Johnson was in town as a guest of the League of Education Voters to kick off their “Voices from the Education Revolution” speaking series.

In 1993, as a member of the Phoenix Suns, Johnson and his teammates traveled to Boston to take on the Celtics. While there, Johnson sat down with Senator Ted Kennedy, the “Lion of the Senate,” to discuss public education in the United States, the charter school movement, and the importance of school choice in America’s communities. To his chagrin, Johnson spun his wheels talking with Kennedy in his office. Later in the season, while in Washington, D.C., to play the Bullets, Johnson met with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas, a staunch conservative, shared Johnson’s vision of a public education system in the United States that did not hinder parents and their children from pursuing the best public education available.

The lesson for Johnson? “Stick to your convictions and drop your assumptions.”

Johnson has long held a passion for public education, a passion that grew as a student at Sacramento High School. Therefore, in 1989, in his rookie season in the NBA, Johnson founded the nonprofit community development organization, St. HOPE. Today, St. HOPE is helping provide children in Sacramento the opportunity to achieve their dreams and go on to college – a thought foreign to the same students only a decade ago. The mission of St. HOPE, according to its website, is to “revitalize inner-city communities through public education, civic leadership, economic development and the arts.” It is a public-private partnership that is revitalizing inner-city Sacramento.

Early this decade, Sacramento High School was failing, miserably. Only twenty percent of its students were prepared to enter college upon graduating. So, Johnson and St. HOPE, with the blessing of the school district’s superintendent, desired to take over the school and transform it with new initiatives in math, science, engineering, and civic involvement. However, a roadblock stood in the way: the State’s teachers union. The union spent $750,000 to fight the move and encouraged its teachers to do the same. Thankfully for St. HOPE, a Sacramento law firm fought back on its behalf. Johnson and St. HOPE won the legal battle and now, according to Johnson, seventy-five percent of Sacramento High School’s students graduate with a college education in their future.

The union, explained Johnson, fought “to protect the status quo” rather than a first-rate education.

The crowd assembled at Mt. Zion heard his message loud and clear.

The bill encourages people to sue crisis pregnancy centers under the Consumer Protection Act if, for example, a center commits such atrocities as not immediately disclosing that they don’t provide or refer abortion services.  It allows an “aggrieved party” to bring a private cause of action against crisis pregnancy centers without limiting who can be be an “aggrieved party”.  Someone can make a claim against a center and be awarded damages without even proving any damages.   The kicker–the bill only applies to pregnancy centers that don’t offer abortion.  Basically, Washington law would require a person to prove damages if they sue an abortion clinic but not if they sue a crisis pregnancy center.

Like many Democrats in the legislature, Tom is in a pickle.  His largest funders (i.e., public employee unions) are mad at the Ds because even with large majorities in both the House and Senate they’ve been unable to muster the gumption to raise taxes rather than cut spending (those pesky voters just keep getting in the way of labor’s agenda).  The largest unions have been threatening to run hard-left candidates against the more “moderate” Democrat legislators, and have even re-routed their usual campaign contributions to a new PAC rather than the caucus campaign funds.  The Democrats need to energize part of their base heading into the 2010 elections.

Voters aren’t in the mood for the sort of tax increases labor is advocating (funny how recessions and a 10% unemployment rate can do that).  Tom needs something to appeal to his liberal base, and this is the magic bullet.  When all else fails, bowing to the Sacrament of Abortion is a sure-fire winner (after all, it’s just a safe, routine medical procedure).

Tom is one of those eastside Democrats who claims the “socially liberal (or moderate), fiscally conservative” mantle.  Yet while the Democrats are grappling with how to fill a $2.6 billion deficit, Tom’s bill actually increases state spending.  Moreover, his voting record on spending only reaffirms what columnist Mark Steyn astutely observed about such folk:

“The reality is that almost every ’socially liberal, fiscally conservative’ politician turns out to be fiscally liberal — in the same way that, if you mix half a pint of vanilla ice cream with half a pint of horse manure, it’s not hard to figure which taste will predominate.”

At best, Tom is short-sighted.  He’s emblematic of the left’s penchant for creating lavish government programs while giving people the “right” to kill off the very generations the county will need to pay for all of it.   The declining birthrates in the West (tempered only by the influx of immigrants) are building a fiscal tsunami on the horizon as the baby boomers begin retiring.

It’s a sad irony for the left–they would be wise to actually encourage breeding so tomorrow there are enough workers/taxpayers to pay for the welfare state they’re building today.  Alas, political expediency triumphs.

Ultimately, Tom’s bill is an effort by the abortion industry and liberal Democrats to drive crisis pregnancy centers out of operation.  How’s that for choice?

