Frank Miniter, who wrote this piece, is the author of Saving the Bill of Rights and The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide.
Why a gunrunning scandal codenamed “Fast and Furious,” a program run secretly by the U.S. government that sent thousands of firearms over an international border and directly into the hands of criminals, hasn’t been pursued by an army of reporters all trying to be the next Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein is a story in itself.
But the state of modern journalism aside, this scandal is so inflammatory few realize that official records show the current director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), B. Todd Jones — yes the individual the Obama administration brought in to replace ATF Director Kenneth Melson Aug. 30 in an effort to deflect congressional criticism — also has questions to answer about his involvement in this gunrunning scandal.
Fast and Furious was an operation so cloak-and-dagger Mexican authorities weren’t even notified that thousands of semi-automatic firearms were being sold to people in Arizona thought to have links to Mexican drug cartels. According to ATF whistleblowers, in 2009 the U.S. government began instructing gun storeowners to break the law by selling firearms to suspected criminals. ATF agents then, again according to testimony by ATF agents turned whistleblowers, were ordered not to intercept the smugglers but rather to let the guns “walk” across the U.S.-Mexican border and into the hands of Mexican drug-trafficking organizations.
When the Gunrunning Program Began
A Jan. 8, 2010 briefing paper from the ATF Phoenix Field Division Group VII says: “This investigation has currently identified more than 20 individual connected straw purchasers…. To date (September 2009-present) this group has purchased in excess of 650 firearms (mainly AK-47 variants) for which they have paid cash totaling more than $350,000.”
This is an important fact because the U.S. Justice Department hasn’t made it clear to tell congressional investigators when the Fast and Furious operation began and who authorized it; as a result, this ATF briefing paper’s mention of September 2009 is thus far the earliest we can trace the operation.
The next important event we know of occurred in October 2009 when the ATF’s Phoenix Field Division established a gun-trafficking group called “Group VII.” Group VII began using the strategy of allowing suspects to walk away with illegally purchased guns, according to a report from the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the staff of Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. The report says, “The purpose was to wait and watch, in hope that law enforcement could identify other members of a trafficking network and build a large, complex conspiracy case…. Group VII initially began using the new gunwalking tactics in one of its investigations to further the Department’s strategy. The case was soon renamed ‘Operation Fast and Furious.’”
This report and later official explanations from the ATF say the Fast and Furious program was created to deal with the problem that arresting low-level suspects doesn’t necessarily help ATF agents get to the heads of Mexican cartels.
On Oct. 26, 2009, a month or so after Fast and Furious seems to have been initiated, a document shows that a teleconference was held between 13 officials. One of the issues discussed was the possible “adoption of the Department’s strategy for Combating Mexican Drug Cartels.” The officials listed to have been in on the call included Kenneth Melson, who was then the director of the ATF, Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI and a number of attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice. B. Todd Jones, the current director of the ATF, was not listed in the document, but the title he held in September 2009 is listed as being in on the conference call. It doesn’t take much reporting to find out that in September 2009 Jones was the chair of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) and so was at least supposed to be in on the conference call. (When asked about the teleconference, an ATF spokeswoman told us “we don’t discuss active investigations.”)
Of course, we don’t know precisely what was discussed in the teleconference, but given that the Fast and Furious program likely began a month or more before the teleconference, and given that it was a new program designed to send firearms over an international border, it would seem odd if Fast and Furious was not discussed and therefore that Jones, at the very least, had heard about the program in October 2009; though, unless further documents come out as to what was said, he certainly has deniability.
Gun Storeowners Become Pawns
For political context we now need to step back to April 16, 2009 — four or five months before we think Fast and Furious began. On this day President Barack Obama was visiting Mexico. While there he said, “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States … more than 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border.”
This 90% statistic was, to be kind, math so shoddy a third grader should know better.
The figure was based only on guns the Mexican government sent to the ATF for tracing. On April 2, 2009, Fox News reported that, according to statistics from the Mexican government, only about a third of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico are submitted to the ATF. The Mexicans, as it turns out, only send guns to the ATF they think came from the U.S. Also, many guns submitted to the ATF by the Mexicans cannot be traced. As a result, the reporters determined that only 17% of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced by the ATF to the U.S.
Now, because President Obama used the made-up 90% figure to push political positions — he was using the statistic to argue that the U.S. needs more gun-control laws — it’s difficult not to sniff politics in what happened next.
Later in 2009 the ATF started the Fast and Furious program by allowing firearms to be smuggled from U.S. gun stores into the arsenals of Mexican criminal gangs. As these guns wouldn’t be seen again until they resurfaced in crimes (there were no tracking devices installed or other means to trace these guns), the only purpose for letting these guns “walk” seems to be to back up the president’s position that guns used in Mexican crimes mostly come from the U.S. (Though the Obama administration insists the gun sales were a part of a new crime-fighting technique.) Also, given the cover up that has ensued since Fast and Furious broke, it doesn’t seem like a conspiratorial leap to conclude that politics mixed with policy to create this crazy program. (But again, administration officials insist this wasn’t about politics.)
Gun storeowners have a right to think it was about politics.
Sometime around September 2009, ATF agents began pressuring gun storeowners in Arizona to sell firearms to people the ATF thought would sell the guns to Mexican cartels and gangs. As gun-storeowners can’t do business without federal licenses, and because the ATF has the authority to shut down a gun store if the establishment’s paperwork isn’t in order, these requests were likely taken as orders. This put the gun storeowners in a catch-22: the law requires them to report suspicious activity and not to sell to people they think are breaking the law, yet the ATF was telling them to sell to suspicious people who wanted to buy AK-47s by the dozen.
Actually, it’s even worse than that: According to court records obtained by Fox News, two of 20 alleged smugglers who were later indicted in the Fast and Furious investigation had felony convictions. As gun-stores must run a person’s name through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before selling that person a firearm, this should have stopped these felons from buying even one measly.22 rifle.
Congressional and law-enforcement sources say this situation suggests the FBI, which operates the NICS system, had to have knowingly allowed the purchases to go forward after consulting with the ATF. Given that we know the director of the FBI was in on at least one early meeting on this issue, this seems logical.
One store, Lone Wolf Trading Company in Glendale, Ariz., soon became the smuggler’s favorite. Andre Howard, owner of Lone Wolf Trading Company, declined to comment to us about Fast and Furious because he is under a congressional subpoena; however, recordings taped by Howard of him speaking to an ATF agent have been released by the U.S. Department of Justice. One of the suspects the ATF was watching as he bought guns from Lone Wolf Trading Company was Jaime Avila. He allegedly bought AK-47s at Lone Wolf Trading Company that turned up at a crime scene in which drug smugglers killed a U.S. Border Patrol agent (more on this to come). The other was Uriel Patino. As the ATF watched, he bought hundreds of firearms from Lone Wolf Trading Company and reportedly sold them to Mexico’s brutal Sinoloa drug cartel
Meanwhile, on March 10, 2010, an internal e-mail from George T. Gillett Jr., assistant special agent in charge to David Voth, the ATF’s Phoenix Group VII supervisor, and others, said that ATF Acting Director Melson and ATF Deputy Director Billy Hoover “are being briefed weekly on this investigation and the recent success with [redacted] so they are both keenly interested in case updates.”
This email was released by Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) just before a June 15, 2011 investigative hearing of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee to show that officials in Washington, D.C., knew about this program.
As it turns out, ATF leadership was actually able to follow some of these illegal purchases live on closed-circuit television. In a news release in June 2011, Rep. Issa said as much: “Acting Director Melson was able to sit at his desk in Washington and himself watch a live feed of straw buyers entering the gun stores and purchasing dozens of AK-47 variants.”
Given that the director of the ATF, a department that is overseen by the U.S. Justice Department, was watching closed-circuit television of illegal gun sales that officials knew were likely to cross the U.S.-Mexican border, is it even conceivable that Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t know about this secret program? And if he didn’t, shouldn’t he have?
ATF Agents Begin Protesting
ATF field agents soon began to question the sanity of letting guns “walk.”
Evidently to quell internal dissension, on March 12, 2010 David Voth, the ATF’s Phoenix Group VII supervisor, sent an e-mail to field agents that said, “Whether you care or not people of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case and they also believe we (Phoenix Group VII) are doing what they envisioned the Southwest Border Groups doing.” Voth’s e-mail went on to say, “It may sound cheesy, but we are ‘The Tip of the ATF spear’ when it comes to Southwest Border Firearms Trafficking. We need to resolve our issues at this meeting. I will be damned if this case is going to suffer due to petty arguing, rumors or other adolescent behavior. If you don’t think this is fun you’re in the wrong line of work — period.”
ATF field agents were sending protests up their chain of command, because, as ATF Special Agent John Dodson told the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on June 15, 2011, he and fellow agents were regularly ordered to abandon surveillance of suspicious gun purchases “knowing all the while that just days after these purchases, the guns that we saw these individuals buy would begin turning up at crime scenes in the United States and Mexico.”
