The King County Republicans platform committee had its final pre-convention meeting on Wednesday, and made some changes to the draft platform. The new draft is here (same link as the old draft):
King County 2006 Republican draft platform (1.0 MB pdf)
As I mentioned last week, this is a draft platform, subject to amendment and adoption at tomorrow's county convention. The main changes are the addition of a section on Social Security and the splitting of the Property Right and Environment section into two separate ones. Please have a read through to see the other changes.
Posted by Andy MacDonald at April 28, 2006 04:59 PM | Email ThisWhy bother wasting space with them?
Posted by: lovinusa on April 28, 2006 05:06 PMAs long as our colleges need to provide remedial classes in reading, writing and math, we MUST have SOME proof that our kids not only sat in school for 12 years, but that they also LEARNED something while we there. Otherwise, a high school diploma is worthless.
Frankly, I can't take the WEA's word for it. And guess what? They have remedial classes in Iowa as well, so THAT test certainly isn't the Holy Grail, either.
Posted by: Hinton on April 28, 2006 05:44 PMAlthough I've not been a fan of Patty Murray, I was impressed that she voted, in S. Amendment 3594 to H.R. 4939, to add $1.9 billion to beef up the border patrol.
Yesterday, pollster Scott Rasmussen theorized in RealClearPolitics.com that it's feasible that a third-party candidate can get enough of the electoral votes on the illegal-immigration issue that neither party would win an electoral majority in the next presidentail election. That would be interesting.
Posted by: Boonie on April 28, 2006 07:03 PMI was on the platform committee for Thurston county and worked with Greg and crew in KC to draft the wording for the Shared Parenting addition. We have nearly the same wording in the Thurston Platform.
This is important and we need to educate candidates to be able to speak to it intelligently and understand what is at stake when it comes to keeping families together.
The far left is holding moderate democrats hostage on this issue and we need to make sure candidates (especially in losing races) make the other side pledge to not be held hostage by the likes of Regala, Thibidue and Mcaullife.
The committee hearing this bill was
James Hargrove - Chair (D)
Debbie Regala - Vice Chair (D)
Val Stevens - Ranking Minority Member (R)
Dale Brandland (R)
Mike Carrell (R)
Rosemary McAuliffe (D)
Pat Thibaudeau (D)
Guess which of these bozos came down during the hearing and HUGGED the feminists opposing Shared Parenting?
Even if a Republican loses a race- he/she can force the other candidate to pledge to "fight" for shared parenting...because ONLY the far left opposes it.
Posted by: Andy on April 28, 2006 07:31 PMGuess that makes Murray voting against body armor for the troops.
The opening comments in the education section of the platform says good things about No Child Left Behind, but using a comparative performance test like ITBS instead of a standards-based test like the WASL would make Washington state out of compliance with No Child Left Behind - risking the potential loss as much as over $300 million in annual federal funding. That doesn't seem like a good fiscal outcome.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 29, 2006 02:36 PMAs much as I'd love to engage in a Constitutional debate with you, and have great confidence in you as a Constitutional scholar, that's not the point. Whether you agree with it or not, the federal government is involved in supporting K-12 education. Thus, the question is are we as a state being responsible in the use of that support; particularly since as I noted the platform says some good things about No Child Left Behind.
In addition, this is not money that would be saved by the federal government if we lose it, it's money that will be spent elsewhere by the feds if it's lost by our state.
Furthermore, it's a fair bet that you would have just about every member of the Legislature not pleased with a $300 million annual hole in the state budget, especially a $300 million hole entirely in the K-12 budget where, fairly or not, there remains a robust debate about the need for more funding.
We want fiscal responsiblity, and have correctly chided the Democrat-controlled Legislature for passing an irresponsible supplemental budget last session. So how is blowing a further $300 million hole in our own state K-12 education budget an "excellent fiscal outcome"?
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 29, 2006 05:02 PMSince all 50 states are voluntarily taking part in No Child Left Behind, and since it constitutes less than 10% of what most states spend on education you must be right. It obviously costs more than the benefits received since all 50 states have made the same choice.
Your idealistic solution also continues to ignore the point about a $300 million annual loss from our state's K-12 education budget. That's an immense amount of money that you and I both know, despite our disagreements, that it would be politically impossible for legislators of either party to accept.
