Shine A Light

From the New York Times:

The Obama administration [has] called for a broad overhaul of President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law, proposing to reshape divisive provisions that encouraged instructors to teach to tests, narrowed the curriculum, and labeled one in three American schools as failing. By announcing that he would send his education blueprint to Congress on Monday, President Obama returned to a campaign promise to repair the sprawling federal law, which affects each of the nation’s nearly 100,000 public schools. His plan strikes a careful balance, retaining some key features of the Bush-era law, including its requirement for annual reading and math tests, while proposing far-reaching changes. The administration would replace the law’s pass-fail school grading system with one that would measure individual students’ academic growth and judge schools based not on test scores alone but also on indicators like pupil attendance, graduation rates and learning climate. And while the proposal calls for more vigorous interventions in failing schools, it would also reward top performers and lessen federal interference in tens of thousands of reasonably well-run schools in the middle. In addition, President Obama would replace the law’s requirement that every American child reach proficiency in reading and math, which administration officials have called utopian, with a new national target that could prove equally elusive: that all students should graduate from high school prepared for college and a career. “Under these guidelines, schools that achieve excellence or show real progress will be rewarded,” the president said in his weekly radio address, “and local districts will be encouraged to commit to change in schools that are clearly letting their students down.” Administration officials said their plan would urge the states to achieve the college-ready goal by 2020. …” (There’s much more; please check out the original.)

From TruthDig: Ruth Marcus discusses “The Supreme Court’s Shoddy Scholarship.”

from Beyond Chron, “The Day the Democrats Died” by Paul Hogarth:

Thirteen years ago, I watched in horror as Bill Clinton signed Welfare Repeal a few days before the Democratic Convention – forcing progressives like Tom Hayden to explain on the Convention floor how they would “submerge” their objections so we could re-elect a Democratic President. Yesterday, I watched Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown put on the best spin he could on how Democrats have surrendered to unprincipled extortionists like Joe Lieberman. For months, Brown argued that liberals had compromised enough on health care – and there was no reason why 51-plus Senate Democrats should capitulate to the whims of five conservatives, as polls consistently show a public option to be popular. But with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel bullying the Senate to cut a deal – any deal – just to save face, the pressure proved too much. Those who hoped Obama would use Rahm to strong-arm a liberal agenda were wrong. If the President really cares about “change,” he wouldn’t have his henchman dampen progressive spirits.

Make no mistake about it. The health care “compromise” in the Senate is anything but – and we’re better off killing the bill. Requiring everyone to buy health insurance without a cap on costs is merely a subsidy to private insurance. As Obama said during the campaign, people don’t lack health insurance because they aren’t being forced to buy it. We can stop denials for pre-existing conditions, but without a public option that competes with private insurance the companies will simply raise their premiums. All they care about is obscene profits, and competition keeps them honest.

The public option may not have covered a lot of people, but it was essential at keeping the entire reform package meaningful. Without it, we just have a false bill of goods.

And don’t let politicians get away with saying “we can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.” That doesn’t work when you try negotiating with those who are unreasonable. Joe Lieberman even admitted yesterday that the only reason he sank the “Medicare for 55-year-olds” compromise (after Democrats abandoned the public option) was because liberals started saying good things about it. When you’re dealing with a narcissist Senator whose prime desire is to torture progressives, nobody who gives a damn about good public policy would want to come up with a deal that appeases him.

Conventional wisdom says the Obama Administration is so intent on passing a bill (and terrified that failure will repeat the debacle of 1994) that they don’t really care what is in it. Which is why conservative Democrats who are bought and sold by the insurance industry have had the upper hand. But if success was really the White House’s primary motive, the President had ample opportunities to dispatch his attack dog – Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel – on Blue Dog Democrats. Why didn’t he ever tell them they are holding up an historic opportunity for reform, and enabling Republicans who want Obama to fail?

Instead, Emanuel only got tough on progressives when they fought to salvage reform. Obama has always encouraged the grassroots to put pressure on Congress to pass health care. But when liberal groups targeted obstructionist Blue Dogs, Emanuel slammed them for attacking “other Democrats.” Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman flip-flopped on the Medicare compromise to piss off liberals – but Emanuel didn’t pay him a visit and give him an ultimatum. He instead pressured Harry Reid to cave, because we “must” pass a bill. … But we can’t blame Rahm. Obama hired him as Chief of Staff, and could control him if he wanted to. … If President Obama has allowed Rahm Emanuel to dampen liberal spirits, did he ever have a progressive agenda in the first place? Because I’m starting to get a scary sense of déjà vu from the dark days of the Clinton Era – when a Democratic President had no qualms throwing his most loyal progressives supporters under a bus to appease the Right.