ATF Special Agent Olindo James Casa also said at the June hearing that “on several occasions I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms.”
Meanwhile, Mexican drug cartels were evidently finished sighting in their U.S.-bought AK-47′s and looking for bigger guns. On April 2, 2010, Voth sent an email to a government-redacted recipient that said, “Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during the month of March alone, to include numerous Barrett .50 caliber rifles.” These .50-caliber rifles are used for sniping by U.S. Special Forces and are a favorite of long-range shooters in America.
So far ATF officials seemed to be blissfully ignorant of how misguided this strategy would turn out to be.
Just as ATF agents feared, on Dec. 14, 2010, in the dark of night in a remote canyon in Rio Rico, Ariz., some of the firearms sent over the border to arm Mexican drug runners were used in a gun battle with the U.S. Border Patrol. During the gunfight, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, 40, was killed by suspected operatives of a Mexican drug-smuggling organization. After a battle that U.S. Border Patrol officers started by shooting bean bags at smugglers armed with AK-47s, police arrested four suspects and recovered three firearms from the scene that have since been traced to Fast and Furious.
Dodson’s greatest fear had become reality. He said before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee: “We knew the next time we’d see the guns would be at crime scenes. And not the first crime these guns were used in, but at the last.”
When asked how he thought sending guns into Mexico could lead to busts of drug cartels, Dodson replied, “I have never heard an explanation from anyone involved in Operation Fast and Furious that I believe would justify what we did.”
If that wasn’t moving enough, during the same congressional hearing held last June, Josephine Terry — the mother of slain U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry — was asked if there is anything she would like to say to whomever approved Fast and Furious. After taking a moment to regain her composure, she said, “I don’t know what I would say to them, but I would like to know what they would say to me.”
Right after the shooting, we do know what some ATF officials were saying to each other. The day after Agent Terry was killed an e-mail exchange among ATF agents at 7:45 p.m. confirmed that two of the weapons that Jaime Avila had purchased as part of Operation Fast and Furious were found at Terry’s murder scene. The names on the e-mail were redacted by the government, but the email says, “The two firearms recovered by ATF this afternoon near Rio Rico, Arizona, in conjunction with the shooting death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Terry were identified as ‘Suspect Guns’ in the Fast and Furious investigation [REDACTED].” A third gun was later linked to the scene.
The Cover Up Begins
About five weeks before Agent Terry was slain, the 2010 election took place and the U.S. House of Representatives succumbed to Republican control in January 2011. This gave Rep. Issa a chance to investigate as whistleblowers came forward.
Meanwhile, as freshmen congressmen were settling into their new offices, on Jan.19, 2011, the ATF finally arrested the straw purchasers. On Jan. 25, 2011 Phoenix Special Agent in Charge William Newell held a press conference announcing the indictment of 20 people the ATF had been watching purchase firearms. However, when asked if agents purposefully allowed weapons to enter Mexico, Newell said, “Hell, no.” (In a “supplemental statement,” provided to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on July 26, 2011, Newell clarified his statements by saying agents did not knowingly allow thousands of weapons to reach criminal hands.)
Evidence soon showed this to be less than true.
On Jan. 27, 2011, Sen. Grassley wrote a letter to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson that said: “Members of the Judiciary Committee have received numerous allegations that the ATF sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers, who then allegedly transported these weapons throughout the southwestern border area and into Mexico….”
Grassley requested that the ATF brief his staff on the matter.
Days later, on Jan. 31, 2011, Grassley wrote a second letter to Melson that claimed whistleblowers were being targeted. Grassley wrote, “This is exactly the wrong sort of reaction for the ATF. Rather than focusing on retaliating against whistleblowers, the ATF’s sole focus should be on finding and disclosing the truth as soon as possible.”
Despite growing evidence, on Feb. 4, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote Sen. Grassley and denied that the U.S. Justice Department “sanctioned” the sale of guns to people they believed were going to deliver them to Mexican drug cartels.
Then, on Feb. 15, 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata was murdered in Mexico. The Associated Press reported (on Feb. 28), based on an unnamed source, that the weapon used to kill Zapata “was shipped through Laredo with the possible knowledge of the ATF.”
A week later, on Feb. 23, 2011, CBS Evening News ran a story on Operation Fast and Furious that included interviews with ATF whistleblowers who said they’d objected to the program. With pressure building, on March 8, 2011, the U.S. Justice Department told Sen. Grassley that the matter would be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General; however, this internal investigation seems to have become the official excuse for not giving congressional investigators everything they’re demanding.
On March 22, 2011 President Obama was finally asked about Operation Fast and Furious. The question came from Univision, a Spanish-language network. “Well, first of all,” answered President Obama, “I did not authorize [Fast and Furious]. Eric Holder, the attorney general, did not authorize it. There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made. If that’s the case, then we’ll find — find out and we’ll hold somebody accountable.”
On May 3, 2011, Attorney General Holder testified to the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Darrell Issa and Holder had an exchange about Operation Fast and Furious. After a series of questions, Holder answered, “I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”
Rep. Issa hasn’t been satisfied with this answer. He later said, “Are we confident that Eric Holder knew it much earlier? No. Did he know it earlier than he testified? Absolutely.”
On June 29, 2011 a reporter asked President Obama about the matter at a White House news conference. Obama said in part: “I’m not going to comment on the current investigation…. As soon as the investigation is complete, appropriate action will be taken.”
But just days later, on July 4, 2011, Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson surprised some by speaking to congressional investigators from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Melson met with investigators with his personal attorney present — not Justice Department attorneys.
The next day Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley wrote a letter to Attorney General Holder about Melson’s testimony. The letter says Melson “claimed that ATF’s senior leadership would have preferred to be more cooperative with our inquiry much earlier in the process. However, he said that Justice Department officials directed them not to respond and took full control of replying to briefing and document requests from Congress.”
Melson was pointing to a cover up at the U.S. Justice Department while refusing to be a scapegoat. However, Tracy Schmaler, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice, said to us on Sept. 27, 2011 that no cover up is occurring. He said, “We have turned over thousands of documents, just what documents do you want?
Obviously perplexed with what to do with Melson, the U.S. Justice Department moved Melson to a new post inside the ATF, a position that protects his retirement package. Perhaps this is some of the “appropriate action” President Obama said would be taken, if so, more appropriate action soon followed.
The Obama administration next promoted some of the officials who ran the program. William G. McMahon, who was the ATF’s deputy director of operations in the West, William D. Newell, and David Voth, who were both field supervisors who oversaw the Fast and Furious program out of the agency’s Phoenix office, were promoted to positions in Washington, D.C. Voth is the one who said in an email, “If you don’t think [Fast and Furious] is fun you’re in the wrong line of work — period.” And, when asked if guns were being allowed to cross the southern border, Newell is the one who said, “Hell, no.” Yet both got cushy desk jobs in D.C.
Then, as if to shine a spotlight on how political the Fast and Furious operation always was, last August the Obama administration announced new firearm-reporting regulations that gun stores in southern border states must follow—this when gun storeowners have done everything asked of them and as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association that represents firearms manufacturers, pays for a longstanding program called “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy” (www.dontlie.org ) that combats illegal gun sales by raising awareness.
Also, the National Rifle Association has been on top of this story from the beginning. Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist now says, “It would be a serious miscarriage of justice if no one is held accountable for this deadly scandal. The President and his Justice Department cannot run away from this. The NRA will make sure that every member, hunter, gun owner, and indeed every American, knows the truth about this reckless operation.”
Given all the politics and the cover up that even the former ATF director says has occurred, could operation Fast and Furious have been about anything other than pushing for new gun-control laws? And given all of this obfuscation from the Obama administration, isn’t this scandal comparable to the cover up that surrounded Watergate? After all, both administrations forgot that America is a country that reveres its freedom of the press and that in America officers speak out when misguided policies get cops killed. Here mothers testify before Congress when they find out a secret government program, and a stupid one at that, got their son killed.
Not that morality ends at the American border. To stress this point, Rep. Issa held a conference call with journalists on September 21 in which he said Marisela Morales, Mexico’s attorney general, is reporting that at least 200 Mexican deaths can now be traced to weapons from the Fast and Furious program.
And so the investigation and the bloody aftermath continue….
Frank Miniter is the author of Saving the Bill of Rights and The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide
Thursday, September 29, 2011
ObamaCare: It Can Only Get Worse
By Debra Saunders
On Tuesday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan gave a talk at Stanford's Hoover Institution on what should become the Republican Party's template behind its bid to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. Ryan cited the unintended consequences that employer-paid health care plans have delivered: "The system that shields us from the cost of services has actually left us paying much, much more."
On the same day, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report that bolstered Ryan's argument. Over the past year, average annual cost for employer-sponsored health care plans rose 9 percent. Premiums have more than doubled since 2001. The average annual premium is now $15,073 per family -- and that doesn't include out-of-pocket payments.