This is why people don’t take you very seriously. You propose solutions that despite their ideological merit have no foundation in rational political action. No legislator with a brain is going to support a decision that has this sort of fiscal impact on the state, particularly on such a popular issues as K-12 education. Let alone the foolishness of tossing aside that much money from the education budget right as we’re implementing the WASL as a graduation requirement.
But this is all moot anyway. The state isn't going to get rid of the WASL, especially for something like ITBS anyway. I was just pointing out that the platform is weakened by the fact it says nice things about a federal law, then proposes a course of action that would take the state out of compliance with said law. We normally leave those sorts of contradictions to Democrats.
You must understand that this clairvoiance can never be questioned. It needs no evidence. Indeed, what evidence could be put forward for such pronouncements? These are not arguments. They are not the conclusions of studies. They can have no data to back them up since they occur in a parallel universe of hypotheticals and are arrived at by pure divination.
No. Eric's ability to say "the state isn't going to get rid of the WASL" is exclusively supernatural and infallible. It cannot be questioned. And THAT is the reason he says to Republican in Exile, "This is why people don’t take you very seriously." Because the people Eric is used to talking to actually take HIM seriously. Why would they listen to logic? Why would they hear the voice of Truth?
Posted by: Doug Parris on May 1, 2006 09:03 PMSaying the WASL isn’t going anywhere is hardly far-fetched, especially since the Legislature has now had dozens of opportunities to reverse course since it first passed. We're now 13 years into Washington's own education reform program centered on the WASL. I'm the last person to endorse everything that goes on in today's schools (my own children going to private school might be a darn good indicator of that), but I can tell you the WASL isn't going anywhere. Just like the rest of the 50 states Washington will continue using standards-based tests. And like about half the states in the country, we'll stick with using a graduation exam.
It isn't perfect by any means, but it's an improvement over the status quo ante, which was closer to the apocalyptic state of affairs you describe. In case you hadn't noticed, the WEA hates the kind of reforms that have resulted from the WASL and No Child Left Behind. Like I said, it is a far from ideal system, but it’s better than what we had before…and its getting steadily better as the reforms are being put in place.
But, I know you don’t like being pragmatic in an effort to improve a flawed system, rather than trying to revolutionize it and failing completely. Besides, you never did address one of my key points to R in E, that tossing aside $300 million in annual funding for state K-12 education is fiscally irresponsible and an utter political non-starter. Yet you accuse me of being the one relying on no evidence, though neither you, nor she, have or can refute that. Also, if No Child Left Behind was as bad as you and she imply, some state would have already said to heck with it and turned it down. But they haven’t, even though the chance is there for the taking if they so desire…just like states have declined to participate in federal education programs in the past.
So, I'll go back to being "cornered”…and waiting for your revolution to take hold so I can watch the merriment.
Why don't you see what the Republican dominated Utah legislature has had to say about No Child Left Behind? Then take a look at the half a dozen other states with Republican dominated legislatures that have tried to disentangle themselves from No Child Left Behind.
And even just reading this blog, you should know that there's a growing understanding, even among the two major factions in the Republican party as well as across party lines, that the WASL is a JOKE. Did you attend the Snohomish County Republican Convention this year? Without naming "No Child Left Behind", the platform was adopted with no objection to this statement under the education section: "Maintain local control and resist federal intrusion by refusing federal education funding that costs more than benefits received."
And to answer your question, it is never fiscally responsible to rely on money that doesn't belong to you. It's a form of slavery.
The Utah legislature thought about opting out a couple years back, until they realized that unlike the Clinton administration, the Bush administration was not going to let states have waivers from living up to the conditions that come when a state chooses to take part in the law, while continuing to take the money - essentially amounting to zero accountability for the use of taxpayers money.
I can tell you with 100% certainty Utah has chosen, and continues to choose, to take part in No Child Left Behind. As have others states you might cite such as Virginia or Idaho.
Invariably, as is not uncommon with federal laws, state legislatures make nonbinding pronouncements (memorials, resolutions, etc.) about federal policy affecting their states. Such pronouncements are often overblown in the press, and are furthermore a function of feedback from their constituents that may or not be wholly correct.
It is more common than not when I talk to members of various state legislatures that they have an incomplete and/or inaccurate impression of No Child Left Behind based on what they have heard. Once they get the facts, they tend to be significantly less concerned. Thus, the disparity between the states you’ve heard about raising concerns, versus the number of states that have withdrawn from the program – which remains zero.
