDMENT XXVIII:
ALL CAMPAIGNS FOR FEDERAL ELECTIVE OFFICE SHALL BE ENTIRELY FUNDED BY FUNDS DRAWN FROM THE TREASURY IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW, AND BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT MAY NOT BE FUNDED BY ANY CORPORATE OR ORGANIZED ENTITY.  CONGRESS SHALL SET PRUDENT AND REASONABLE LIMITATIONS FOR SUCH GOVERNMENTAL AND INDIVIDUAL     CONTRIBUTIONS, AND SHALL PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR EXPENDITURES ALLOWED FOR EACH CONTESTED OFFICE.  ALL STATE GOVERNMENTS SHALL MAKE SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR    GOVERNMENTAL AND INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN     SUPPORT FOR ALL STATE AND LOCAL ELECTIONS, EXCLUDING CORPORATE OR ORGANIZED CONTRIBUTIONS IN ANY FORM, AND SETTING MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR     EXPENDITURES FOR EACH CONTEST.

Comment: we must limit the control exercised by corporations and unions over our elections; we must also undo the outrageous decision by the Supreme Court to introduce the concept of protected “political speech” rights for corporations and organized groups who already unduly influence our elections.  It is past time to enforce limited government funding and individual citizen contributions in our electoral process.  We must also get rid of the concept of PACs which was simply a way to get around public financing.  Citizenship must be meaningful, and the electoral process is one way in which citizenship is enhanced.  We cannot continue to let organized special-interest entities rob us of our right to fair and just elections.

Article I, Section 5
NEITHER HOUSE SHALL MAKE ANY RULE OR PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR OTHER THAN A MAJORITY VOTE ON LAWS, RULES OF ORDER, PROCEEDINGS, OR PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, EXCEPT AS ALLOWED BY THIS CONSTITUTION.

Comment: the cloture rule, and the Senate provision for filibustering, are abominations; they tie up the legislative process, too often exploit it for political gain,  for personal aggrandizement, or for the killing of legislation that should instead be thoroughly debated and voted up or down by majority vote. It is time to over-throw these ill-conceived rules that give tyrannical rights to a minority.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO PROVISION IN ANY BILL THAT APPROPRIATES FUNDS TO AN INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZED ENTITY, CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OR STATE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF 2/3s OF EACH HOUSE.

Comment: earmarks, and other budgetary maneuverings that seek tax-payer dollars for limited and many non-essential projects in one district or state, are not appropriate without strong support in both houses; support that is equal to the vote needed to over-ride a presidential veto.  We have managed to overlook this perverted pork-barrel process for too long, even though it has brought us to a situation where our dollars are being spent frivolously and with little regard to budgetary debt or deficit.  It has to stop.   

Article I, Section 6
NO SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL, FOR THE DURATION OF FIVE YEARS AFTER LEAVING ELECTIVE OFFICE, BE ALLOWED TO ACCEPT A PAID POSITION WITH, OR BE ALLOWED TO ADVOCATE PARTICULAR LEGISLATION FOR, ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, UNION, OR OTHER ENTITY WITH WHICH THE OFFICE-HOLDER HAD A PRIOR LEGISLATIVE RELATIONSHIP OR MUTUAL AREA OF INTEREST.  THIS RESTRICTION SHALL EXTEND IN FULL TO ALL APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THIS GOVERNMENT.  

Comment: the “revolving door” that professional politicians use to line their pockets after their political careers are over, needs to be controlled. Representatives,or Executive appointees, who take jobs or positions with employers who were previously beholden to them for “helpful” legislation or attention should have to find other means of support for a period of time like any citizen who changes jobs. Special Privileges or Rewards for legislators and bureaucrats after they are rejected by voters, or leave of their own accord, is not appropriate for our representative democracy. 

NO SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE SHALL ACCEPT OR RECEIVE COMPENSATION,     SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, EMOLUMENT, GIFT OR ANY FORM OF CONTRIBUTION FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATION OR SPECIAL INTEREST ENTITY THAT COULD DIRECTLY BENEFIT FROM THE OUTCOME OF PARTICULAR LEGISLATION, OF AN OVERSIGHT FUNCTION, OR OF A COMMITTEE PROCESS.