With premiums rising higher than inflation, those numbers are biting into workers' paychecks. And there's little employers can do other than raise employee contributions from an average of $1,787 per family 10 years ago to $4,129 today.
The Affordable Care Act, signed by President Barack Obama, was supposed to rein in runaway health care costs. How's that going? Not as advertised. Even before the ACA takes full effect in 2014, today's mandates -- such as a requirement that employers offer coverage for adult children up to the age of 26 and that some plans provide free preventive care -- must be a factor in the cost spurt. The Kaiser report estimates that 2.3 million adult children were added to their parents' employer-sponsored plans because of the law.
Democrats complain about employers choosing to sit on their money and not hire. But their health care mandates serve as a tax on hiring workers.
It can only get worse. As providers consolidate, consumers' options decrease. Ryan told reporters after his talk that he sees a future in which, as with utilities, there are a mere "handful" of providers. That can't be good for consumers.
Ryan is probably the bravest Republican in Washington, because he trusts voters enough to lay out a GOP alternative. He crafted a budget, passed by the House, that would change Medicare into a "defined contribution" program in 2022. In essence, seniors would receive vouchers to purchase their own health plans.
The idea was to give seniors a stake in holding down health costs and the options necessary to do so. (Obamacare tries to control Medicare costs through the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which can set payments -- and arguably drive doctors out of Medicare.)
The Hoover talk brought the defined-contribution approach to employer-sponsored health care.
Under the status quo, many employees have neither the motivation nor the wherewithal to shop for the best care at the best price. The GOP plan would provide a $5,700 refundable tax credit to families, but workers would pay income tax on their employers' contributions.
Savings could result in one of two ways. Employers would have more flexibility in choosing coverage. Or employees could choose their own plan -- and take it with them if they wanted to start a business.
The result would be universal care but in a system, Ryan told me in an interview, that "reconnects the buyer and the seller." The downside: It could be more work for consumers. The upside: Employees actually might be able to pocket future raises instead of handing them over to an insurance company.
dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
On Tuesday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan gave a talk at Stanford's Hoover Institution on what should become the Republican Party's template behind its bid to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. Ryan cited the unintended consequences that employer-paid health care plans have delivered: "The system that shields us from the cost of services has actually left us paying much, much more."
On the same day, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report that bolstered Ryan's argument. Over the past year, average annual cost for employer-sponsored health care plans rose 9 percent. Premiums have more than doubled since 2001. The average annual premium is now $15,073 per family -- and that doesn't include out-of-pocket payments.
With premiums rising higher than inflation, those numbers are biting into workers' paychecks. And there's little employers can do other than raise employee contributions from an average of $1,787 per family 10 years ago to $4,129 today.
The Affordable Care Act, signed by President Barack Obama, was supposed to rein in runaway health care costs. How's that going? Not as advertised. Even before the ACA takes full effect in 2014, today's mandates -- such as a requirement that employers offer coverage for adult children up to the age of 26 and that some plans provide free preventive care -- must be a factor in the cost spurt. The Kaiser report estimates that 2.3 million adult children were added to their parents' employer-sponsored plans because of the law.
Democrats complain about employers choosing to sit on their money and not hire. But their health care mandates serve as a tax on hiring workers.
It can only get worse. As providers consolidate, consumers' options decrease. Ryan told reporters after his talk that he sees a future in which, as with utilities, there are a mere "handful" of providers. That can't be good for consumers.
Ryan is probably the bravest Republican in Washington, because he trusts voters enough to lay out a GOP alternative. He crafted a budget, passed by the House, that would change Medicare into a "defined contribution" program in 2022. In essence, seniors would receive vouchers to purchase their own health plans.
The idea was to give seniors a stake in holding down health costs and the options necessary to do so. (Obamacare tries to control Medicare costs through the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which can set payments -- and arguably drive doctors out of Medicare.)
The Hoover talk brought the defined-contribution approach to employer-sponsored health care.
Under the status quo, many employees have neither the motivation nor the wherewithal to shop for the best care at the best price. The GOP plan would provide a $5,700 refundable tax credit to families, but workers would pay income tax on their employers' contributions.
Savings could result in one of two ways. Employers would have more flexibility in choosing coverage. Or employees could choose their own plan -- and take it with them if they wanted to start a business.
The result would be universal care but in a system, Ryan told me in an interview, that "reconnects the buyer and the seller." The downside: It could be more work for consumers. The upside: Employees actually might be able to pocket future raises instead of handing them over to an insurance company.
dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
Holding Obama's Party Accountable
Barack Obama is on a far worse political trajectory than Jimmy Carter was. First, the Democrats lost Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican in ultraliberal Massachusetts who campaigned against Kennedy's signature issue of national health insurance. Nothing that dramatic happened while Carter was President.
Then Democrats suffered historic, grievous losses in the 2010 midterm elections, with a New Deal size loss in the House of 63 seats, and a loss of 6 seats in the Senate. In Jimmy Carter's 1978 midterms, Democrats lost only 15 seats in the House and 3 seats in the Senate.
Now in the recent special election in New York City, Democrats have begun to lose seats they haven't lost since before the New Deal.
That is so fitting, because President Obama is not an anomaly in today's Democrat party. Quite to the contrary, he represents the party's heart and soul today, which is well to the Left now even of George McGovern in 1972. Witness the reelection of Far Left San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi as House Democrat leader even after the historic voter repudiation of the Pelosi Democrat House majority in 2010. Witness the choice of Far Left screamer Debbie Wasserman Schultz as leader of the Democratic National Committee. Witness Obama EPA Chief Lisa Jackson, Obama Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and the numerous similar, utterly clueless, ideologically rigid, far left appointees throughout the Obama Administration.
That is also so well deserved, because of what the Democrats are doing to our nation, even as their power starts to wane. Historically, for the American economy, the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery. Based on that historical record, we should be nearing the end of the second year of a booming recovery by now.
But almost four years after the last recession started, there still has been no real recovery. Unemployment is stuck over 9%, with unemployment among African-Americans, Hispanics, and teenagers at depression level double-digit rates for at least 2 years now. Real wages and incomes are falling, back to levels last seen over 30 years ago. Poverty is soaring to new records as well, with more Americans suffering in poverty than any time since the Census Bureau started keeping records over 50 years ago.
As a result, we are on track now for an historic conservative victory in 2012, far bigger even than in 1980.
The Do-Nothing Senate
In the Democrat majority-controlled Senate, 23 Democrat seats are subject to elections in 2012, with 6 of those open seats involving a retiring incumbent. Only 10 Republican seats are subject to election, with only two retirements from safe seats in Texas and Arizona. Let's compare the record of this Democrat-controlled Senate with the record of what the Republican-controlled House has already accomplished this year.
The first act of the Republican House was to pass repeal of Obamacare, reducing future taxes and spending by trillions. The Senate has failed to act on this at all.
The Republican House passed the budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, which would cut federal spending by $6.2 trillion over the first 10 years alone, and permanently balances the budget soon after that, as scored by CBO. Government spending as a percent of GDP would ultimately be reduced by 40% from current levels.
The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass any budget at all, as required by law, for the second consecutive year now. At least they had the good sense to vote down Obama's proposed runaway budget, 97-0. But the failure to pass any budget leaves the government subject to possible shutdown this fall.
The Democrat Senate has also fought tooth and nail against every spending cut. They even threatened to shut down the entire government last week because the House Republicans funded emergency FEMA disaster relief spending with $1.5 billion in offsetting spending cuts, half of one thousandth of the entire federal budget. The cuts were to a Department of Energy corporate welfare loan program, like the program that just lost half a billion in taxpayer funds in the Solyndra bankruptcy scandal. Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid said this microscopic spending cut to a program with no valid justification was "not an honest effort at compromise," as quoted in USA Today on Monday. The shutdown was averted only because FEMA decided it didn't need the emergency funding after all, meaning the Senate Democrats were successful in nullifying the negligible spending cut.
The House also passed a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would eliminate the government's power to run a deficit and increase the national debt. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass it.
To restore the creation of new jobs, the House passed the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, which would stop the imposition of federal regulatory burdens on farmers and small businesses that would impede job creation. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to do anything to stop the runaway regulatory burdens of the Obama Administration, killing jobs and the economy.
The House has also passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act, prohibiting any federal agency from imposing a national energy tax, which would only further destroy jobs and shortcircuit economic recovery. But the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to act on it.
To restore the production of American energy, creating new high paying jobs and producing increased federal revenues from the resulting increased economic growth, the House has passed the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, the Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, and the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. The House has also passed the North American-Made Energy Security Act, which would require the federal government to determine by a date certain whether to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline bringing Canadian oil to America's Gulf refineries. That would produce tens of thousands of new jobs and billions in increased federal revenues, but approval has been pending for the entire nearly 3 years of the Obama Administration.
But the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to act on any of these bills either.