Measure 66 raises the state income tax on households earning more than $250,000.  Washington lawmakers have no such option, in all practicality.  Given national trends, majority Democrats in Olympia are unlikely to pass a high-earners income tax this year and income taxes in general have major electoral hurdles to overcome in Washington.  Recent political events compound that problem for Democrats.

The left does, however, however, realize that this idea has the best prospects in the long run.  Why?  Because it’s easy to convince people to increase taxes they don’t have to pay.  That’s the problem with a progressive tax structure–you’re giving people all sorts of free goodies while promising most voters that some other person will pay for it.  The “rich” are a convenient target for the left, which loves to use “values” as a pretense for plundering from the profitable (try talking about “values” in any other context, however, and you’re promptly scolded for trying to impose your views on other people).

Measure 67 raises minimum corporate taxes and increases taxes on “upper level” profits.  Again, this is much more difficult in Washington.  Washington’s Business and Occupation Tax is a tax on gross receipts, so even if your company doesn’t earn a profit the state still gets its cut (how’s that for values?).  Small businesses suffer under this the most, which is why lawmakers are reluctant to raise it because the impact is broadly felt and not just targeted to faceless wealthy corporations that are easily demonized.  Targeted B&O increases could be an option, but the larger companies in Washington would likely put up a strong fight.

Based on conversations I’ve had with some Democratic legislators in Olympia, I think some of them realize that you don’t encourage private sector growth by raising taxes on the very businesses you want to create more jobs.  Oregon’s unemployment rate has been running higher than Washington’s, and the passage of Measure 67 isn’t going to help.  Taking a cue from Tony Soprano, Oregon voters just sent a message to Oregon businesses:  “Grow, and we’ll take a bigger cut.”  There are enough moderate Democrats in Olympia and enough commonsense voters in Washington who know better.

Another factor to consider is Oregon’s odd political landscape.  As Floyd McKay pointed out in a recent Crosscut article,

Oregon is weirdly counter-cyclical in terms of its politics. When I first began covering Oregon politics, Barry Goldwater had just driven the Republican wagon into the ditch in his 1964 presidential campaign and Democrats were resurgent everywhere. Except in Oregon, where Republicans overturned Democratic control of the Legislature and began nearly a decade running the Oregon House. … As Republicans surged in the Reagan years, Oregon became a solidly Democratic state, controlling both houses of the legislature and beginning in 1986 a line of Democratic governors that continues to this day. Republicans recaptured the Oregon House during the Clinton years, and during the administration of George W. Bush Oregon’s Democrats were firmly in control. Oregon seems to swim against the tide.

The Oregon Trail is uniquely Oregonian.  Politicos thinking they can replicate the Measure 66 and 67 vote here in Washington this year should think long and hard before trying.  This is not to say such efforts would surely fail (the internet is clogged with political predictions that didn’t come true), only that what happened south of the Columbia River yesterday doesn’t necessarily mean Washington voters would take the same route.

I suppose the only real difference between Christopher Monfort and Nidal Malik Hasan at first glance is that Monfort, allegedly, was in possession of bombs and bomb making materials after he was shot and apprehended by police. He could only have those materials for one reason: to murder and terrorize. On the other hand, Hasan simply walked into a holding facility at Fort Hood and opened fire with two handguns before being shot himself. But Hasan’s actions before his rampage tell a deeper story.

He holds significant ties to a pro-al Qaeda imam who, in 2002, went to Yemen (where he now describes Hasan as “a man of conscience”) and still lectures against Western ideals and the United States to this day. Reports out of Fort Hood say Hasan yelled out “Allahu Akbar!” (Arabic for God is great!) before and during his murderous rampage. The man was a ticking time bomb and, somehow, people with knowledge of his alarming actions and words leading up to the rampage helped in shielding his true motivations in life. It looks like President Obama felt it necessary to do the same.

President Obama had time to reflect on his words before delivering his “twisted logic” address. Apparently, his reflections didn’t work. Any reasonable, clear-minded individual can see what Hasan did amounts to terrorism, domestic or otherwise. Assistant Police Chief Pugel didn’t hesitate at all putting the “T” label on Monfort’s actions; why did President Obama hesitate on Hasan? Obama is renowned for his deep rhetorical eloquence and his penchant for reciting Shakespeare (if you don’t believe me, read the latest issue of GQ). I suspect his vast linguistic skills could help him pull out the right word to describe Hasan’s actions. Instead he uttered “twisted logic.” It appears President Obama is the one inflicted with “twisted logic.”

During the previous legislative session, Democratic legislators advocated against cutting vital programs including state police, Medicaid and higher education. At that time, we pointed out, in both the committee process and in floor debate, that doing so would lead to bigger problems and end up costing us more. The strain on these services is proof that we all, especially someone who has been around state government as long as Gov. Otter, should have seen it coming.