Comment: it is time to outlaw all contributions to legislators from corporate entities that seek to influence legislation.  No matter how used, it is “dirty” money meant to influence legislation that is favorable to one group or another without regard to the effects on other citizens or groups.  This is a form of privilege, for it gives access to legislators that not all citizens possess.  It must be stopped in its tracks now, or our democratic system will be in serious jeopardy.

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises 
shall be uniform throughout the United States; PROVIDING, THAT ALL NEW TAXES SHALL REQUIRE A 2/3s VOTE OF EACH HOUSE TO BECOME LAW

Comments: the tea party “Contract From America” has a point here, I think.  Taxes are so important to the operations of our government that new taxes should not be levied without strong support in each house.  Taxes are so burdensome now that this is incredibly timely.  Control of this process is long overdue.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.  HOWEVER, CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS THAT EXEMPT CONGRESS OR ITS MEMBERS FROM APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ANY AND ALL SUCH LAWS. 

Comments: the concept of no special privilege for any of our leaders is embedded in our constitution for a very good reason: the founding fathers wanted a more equalitarian system that would not set up privileged classes similar to those that were prevalent in England.  We have to be particularly sensitive to the concept of privilege because we have inherited a system of government that has kept alive the concepts of fairness, of equality, of justice, of freedom for all; often kept alive with the sacrifice of lives and fortunes of patriots and warriors and ordinary citizens.  We must attack privilege-making wherever we suspect its harmful intent.  Congress has no right to set itself up as a privileged few exempt from laws that apply to the rest of the people.

Article I, Section 9

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of  Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the  Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time 
to time,
INCLUDING THE AUDITING OR EVALUATION BY GROUPS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS     APPOINTED JOINTLY BY THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, OF ALL FEDERAL FUNDS CONTRACTED, GRANTED, APPROPRIATED, OR LOANED TO ANY AGENCY, ORGANIZATION, CONTRACTOR, STATE OR COUNTRY.  THE RESULTING ACCOUNTING OF EXPENDITURES SHALL INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OR AGAINST CONTINUED FUNDING.

Comment: In their “Contract From America,” the tea partiers speak of an audit of federal funds.  I agree that we need it, but I take it a lot further, I think, in allowing for an evaluation by an outside group, and by calling for auditing of funds, however they are let out to groups, or countries, along with recommendations for future funding based on the audit.  It is far past time to stop the free handouts, and to demand accountability when federal dollars (taxpayer money) are given out to any entity.  On a personal note, as a former project director of a federally-funded program, I was responsible for how funds (that were meager in comparison with large government contracts) were expended in specific categories, for quarterly reporting of actions taken to meet goals and objectives connected to that money, and for an annual assessment of program progress that was done by a volunteer member Advisory Council; all of which were considered in relation to the next year’s funding.  I resent the fact that there are recipients of much greater sums of federal money who have no such obligation or accountability process.  It’s time that all recipients of citizen taxes had to account for their actions and outcomes or lose their funding.

Article II, Section 1

No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR A NATURALIZED CITIZEN, of the United 
States (at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,) shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible 
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Comments: this is a nation of immigrants, and part of our strength is related to that fact.  Allowing only native-born citizens to hold this office sets up a special privilege that is not appropriate in a nation that prides itself on being a democracy and an example to other nations.

Article III, Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, BUT SHALL NOT SERVE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS

Comments: I find little merit in a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court or to inferior courts.  This is a form of special privilege that does not particularly enhance this branch of government.  Since most justices receive appointment after some experience, either on the bench, or in related occupation, it makes sense that the wisdom of age or experience is not at issue here.  But a justice appointed at say age 60, should be able to influence the Court to some degree in the 20 years allowed here.  In fact, this could be the most valuable 20 years that person has to offer.  New opinions, new views, new experiences, are valuable and should be sought from others once a person has served this many years.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, OR ON PETITION OF AT LEAST ONE-HALF OF THE POPULATION OF THE SEVERAL STATES, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified

Comments: amendment by the Congress and the calling of a constitutional convention by application from the States is provided for, but the calling of such a convention by the people is ignored.  It is time to make provision for this important branch of government to have an equal say in this process, particularly since the average citizen has much more education and political experience and involvement than at any other time in our history.  In fact, many citizens have more ability, life experience, and education than do some of those who claim to represent us in the Congress!