The House has also passed The Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act, which would restrict the new unelected Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted in Obama's Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill from imposing any regulations that hurt job growth. Once again, no action from the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Obama, now campaigning for reelection non-stop around the country, is already trying to blame a Do-Nothing Congress for his failures. But the Republican-controlled House has already been quite active in passing legislation to address the nation's problems. It is the Do-Nothing Democrat-controlled Senate that has failed to act on any of the House's accomplishments or even pass a budget as required by law, effectively failing to show up for work.
It is the 23 Democrats whose seats are up for election this year, almost half of all Senate Democrats, that make this Senate record possible, fighting to the bitter end even the smallest budget cut. Make sure your friends, neighbors and relatives know that by the time the election rolls around next year. Make sure they don't get fooled again by Democrat candidates claiming they are different, and not Obamanistas. Every one of those Democrat Senate seats make the Obama record of trashing America possible.
Keeping Faith with the Voters, to Their Political Risk
House Republicans, indeed, fought bravely and successfully in insisting this past summer on spending cuts equal to the debt limit increase, forcing some major spending cuts on President Obama and Senate Democrats. But the Republicans have suffered in the polls for doing so. How dare they demand such spending cuts instead of just routinely approving the debt increase as in the past?
But the House Republican majority was elected precisely to end business as usual in Washington in regard to spending, deficits and debt. What they did during the debt limit fight only kept faith with the voters that overwhelmingly elected them in 2010.
The Washington Post, however, reported on September 24, "Polls showed that voters were appalled by what they viewed as a naked display of political brinkmanship that risked destabilizing the U.S. economy." GOP pollster Bill McInturff was cited as concluding that "Voters lost faith [during the debt limit fight] in the ability of both President Obama and Congressional Republicans to 'make the right decisions about the economy.'" But McInturff said, "congressional Republicans had taken the bigger hit…with 81 percent of those surveyed saying they had little or no confidence in the judgment of the GOP."
The Post also cited veteran political analyst Charlie Cook as saying over the debt limit fight that "if lawmakers continue down this path, the 2012 election could bring the biggest, broadest anti-incumbent year of postwar history, with voters indiscriminately tossing out lawmakers in both parties." Cook is quoted as saying, "I don't know what these guys think they're doing, but it looks like they're committing political suicide."
Even some libertarians I know who have condemned Republicans in the past for failing to cut spending think they went too far in demanding spending cuts in the debt limit fight. Yet some Tea Party grassroots activists condemn House Republicans for too easily giving in without getting enough in spending cuts.
A Paul Revere Moment: America at Risk
This raises an important, fundamental question. Is the Right becoming too fractured to hold together to give Obama and the Democrats the beating in 2012 they have so richly earned? The decentralized Tea Party has so far been mostly brilliant in maintaining political effectiveness while not breaking apart the opposition to Obama. Libertarians have to recognize as well we are dealing with a new, mortal danger to the nation in the Obamanistas. Every patriot has to think through how to be most effective politically in reversing the Left's so far soft authoritarian coup in Obama’s Democrat party.
House Speaker John Boehner and his House majority need to stop being so passive in taking the verbal broadsides of Obama and the Democrat-controlled media. They have one unexploited advantage. They each have home districts all across the country where they are all well known and have thorough access to the media. They need to pursue a more aggressive campaign mode media strategy in getting the word out now on their record and the issues to their local districts. They need to recognize Obama has started campaign 2012 now and start competing on the issues.
The voters have a responsibility too not to be so easily misled by the Democrat-controlled media, and to help spread the word locally to those who are not paying enough attention. This is a Paul Revere moment. America is fundamentally at risk. Patriots need to act now with effective, organizing political action to save the country from an ongoing Marxist takeover.
A crucial battle is going on right now in the Republican presidential race, which the conservatives are presently losing. Too many conservatives in the race are dividing up the conservative vote and leaving the lead to the more moderate. Republicans need to nominate an articulate leader who can take on Obama in debate, and who will make the most of the sweeping conservative victory in store, like Reagan did. We need to have more focus both on who is credible in taking on Obama, and who has the principled spirit and experienced effectiveness in making the most of the coming historic victory with New Deal-sized Republican Congressional majorities.
Grassroots patriots also need to take the battle to the enablers. Publicly challenge and hold accountable the Obama corporate cronies funding the Obama campaign in return for taxpayer funded payoffs. Locally challenge and hold accountable the brain dead Obamanista supporters who so fundamentally misunderstand the roots of American prosperity that they would vote for a Marxist takeover that would mean the decline and fall of America.
Most fundamentally, blame the entire Democrat party for Obama and what he is doing to America. Don't let your friends, neighbors and relatives fall for shysters claiming that they are different from Obama and the other Democrats. If they are different, let them run as independents or Republicans, and be part of the solution rather than part of the gravely threatening problem.
Then Democrats suffered historic, grievous losses in the 2010 midterm elections, with a New Deal size loss in the House of 63 seats, and a loss of 6 seats in the Senate. In Jimmy Carter's 1978 midterms, Democrats lost only 15 seats in the House and 3 seats in the Senate.
Now in the recent special election in New York City, Democrats have begun to lose seats they haven't lost since before the New Deal.
That is so fitting, because President Obama is not an anomaly in today's Democrat party. Quite to the contrary, he represents the party's heart and soul today, which is well to the Left now even of George McGovern in 1972. Witness the reelection of Far Left San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi as House Democrat leader even after the historic voter repudiation of the Pelosi Democrat House majority in 2010. Witness the choice of Far Left screamer Debbie Wasserman Schultz as leader of the Democratic National Committee. Witness Obama EPA Chief Lisa Jackson, Obama Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and the numerous similar, utterly clueless, ideologically rigid, far left appointees throughout the Obama Administration.
That is also so well deserved, because of what the Democrats are doing to our nation, even as their power starts to wane. Historically, for the American economy, the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery. Based on that historical record, we should be nearing the end of the second year of a booming recovery by now.
But almost four years after the last recession started, there still has been no real recovery. Unemployment is stuck over 9%, with unemployment among African-Americans, Hispanics, and teenagers at depression level double-digit rates for at least 2 years now. Real wages and incomes are falling, back to levels last seen over 30 years ago. Poverty is soaring to new records as well, with more Americans suffering in poverty than any time since the Census Bureau started keeping records over 50 years ago.
As a result, we are on track now for an historic conservative victory in 2012, far bigger even than in 1980.
The Do-Nothing Senate
In the Democrat majority-controlled Senate, 23 Democrat seats are subject to elections in 2012, with 6 of those open seats involving a retiring incumbent. Only 10 Republican seats are subject to election, with only two retirements from safe seats in Texas and Arizona. Let's compare the record of this Democrat-controlled Senate with the record of what the Republican-controlled House has already accomplished this year.
The first act of the Republican House was to pass repeal of Obamacare, reducing future taxes and spending by trillions. The Senate has failed to act on this at all.
The Republican House passed the budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, which would cut federal spending by $6.2 trillion over the first 10 years alone, and permanently balances the budget soon after that, as scored by CBO. Government spending as a percent of GDP would ultimately be reduced by 40% from current levels.
The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass any budget at all, as required by law, for the second consecutive year now. At least they had the good sense to vote down Obama's proposed runaway budget, 97-0. But the failure to pass any budget leaves the government subject to possible shutdown this fall.
The Democrat Senate has also fought tooth and nail against every spending cut. They even threatened to shut down the entire government last week because the House Republicans funded emergency FEMA disaster relief spending with $1.5 billion in offsetting spending cuts, half of one thousandth of the entire federal budget. The cuts were to a Department of Energy corporate welfare loan program, like the program that just lost half a billion in taxpayer funds in the Solyndra bankruptcy scandal. Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid said this microscopic spending cut to a program with no valid justification was "not an honest effort at compromise," as quoted in USA Today on Monday. The shutdown was averted only because FEMA decided it didn't need the emergency funding after all, meaning the Senate Democrats were successful in nullifying the negligible spending cut.
The House also passed a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would eliminate the government's power to run a deficit and increase the national debt. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass it.
To restore the creation of new jobs, the House passed the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, which would stop the imposition of federal regulatory burdens on farmers and small businesses that would impede job creation. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to do anything to stop the runaway regulatory burdens of the Obama Administration, killing jobs and the economy.
The House has also passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act, prohibiting any federal agency from imposing a national energy tax, which would only further destroy jobs and shortcircuit economic recovery. But the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to act on it.
To restore the production of American energy, creating new high paying jobs and producing increased federal revenues from the resulting increased economic growth, the House has passed the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act, the Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, and the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. The House has also passed the North American-Made Energy Security Act, which would require the federal government to determine by a date certain whether to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline bringing Canadian oil to America's Gulf refineries. That would produce tens of thousands of new jobs and billions in increased federal revenues, but approval has been pending for the entire nearly 3 years of the Obama Administration.
But the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to act on any of these bills either.