And yes, you will find people from both sides of the aisle that don’t like the WASL. And you’ll find people on both sides of the aisle that do like it. It’s own of those odd issues in Olympia where the coalitions on either side defy party labels. But that doesn’t detract from the fact the Legislature passed this program in 1993, has had dozens of chances (under a variety of Legislative leaderships) to change it since then, including this year where pressure was significant as the WASL is implemented as a graduation test for this year’s sophomores. Yet the Legislature, as in years past, has stayed the course. If this anti-WASL coalition you describe is growing, why does it keep losing?
Furthermore, I’m not terribly concerned what the platform on this issue was or is. The folks that attend the county convention are a valuable and essential part of the party, but not even remotely demonstrative of the education policy views of Republicans as a whole. Moreover, it matters very little what the platform says when it never gets implemented. You’ve obviously lost the “federal intrusion” debate based on where federal and state policies around the country are at today.
Lastly, since its federal taxpayers money, that’s hardly slavery since Washingtonians pay federal taxes. Moreover, your glib point continues to ignore the problematic consequences of tossing $375 million (I re-checked the numbers) in annual funding out of the K-12 budget. You can make all the ideological pronouncements you like, but that doesn’t change the fact the state has a constitutional duty to fund the K-12 education system. Thus you could probably count on one hand the number of Washington state legislators willing to whimsically toss aside that much money, especially as I’ve noted when we’re in the process of implementing the WASL as a graduation test.
And that is why, despite Doug’s protests, no one takes such arguments seriously. Because despite their potential ideological validity, they are not a remotely realistic policy option.
Spoken like a true elitest. Spoken like the kind of Republican elected official this resolution (passed overwhelmingly by the Snohomish Co. Republicans) was meant for:q
Purpose of Platform Resolution
Whereas the Snohomish County Republican Platform is, first and foremost, a statement of the goals and purposes of the Republican Party as an organization that seeks to design and influence Government;
Whereas our platform is not a campaign document nor other form of light reading, but a manifest for action on serious policy matters;
Whereas the goal of our platform is to express the principles that define the proper role of government, both its positive mandate and the limits to its reach that should protect our freedom, addressing the most pressing current issues facing our county, state and nation;
Whereas the active Republicans represented in this body dedicate time, talent and efforts to electing Republicans to public office, in expectation that once elected, will represent these principles;
Be it resolved that the Snohomish County Republican Party acknowledges the right to expect elected Republican officials to work to put these principles in place as public policy, and when that expectation is not fulfilled, the Republican Party has the right and duty to work together to replace those officials with Republicans who will.
If I were you, I don't think I'd think about running for re-election or running for any other elected positions.
In all fairness, just because something passes overwhelmingly at a county convention doesn't mean it is either a) actually supported by the voting masses of a party or b) even coherent policy. In this case, it's not even aligned with the national platform (http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf - see pages 53-6) or the state platform (http://www.wsrp.org/About/Default.aspx?SectionID=81).
I truly respect the county convention process, but that doesn't mean I as a Republican have to agree with everything in it or am obligated to abide by whatever it says.
As I think you know and implied that I already am an elected official, endorsed for election by the Snohomish County Republican party. I’ve spent the better part of my working career trying to put Republican principles into action, not just pontificating about what ought to be. Spare me from resorting to threats now that you’ve can’t seem to win any substantive points in our original debate about No Child Left Behind.
When Snohomish Co. Republicans learn of your utter dismissal of the platform and their intellegence, I'm certain you'll have less to brag about.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on May 2, 2006 11:00 PMAnd let's see, you said not participating in No Child Left Behind would save the feds money. I explained why you were wrong about that. You said the cost was more than the benefits received, and I explained clear evidence to the contrary based on the voluntary participation of all 50 states in the program. You didn't believe me that all 50 states are taking part, and I spelled out how they actually are. Moreover, you continue to claim opting out of No Child Left Behind is the right thing to do but can't explain how throwing out $375 million in annual funding for the state's K-12 education budget is fiscally responsible (putting aside the face it's nearly politically impossible).
You keep posing quaint, yet factually incorrect assertions. I keep explaining to you how you are wrong. I'll concede there are issues in life, including public policy, that you know more about than me. Perhaps you could concede to the fact that a Republican who works with No Child Left Behind on a full-time basis might know more about it than you, rather than continuing this amusing stream of threats against whatever political career you think I aspire to.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 2, 2006 11:41 PM