Continue reading at The Idaho Stateman.

The Nobel Committee has made a spate of unjustified decisions in recent years, though. Consider the Nobel Prizes for Jimmy Carter, which was mainly an attempt to thumb its nose at George W. Bush for being a “big evil warmonger”.   Or think about the Nobel Prize for Al Gore for jetting around the world in large private jets to scare us to death about global warming.

There used to be a time when Nobel Peace Prize winners earned their awards through a lifetime of work for peace. Not today. Today, we give it to a guy for accomplishing nothing, as a slap on the back and an atta boy to the world’s favorite pats. Congratulations, Mr. President, Nelson Mandela had to spend 20 years in jail to get the award that you “earned” by being elected on a promise of hope and change. Mother Teresa had to spend decades in the slums of calcutta for the sick and dying to earn her award.

As bad as the Nobel Prize Committee’s decisions this decade have been, they have made dumb decisions before, like handing an award to terrorist Yasser Arafat become the committee was snowed into believing that the  Palestinians would change their way. Or the decision to award Woodrow Wilson the Nobel Peace Prize for coming up with the idea for the League of Nations (which ended up failing) and composing the Fourteen Points (which was totally ignored at the Versailles treaty.)

However, beginning with the Jimmy Carter prize in 2002, the Noble Prize Committee began issuing awards to people who had no business even being considered for one. This however takes the cake. It devalues the award. With apologies to Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, being a Nobel Peace Prize winner means far less than it did seven years.

I just received the catalog in the mail from the Boise School District. I don’t mean to trivialize the program. In fact, there are some facinating courses out there that teach useful skills. Others provide fairly low cost physical fitness courses.

However, there are some courses that raise immediate red flags.  For example, there’s two courses on self-hypnosis as a key to weight loss and quitting smoking (a practice that was busted on Mythbusters) and then there’s a course called, “Exploring Past Lives” a description of which states, “An exploration into the concept of reincaration and karma through group discussion and guided visualization.”  Now, this is a very new age concept. However, Community Education covers itself by saying, “Community Education Classes may provide information about and discuss sectarian or religious tenants or doctrines.”  The ACLU as ususal ignores any religious or “spiritual” activities that don’t fall within the realm of mainstream Christianity.

Furthermore, if that self-hypnosis deal doesn’t work out for you, Boise School District is covered again with the Class Content disclaimer, “The Boise School District Community Education volunteer instructor/presenter is not affiliated with, nor endorsed by, the Boise School District and the District is not responsible for the accuracy, validity, benefit nor detriment that may result from an instructor’s information or presentation.”

Translation: The Boise School District may be sending out the catalog, but we make no guarantee that classes will actually benefit anyone. Reading some of the class descriptions, they seem like the introductions to business schemes and others seem like to good to be true scenarios.

Perhaps, the creepiest class on the list is, “Cemetery History and Symbolism,” a two hour look at cemetaries, types of cemetaries, and burial customs. Fun class, I’m sure.

The problem is that in a year of tight budgets, 1 out of 4 dollars spent on Community Education comes from taxpayers, so that people can figure out how to Twitter, while they recall their past lives and hypnotize themselves to lose weight so they can take advantage of amazing business opportunities.

As I said before, there are useful classes from business law to computer software, some great arts and crafts classes, dance, and fitness. And knowing of this opportunity, who knows? Maybe, I might find time to teach a class. (If you can’t beat them, join ‘em, right?)

But during tight economic times seeing tax dollars subsidize classes that even the School Districts says are of questionable value is a big concern. I’d say Boise Community Education is the Public Access TV of the Boise School District except that having been a member of the local public access station for two years, they had higher standards.

Is Community Education everywhere this troubled?

But does General Welfare really mean that health care reform is constitutionally permitted? Well, as it happens the Father of the Constitution, James Madision, became President and was presented with a public works bill which he vetoed and in that veto message he addressed the meaning of the General Welfare clause…

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States…

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Given that Madison took such a dim view of roads and canals, anyone to bet that Madison would view universal health care as an appropriate use of government power under the Constituton?  Madison writing in Federalist #45 is even more explicit:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Of course, it’s true that most federal programs from Abstinence Education to Zoos and including such third rail budget busters like Social Security and Medicare are patently in violation of the spirit of the Constitution. However, I’m not of the mind that we can change the Constitution by simply ignoring it. If liberals succeed in passing health care reform, no judge will stop them. Courts have tolerated far too many violations of the plain text of the Constitution to change their ways now. I only ask that our friends on the left spare us ignorant pseudo-constitutional justifications for this monstrosity.