The House has also passed The Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act, which would restrict the new unelected Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted in Obama's Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill from imposing any regulations that hurt job growth. Once again, no action from the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Obama, now campaigning for reelection non-stop around the country, is already trying to blame a Do-Nothing Congress for his failures. But the Republican-controlled House has already been quite active in passing legislation to address the nation's problems. It is the Do-Nothing Democrat-controlled Senate that has failed to act on any of the House's accomplishments or even pass a budget as required by law, effectively failing to show up for work.
It is the 23 Democrats whose seats are up for election this year, almost half of all Senate Democrats, that make this Senate record possible, fighting to the bitter end even the smallest budget cut. Make sure your friends, neighbors and relatives know that by the time the election rolls around next year. Make sure they don't get fooled again by Democrat candidates claiming they are different, and not Obamanistas. Every one of those Democrat Senate seats make the Obama record of trashing America possible.
Keeping Faith with the Voters, to Their Political Risk
House Republicans, indeed, fought bravely and successfully in insisting this past summer on spending cuts equal to the debt limit increase, forcing some major spending cuts on President Obama and Senate Democrats. But the Republicans have suffered in the polls for doing so. How dare they demand such spending cuts instead of just routinely approving the debt increase as in the past?
But the House Republican majority was elected precisely to end business as usual in Washington in regard to spending, deficits and debt. What they did during the debt limit fight only kept faith with the voters that overwhelmingly elected them in 2010.
The Washington Post, however, reported on September 24, "Polls showed that voters were appalled by what they viewed as a naked display of political brinkmanship that risked destabilizing the U.S. economy." GOP pollster Bill McInturff was cited as concluding that "Voters lost faith [during the debt limit fight] in the ability of both President Obama and Congressional Republicans to 'make the right decisions about the economy.'" But McInturff said, "congressional Republicans had taken the bigger hit…with 81 percent of those surveyed saying they had little or no confidence in the judgment of the GOP."
The Post also cited veteran political analyst Charlie Cook as saying over the debt limit fight that "if lawmakers continue down this path, the 2012 election could bring the biggest, broadest anti-incumbent year of postwar history, with voters indiscriminately tossing out lawmakers in both parties." Cook is quoted as saying, "I don't know what these guys think they're doing, but it looks like they're committing political suicide."
Even some libertarians I know who have condemned Republicans in the past for failing to cut spending think they went too far in demanding spending cuts in the debt limit fight. Yet some Tea Party grassroots activists condemn House Republicans for too easily giving in without getting enough in spending cuts.
A Paul Revere Moment: America at Risk
This raises an important, fundamental question. Is the Right becoming too fractured to hold together to give Obama and the Democrats the beating in 2012 they have so richly earned? The decentralized Tea Party has so far been mostly brilliant in maintaining political effectiveness while not breaking apart the opposition to Obama. Libertarians have to recognize as well we are dealing with a new, mortal danger to the nation in the Obamanistas. Every patriot has to think through how to be most effective politically in reversing the Left's so far soft authoritarian coup in Obama’s Democrat party.
House Speaker John Boehner and his House majority need to stop being so passive in taking the verbal broadsides of Obama and the Democrat-controlled media. They have one unexploited advantage. They each have home districts all across the country where they are all well known and have thorough access to the media. They need to pursue a more aggressive campaign mode media strategy in getting the word out now on their record and the issues to their local districts. They need to recognize Obama has started campaign 2012 now and start competing on the issues.
The voters have a responsibility too not to be so easily misled by the Democrat-controlled media, and to help spread the word locally to those who are not paying enough attention. This is a Paul Revere moment. America is fundamentally at risk. Patriots need to act now with effective, organizing political action to save the country from an ongoing Marxist takeover.
A crucial battle is going on right now in the Republican presidential race, which the conservatives are presently losing. Too many conservatives in the race are dividing up the conservative vote and leaving the lead to the more moderate. Republicans need to nominate an articulate leader who can take on Obama in debate, and who will make the most of the sweeping conservative victory in store, like Reagan did. We need to have more focus both on who is credible in taking on Obama, and who has the principled spirit and experienced effectiveness in making the most of the coming historic victory with New Deal-sized Republican Congressional majorities.
Grassroots patriots also need to take the battle to the enablers. Publicly challenge and hold accountable the Obama corporate cronies funding the Obama campaign in return for taxpayer funded payoffs. Locally challenge and hold accountable the brain dead Obamanista supporters who so fundamentally misunderstand the roots of American prosperity that they would vote for a Marxist takeover that would mean the decline and fall of America.
Most fundamentally, blame the entire Democrat party for Obama and what he is doing to America. Don't let your friends, neighbors and relatives fall for shysters claiming that they are different from Obama and the other Democrats. If they are different, let them run as independents or Republicans, and be part of the solution rather than part of the gravely threatening problem.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sir Alex Ferguson claims football has sold soul to TV 'devil'
Sir Alex Ferguson has accused football of selling its soul to television and claimed that broadcasters do not pay enough money given the amount of control they exert over the game.
The Manchester United manager used his first in-depth BBC interview for almost a decade to berate the corrosive influence of television on the fixture list, despite the hundreds of millions of pounds it contributes to Manchester United's bottom line and its centrality to the business plan of the club's controversial owners.
"When you shake hands with the devil you have to pay the price. Television is God at the moment," said Ferguson, who agreed that broadcasters had "too much power". "It shows itself quite clearly because when you see the fixture lists come out now, they can pick and choose whenever they want the top teams on television," he added.
"You get some ridiculous situations when you're playing on Wednesday night in Europe and then at lunchtime the following Saturday. You ask any manager if they would pick that themselves and there'd be absolutely no chance."
Ferguson also said that broadcasters should pay more for the rights to live football, given the Premier League sold its product to more than 200 countries. "When you think of that I don't think we get enough money," he said.
The Premier League secured around £3.5bn from its most recent round of television deals, which run until the end of next season. About £2.1bn was generated from domestic rights sales, including about £1.8bn for live rights from BSkyB and ESPN, and £1.4bn from overseas broadcasters.
BSkyB refused to comment on Ferguson's observations but sports broadcasting insiders pointed out that Ferguson's views did not reflect the fact that each club must be shown live a minimum of 10 times and a maximum of 26, nor that other factors affected the scheduling of matches. They include policing issues and the ongoing tussle over the fixture calendar between domestic football bodies, Uefa and Fifa.
"Sir Alex's comments always have to be taken seriously – he is a very wise and experienced football man," Brian Barwick, a former FA chief executive and controller of sport at ITV, told the BBC.
"But on this one, I do think Manchester United have almost had a lion's share of TV revenue over a period of time and it has helped build a fantastic stadium in Old Trafford and helped build Sir Alex's teams with star players." Others pointed to the explosion in broadcasting income over the past two decades and the degree to which it drives Manchester United's commercial strategy, which relies on international TV exposure to drive its global sponsorship strategy.
Under the Premier League's distribution formula, which includes an equal share plus a merit payment and facility fees depending on the number of times each club is shown, Manchester United earned £60.4m from domestic TV last season.
The club's most recent financial results, to the year ending June 2011, showed that media income amounted to the club's biggest revenue stream, bringing in £119.4m. Commercial income, increasingly driven by overseas exposure on TV, rose to £103.4m from £81.4m the previous year.
The global reach afforded to the club by TV has been claimed as a major driver behind the plan to float a minority stake in Manchester United on the Singapore stock exchange.
The Football Supporters' Federation backed Ferguson's stance, albeit for different reasons. "The contract with Sky and ESPN ought to leave more control with the Premier League over the fixture calendar," said its chairman, Malcolm Clarke. "They should try and minimise the disruption to the number of matches being played on Saturday at 3pm. And they should be trying to minimise the number of long journeys for supporters on a Monday night.
"If you gave the Premier League more control, it might reduce the value of the rights in the marketplace but that should be a price football is prepared to pay."
Despite Ferguson's comments, there is no suggestion that the Glazers are planning to try to break away from the Premier League's collective selling model in order to maximise revenues.
In contrast to Spain, where the big two clubs do their own deals with television companies, the Premier League's income is shared out on a more equitable basis. Real Madrid recorded £129.9m in media revenues and Barcelona £145.8m, according to to the 2011 Deloitte Money League. United were the Premier League's highest earners last year, with and Blackpool the lowest with £39.1m.
The Glazers are believed to be convinced of the merits of the collective model but are determined to better exploit the limited rights that clubs have within their control by signing deals with international telecom and media companies.
In remarks that are likely to come as little surprise to those who have been on the receiving end of the Scot's famously fiery temper, David Beckham and Paul Ince included, Ferguson also admitted in the same interview: "I'm a confrontational character. I don't like people arguing back with me. I maybe have a short fuse."
The Manchester United manager used his first in-depth BBC interview for almost a decade to berate the corrosive influence of television on the fixture list, despite the hundreds of millions of pounds it contributes to Manchester United's bottom line and its centrality to the business plan of the club's controversial owners.
"When you shake hands with the devil you have to pay the price. Television is God at the moment," said Ferguson, who agreed that broadcasters had "too much power". "It shows itself quite clearly because when you see the fixture lists come out now, they can pick and choose whenever they want the top teams on television," he added.
"You get some ridiculous situations when you're playing on Wednesday night in Europe and then at lunchtime the following Saturday. You ask any manager if they would pick that themselves and there'd be absolutely no chance."
Ferguson also said that broadcasters should pay more for the rights to live football, given the Premier League sold its product to more than 200 countries. "When you think of that I don't think we get enough money," he said.
The Premier League secured around £3.5bn from its most recent round of television deals, which run until the end of next season. About £2.1bn was generated from domestic rights sales, including about £1.8bn for live rights from BSkyB and ESPN, and £1.4bn from overseas broadcasters.
BSkyB refused to comment on Ferguson's observations but sports broadcasting insiders pointed out that Ferguson's views did not reflect the fact that each club must be shown live a minimum of 10 times and a maximum of 26, nor that other factors affected the scheduling of matches. They include policing issues and the ongoing tussle over the fixture calendar between domestic football bodies, Uefa and Fifa.
"Sir Alex's comments always have to be taken seriously – he is a very wise and experienced football man," Brian Barwick, a former FA chief executive and controller of sport at ITV, told the BBC.
"But on this one, I do think Manchester United have almost had a lion's share of TV revenue over a period of time and it has helped build a fantastic stadium in Old Trafford and helped build Sir Alex's teams with star players." Others pointed to the explosion in broadcasting income over the past two decades and the degree to which it drives Manchester United's commercial strategy, which relies on international TV exposure to drive its global sponsorship strategy.
Under the Premier League's distribution formula, which includes an equal share plus a merit payment and facility fees depending on the number of times each club is shown, Manchester United earned £60.4m from domestic TV last season.
The club's most recent financial results, to the year ending June 2011, showed that media income amounted to the club's biggest revenue stream, bringing in £119.4m. Commercial income, increasingly driven by overseas exposure on TV, rose to £103.4m from £81.4m the previous year.
The global reach afforded to the club by TV has been claimed as a major driver behind the plan to float a minority stake in Manchester United on the Singapore stock exchange.
The Football Supporters' Federation backed Ferguson's stance, albeit for different reasons. "The contract with Sky and ESPN ought to leave more control with the Premier League over the fixture calendar," said its chairman, Malcolm Clarke. "They should try and minimise the disruption to the number of matches being played on Saturday at 3pm. And they should be trying to minimise the number of long journeys for supporters on a Monday night.
"If you gave the Premier League more control, it might reduce the value of the rights in the marketplace but that should be a price football is prepared to pay."
Despite Ferguson's comments, there is no suggestion that the Glazers are planning to try to break away from the Premier League's collective selling model in order to maximise revenues.
In contrast to Spain, where the big two clubs do their own deals with television companies, the Premier League's income is shared out on a more equitable basis. Real Madrid recorded £129.9m in media revenues and Barcelona £145.8m, according to to the 2011 Deloitte Money League. United were the Premier League's highest earners last year, with and Blackpool the lowest with £39.1m.
The Glazers are believed to be convinced of the merits of the collective model but are determined to better exploit the limited rights that clubs have within their control by signing deals with international telecom and media companies.
In remarks that are likely to come as little surprise to those who have been on the receiving end of the Scot's famously fiery temper, David Beckham and Paul Ince included, Ferguson also admitted in the same interview: "I'm a confrontational character. I don't like people arguing back with me. I maybe have a short fuse."
Friday, September 23, 2011
Rick Perry Is Right on In-State Tuition for Immigrants in Texas
A Texas law supported by Republican presidential candidate and Texas Governor Rick Perry to provide in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants when they attend college has gotten a lot of attention recently. It was the primary focus of several heated exchanges at last night’s debate and was widely criticized on Twitter as well, but Perry’s opponents and the media are giving an inaccurate picture of the law and its effects.
First of all, here’s a review of what the law actually entails.
Texas law permits a child who has lived in the state of Texas for at least three years and graduated from a state high school to qualify for in-state tuition at a Texas college or university, on the condition that the child agrees to pursue full citizenship.
Now let’s look at how many students qualified under this rule.
According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, in FY2010, 16,476 students qualified for in-state tuition under TEC 54.052(a)(3), the Texas statue governing this program. That number represents only one percent of total enrollment in Texas public universities; community, technical, and state colleges; and public health-related institutions.
Only one-percent. One-percent. The likes of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and others would have you believe it was a program run amok where these students were defrauding a system, unfairly taking advantage of this status, and ruining higher education for every other Texan. In a state with more than a million students in public institutions of higher learning, 16,476 students is a drop in the bucket.
Despite what you may be lead to believe, this was not a highly partisan bill that narrowly squeaked by on a tight party-line vote in the Texas legislature. In fact, only four legislators voted against the measure. The national media, and those politicians from outside the state of Texas may be quick to criticize this law and label it as extremist, but in reality it’s not.
This program makes a difference by offering these kids a helping hand to a quality education they may not receive otherwise. It does not destroy the ability of other Texas to get into school. In the end, it doesn’t even make a significant impact on the budgets of these colleges and universities. For instance, the Permanent University Fund that supports the flagship universities in Texas gets a substantial portion of its money from oil. They own an immense amount of land in West Texas and that land happens to be rich in black gold, pumping reliable dollars into the coffers of these schools. Tuition only makes up about a quarter of their overall funding.
These students have lived in Texas, some the required three years, some nearly their entire lives. As part of this program students must have graduated from a Texas high school, most likely a public one, paid for in part by the state. Shouldn’t they have the chance to receive the same services at the rate that other students who graduated from a Texas high school do?
These children should not be punished for the illegal acts of their parents. Many families risk life and limb to get to America so their children can have the opportunity to attend college and achieve the American dream.
It may not be true in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, or Minnesota, but in Texas there are a high number of Hispanic immigrants, some of whom are illegal. The means by which they’re allowed to slip past a border all but neglected by the federal government is for another conversation, but the fact remains that they are here and serve as valued members of the community, and are an integral part of the Texas culture. Hispanics are not political pawns to be thrown around by candidates seeking to score cheap political points by demagoguing an entire race.
Besides the fact that Republicans will be shut out of power for ages to come if they alienate Hispanics, it’s entirely inappropriate and un-American to punish the children of immigrants who may have fled their dysfunctional, failing, or dangerous homeland for a better life here in America. These are students who only get this in-state tuition rate if they commit to becoming legal citizens. Their tuition isn’t waived altogether, it’s just provided at the rate that every other Texas resident pays.
Now I’m not lobbying for blanket amnesty, and neither was Rick Perry – he’s on record opposing the federal DREAM Act – but the picture of this legislation painted by his opponents in this election is entirely inaccurate. I’m sure someone from the Romney camp will read this and use his favorite line these days, “nice try,” but the statistics show this for what it truly is, a program that does not punish these students, these future citizens, whose parents came to this country illegally. Instead it helps them become educated, productive citizens of these United States.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
First of all, here’s a review of what the law actually entails.
Texas law permits a child who has lived in the state of Texas for at least three years and graduated from a state high school to qualify for in-state tuition at a Texas college or university, on the condition that the child agrees to pursue full citizenship.
Now let’s look at how many students qualified under this rule.
According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, in FY2010, 16,476 students qualified for in-state tuition under TEC 54.052(a)(3), the Texas statue governing this program. That number represents only one percent of total enrollment in Texas public universities; community, technical, and state colleges; and public health-related institutions.
Only one-percent. One-percent. The likes of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and others would have you believe it was a program run amok where these students were defrauding a system, unfairly taking advantage of this status, and ruining higher education for every other Texan. In a state with more than a million students in public institutions of higher learning, 16,476 students is a drop in the bucket.
Despite what you may be lead to believe, this was not a highly partisan bill that narrowly squeaked by on a tight party-line vote in the Texas legislature. In fact, only four legislators voted against the measure. The national media, and those politicians from outside the state of Texas may be quick to criticize this law and label it as extremist, but in reality it’s not.
This program makes a difference by offering these kids a helping hand to a quality education they may not receive otherwise. It does not destroy the ability of other Texas to get into school. In the end, it doesn’t even make a significant impact on the budgets of these colleges and universities. For instance, the Permanent University Fund that supports the flagship universities in Texas gets a substantial portion of its money from oil. They own an immense amount of land in West Texas and that land happens to be rich in black gold, pumping reliable dollars into the coffers of these schools. Tuition only makes up about a quarter of their overall funding.
These students have lived in Texas, some the required three years, some nearly their entire lives. As part of this program students must have graduated from a Texas high school, most likely a public one, paid for in part by the state. Shouldn’t they have the chance to receive the same services at the rate that other students who graduated from a Texas high school do?
These children should not be punished for the illegal acts of their parents. Many families risk life and limb to get to America so their children can have the opportunity to attend college and achieve the American dream.
It may not be true in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, or Minnesota, but in Texas there are a high number of Hispanic immigrants, some of whom are illegal. The means by which they’re allowed to slip past a border all but neglected by the federal government is for another conversation, but the fact remains that they are here and serve as valued members of the community, and are an integral part of the Texas culture. Hispanics are not political pawns to be thrown around by candidates seeking to score cheap political points by demagoguing an entire race.
Besides the fact that Republicans will be shut out of power for ages to come if they alienate Hispanics, it’s entirely inappropriate and un-American to punish the children of immigrants who may have fled their dysfunctional, failing, or dangerous homeland for a better life here in America. These are students who only get this in-state tuition rate if they commit to becoming legal citizens. Their tuition isn’t waived altogether, it’s just provided at the rate that every other Texas resident pays.
Now I’m not lobbying for blanket amnesty, and neither was Rick Perry – he’s on record opposing the federal DREAM Act – but the picture of this legislation painted by his opponents in this election is entirely inaccurate. I’m sure someone from the Romney camp will read this and use his favorite line these days, “nice try,” but the statistics show this for what it truly is, a program that does not punish these students, these future citizens, whose parents came to this country illegally. Instead it helps them become educated, productive citizens of these United States.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Trojans start to feel the rush
LOS ANGELES -- It’s amazing how little we’ve learned about this USC football team through the first three games.
Matt Barkley and Robert Woods are good. The early-season schedule, not so much.
This coaching staff and USC’s collective fandom sit and hope this team grows into a personality. It has an offensive identity -- those two guys. “Barkley to Woods” figures to be the phrase of 2011, maybe the only memorable connection when it’s all said and done.
But there is another group on this team that has the potential to take over games, to help carry this team back from the morass of mediocrity to a potentially dominant position in college football again. Thus far, we’ve only seen glimpses and furtive glances.
Some of the most talented guys on this roster teased us again in Saturday’s close-but-not-quite-dominant 38-17 win over Syracuse. The USC defensive line isn’t what it should be yet, but it’s getting close. It has seven days before it absolutely has to arrive or this season might unravel slowly, the way it did a year ago.
“I’m waiting to see it. I really am,” said defensive coordinator Ed Orgeron. “It hasn’t happened yet. We’ve shown spurts, but obviously we’ve got a lot of ball left to play.”
Syracuse quarterback Ryan Nassib is an efficient guy and he was beginning to get comfortable Saturday, far more at-home than a quarterback from a rebuilding program ever should look playing in the Coliseum -- a place that once had the power to unnerve. Nassib was so rattled, he completed all 11 of his passes in the first quarter.
By the third, it looked as if he and his Orange teammates were actually starting to believe they could do what five of the previous 12 USC opponents had done here: win.
Then things started to cave in.
Syracuse had gotten to within 24-10 and Nassib hit Nick Provo on a 33-yard strike to push the ball all the way to USC’s 37-yard line. USC needed somebody to do something big, somebody to knock Nassib out of his rhythm and get the message through that this program may be down, but it still can land a punch.
Nassib dropped back on third-and-eight and was enveloped in the collective embrace of Nick Perry, Shane Horton and DaJohn Harris, the gang-sack ending a drive that had started with so much promise. Syracuse was backed up on its next drive and Wes Horton hit Nassib this time, dropping him at the Syracuse 10. The Trojans had only three sacks, but two of them were at that pivotal juncture in the third quarter.
“We just kept coming,” Harris said.
Teams have tended to avoid these guys. The USC defense is seeing a lot of quick drops and play-action plays, opponents hoping to offset the Trojans’ big athletes by putting the heat on the secondary. But they should have opportunities in the upcoming week. The Trojans figure to get their toughest test yet at Arizona State, where Brock Osweiler has thrown for an average of 290 yards per game. But he’s also 6 feet 8, 240 pounds and will take his time in the pocket looking for deep hits in Dennis Erickson’s offense.
Now, would be as good a time as any for the USC defensive front to prove it’s as good as the recruiting services claimed. Perry might be the most impressive athlete on USC’s team, Devon Kennard was a highly decorated recruit who has bounced between linebacker and defensive end and has yet to leave a permanent mark. Harris is turning into a force on the interior. Christian Tupou is the most experienced player in the group.
“Every game, we’re going to come out here and be dominant out here,” Perry said. “That’s going to be key in some of these big games.”
Orgeron keeps waiting. He challenges these guys during position group meetings. But being a defensive end is kind of like being a closer in baseball. People don’t want to hear about the details. You either got the save or you didn’t. You either got the sack or you didn’t.
“His big emphasis is, we’ve got all the talent in the world in the D-line room, but we’ve got to show it on Saturdays,” Kennard said. “The hype doesn’t matter, what we could be or what we can be. We’ve got to put it on film.”
The man who would be veep
The battle for the Republican presidential nomination is just heating up. But the choice of running mate is as good as settled, at least if the Beltway buzz is to be believed.
Many party insiders feel that the attractions of Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) for the second spot on the ticket are irresistible.
“Right now, he is head and shouders above everybody else,” Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson told The Hill. (Wilson supported Rubio during his 2010 Senate bid, but did not work for the campaign.)
Garlands have been hurled Rubio’s way with conspicuous frequency in the past few weeks.
“Rubio has the most important ingredient of any leader: vision,” conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote.
Former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen last week contrasted the “depressing” performance of the Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy with that of Rubio. The Floridian recently “stepped forward to do what the other candidates should have: lay out a clear foreign policy vision,” Thiessen wrote on his Washington Post blog.
Thiessen and Thomas were reacting to two major speeches.
The first came late last month at the Ronald Reagan Library in California. There, Rubio laid out a worldview that sounded strikingly magnanimous.
“Conservatism is not about leaving people behind,” he said. “Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them the tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. And our programs to help them should reflect that.”
Rubio turned his attention to foreign policy last Tuesday, with an address at the Jesse Helms Center in North Carolina. Though the speech assailed the Obama administration, it also put a wide stretch of water between Rubio and the GOP’s paleoconservative wing.
“If we refuse to play our rightful role and shrink from the world, America and the entire world will pay a terrible price,” he insisted.
Rubio seemingly ruled out being part of a presidential ticket next year when, during an appearance on “Meet the Press” in May, he told host David Gregory: “I won’t consider it. I don’t want to be the vice president of the United States.”
Still, whether those denials of interest would remain as firm if he were asked to be on the ticket is an open question. Would he really turn down such a request, which would surely be accompanied by beseechings that he had a duty to help his party?
“It would be difficult to say no, especially if someone made the argument that you could be decisive in a number of key states,” said Wilson.
Rubio is a gifted orator. The narrative of his life, rising as the son of hardworking immigrants, resonates widely. Superficially — but importantly — he is telegenic, young, has a discernible sense of humor and a taste in music that extends to rap and hip-hop.
“He has the quality of a young, suburban father,” conservative commentator and National Review blogger Reihan Salam told The Hill. “There are many ways in which he appears very ‘normal.’”
The senator’s mainstream appeal has led to him becoming a talking point far beyond the usual Washington-centric forums. His name popped up out of the blue earlier this month on the popular podcast by sports journalist Bill Simmons, when a guest abruptly announced, “Rubio is a rock-solid lock [for a vice-presidential nomination]. You can take that to Vegas. He’s 1-5.”
Rubio’s ethnicity is, and will continue to be, a major focus. For a party that has struggled to win minority support — and is particularly concerned about its failure to gain traction with the fast-growing Hispanic population — Rubio has a potent appeal.
GOP strategist and Univision analyst Hector Barajas notes the mere fact that Rubio can speak English and Spanish with equal fluency is a big advantage. More broadly, he added, the senator “is someone who can have a kinda ‘family conversation’ with the Latino community.”
A 2012 ticket that included Rubio as the running mate “ would be good for our community and good for our party,” Barajas said.
The relationship between Rubio and the Hispanic community is not without complications, however. For a start, Cuban-Americans have tended to be somewhat discrete from the broader Hispanic population, and have traditionally skewed heavily Republican. On that basis alone, Rubio’s appeal to centrist or left-leaning Hispanics might be more muted than some expect.
Rubio has also cleaved to positions on illegal immigration that are little different from most of his Republican comrades — and are antithetical to advocates within the Hispanic community. He opposed the DREAM Act, which would allow illegal immigrants who had come to the United States as minors to become legal residents, subject to a number of conditions.
University of South Florida professor Seth McKee draws an intriguing parallel regarding the tension between Rubio’s identity and his political positions.
“It’s like the way Sarah Palin did not really have strong appeal to women, except for the fact that she was a woman. Marco Rubio does not have a strong natural appeal to Hispanics, except for the fact that he is Hispanic,” he said.
Salam, who admires Rubio in general, admitted that “I wouldn’t say that the Democrats would have no arrows in their quiver if it came to attacking a ticket that Rubio was on.” The senator’s stated desire to reform Social Security by raising the retirement age might be one vulnerability, he added.
Still, in a party that is not exactly awash with rising stars, Rubio shines brightly. Few people doubt that he has national ambitions, whatever his protestations to the contrary.
According to University of South Florida professor Susan MacManus, the possibility of him being the Number Two on a 2012 presidential ticket is “the buzz that has been circulating in Florida for quite some time.”
There are two schools of thought on his willingness to push himself for that role, overtly or covertly, she said.
On the one hand, he seems such an attractive candidate that he need not hurry onto the very biggest stage. He could bide his time.
On the other, “if he really feels the party will win next year, that changes the calculation.”
The party might well feel its chances of victory are boosted by having the senator on the ticket.
For the man himself, the lure of becoming Vice President Rubio might be too enticing to resist — even if that position would still be one step away from the ultimate destination that many of his supporters predict.
Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/182219-marco-rubio-the-man-who-would-be-veep
Many party insiders feel that the attractions of Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) for the second spot on the ticket are irresistible.
“Right now, he is head and shouders above everybody else,” Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson told The Hill. (Wilson supported Rubio during his 2010 Senate bid, but did not work for the campaign.)
Garlands have been hurled Rubio’s way with conspicuous frequency in the past few weeks.
“Rubio has the most important ingredient of any leader: vision,” conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote.
Former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen last week contrasted the “depressing” performance of the Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy with that of Rubio. The Floridian recently “stepped forward to do what the other candidates should have: lay out a clear foreign policy vision,” Thiessen wrote on his Washington Post blog.
Thiessen and Thomas were reacting to two major speeches.
The first came late last month at the Ronald Reagan Library in California. There, Rubio laid out a worldview that sounded strikingly magnanimous.
“Conservatism is not about leaving people behind,” he said. “Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them the tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. And our programs to help them should reflect that.”
Rubio turned his attention to foreign policy last Tuesday, with an address at the Jesse Helms Center in North Carolina. Though the speech assailed the Obama administration, it also put a wide stretch of water between Rubio and the GOP’s paleoconservative wing.
“If we refuse to play our rightful role and shrink from the world, America and the entire world will pay a terrible price,” he insisted.
Rubio seemingly ruled out being part of a presidential ticket next year when, during an appearance on “Meet the Press” in May, he told host David Gregory: “I won’t consider it. I don’t want to be the vice president of the United States.”
Still, whether those denials of interest would remain as firm if he were asked to be on the ticket is an open question. Would he really turn down such a request, which would surely be accompanied by beseechings that he had a duty to help his party?
“It would be difficult to say no, especially if someone made the argument that you could be decisive in a number of key states,” said Wilson.
Rubio is a gifted orator. The narrative of his life, rising as the son of hardworking immigrants, resonates widely. Superficially — but importantly — he is telegenic, young, has a discernible sense of humor and a taste in music that extends to rap and hip-hop.
“He has the quality of a young, suburban father,” conservative commentator and National Review blogger Reihan Salam told The Hill. “There are many ways in which he appears very ‘normal.’”
The senator’s mainstream appeal has led to him becoming a talking point far beyond the usual Washington-centric forums. His name popped up out of the blue earlier this month on the popular podcast by sports journalist Bill Simmons, when a guest abruptly announced, “Rubio is a rock-solid lock [for a vice-presidential nomination]. You can take that to Vegas. He’s 1-5.”
Rubio’s ethnicity is, and will continue to be, a major focus. For a party that has struggled to win minority support — and is particularly concerned about its failure to gain traction with the fast-growing Hispanic population — Rubio has a potent appeal.
GOP strategist and Univision analyst Hector Barajas notes the mere fact that Rubio can speak English and Spanish with equal fluency is a big advantage. More broadly, he added, the senator “is someone who can have a kinda ‘family conversation’ with the Latino community.”
A 2012 ticket that included Rubio as the running mate “ would be good for our community and good for our party,” Barajas said.
The relationship between Rubio and the Hispanic community is not without complications, however. For a start, Cuban-Americans have tended to be somewhat discrete from the broader Hispanic population, and have traditionally skewed heavily Republican. On that basis alone, Rubio’s appeal to centrist or left-leaning Hispanics might be more muted than some expect.
Rubio has also cleaved to positions on illegal immigration that are little different from most of his Republican comrades — and are antithetical to advocates within the Hispanic community. He opposed the DREAM Act, which would allow illegal immigrants who had come to the United States as minors to become legal residents, subject to a number of conditions.
University of South Florida professor Seth McKee draws an intriguing parallel regarding the tension between Rubio’s identity and his political positions.
“It’s like the way Sarah Palin did not really have strong appeal to women, except for the fact that she was a woman. Marco Rubio does not have a strong natural appeal to Hispanics, except for the fact that he is Hispanic,” he said.
Salam, who admires Rubio in general, admitted that “I wouldn’t say that the Democrats would have no arrows in their quiver if it came to attacking a ticket that Rubio was on.” The senator’s stated desire to reform Social Security by raising the retirement age might be one vulnerability, he added.
Still, in a party that is not exactly awash with rising stars, Rubio shines brightly. Few people doubt that he has national ambitions, whatever his protestations to the contrary.
According to University of South Florida professor Susan MacManus, the possibility of him being the Number Two on a 2012 presidential ticket is “the buzz that has been circulating in Florida for quite some time.”
There are two schools of thought on his willingness to push himself for that role, overtly or covertly, she said.
On the one hand, he seems such an attractive candidate that he need not hurry onto the very biggest stage. He could bide his time.
On the other, “if he really feels the party will win next year, that changes the calculation.”
The party might well feel its chances of victory are boosted by having the senator on the ticket.
For the man himself, the lure of becoming Vice President Rubio might be too enticing to resist — even if that position would still be one step away from the ultimate destination that many of his supporters predict.
Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/182219-marco-rubio-the-man-who-would-be-veep
Friday, September 16, 2011
Paul Krugman Is Back Out From Under His Desk - He’s still a fool and a liar, though.
The New York Times fully endorses Paul Krugman’s disgusting 9/11 column, since they haven’t fired him for writing it. A great number of their readers did not endorse it, so Krugman spent a few days hiding under his desk, with comments for both his initial screed and a subsequent expansion of his tinfoil-hat ravings turned off. Today he crawled back out to pen a little screed about how Republicans want everyone to be “free to die.”
What got Krugman thinking about this important subject was an exchange during the GOP presidential debate in Tampa:
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.”
And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”
Never forget that Paul Krugman is a liar, in addition to being a coward. The crowd did not “erupt with cheers and shouts of yeah!” when Wolf Blitzer said that. One or two people threw out a rowdy “Yeah!” It’s hard to tell if it’s the same person shouting it twice, so let’s just be charitable to the New York Times’ pet propagandist and say two.
Ron Paul’s answer to Wolf Blitzer’s question, transcribed precisely, was “No.”
What made the crowd erupt in cheers was Paul saying, “That’s what freedom is about: taking your own risk.” Granted Paul Krugman responds to such ideas by blinking in numb incomprehension, and maybe sputtering something about how it would be nice if aliens attacked the Earth so we could have more infrastructure spending without public opposition, but I assume he’s still capable of understanding the actual words.
They applauded wildly again when Paul said that “we never turned anybody away from the hospital” during his medical practice days. He went on to make another point that a statist flatliner like Krugman can never understand, about the difference between a healthy and free society providing charitable emergency care for the truly needy, and a dead-end socialist bureaucracy taking over the entire medical industry – a process with results that Krugman famously lied about in August 2009 by penning this immortal line:
In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.
This line became a favorite chew toy of the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, who never fails to mention it when reporting the latest horror story from the world of British socialized medicine. Quite a few of them involve dead people, so I guess their system has made them “free to die,” eh, Krugman?
Now, let’s be clear: Paul Krugman is a slow-witted man living inside a hermetically sealed bubble of information, but it’s impossible that he didn’t know about the failures of British socialized medicine. He wasn’t quibbling about a story here or there – he made a blanket declaration that all of them are false.
Likewise, there is no way Krugman could have watched the GOP debate last Monday night, or read an accurate transcript of it, and honestly come up with the column he published today. Don’t believe me? Watch it for yourself:
Krugman’s entire column proceeds from his lie about the Blitzer-Paul exchange, and the false premise that people who resist totalitarian socialism are heartless monsters who want the sick and needy to drop dead.
Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts.
Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.
And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
In the reality Krugman desperately wants you to forget about, so his arguments make some kind of minimal sense, both RomneyCare and ObamaCare have wiped out jobs, driven up health care costs, and reduced the number of people with health insurance.
And ObamaCare has only just gotten started destroying private insurance plans. This process will eventually force most Americans into the kind of government-run socialist program Krugman favors, but that is emphatically not how the program was sold to Americans. Not only that, but we were fed nonsense about how ObamaCare would cost the taxpayers very little, but if we’re all forced into the public exchanges, its cost will blow our already horrific national debt into the stratosphere. In other words, ObamaCare was a lie. That’s probably why a liar like Krugman would be so comfortable with it.
I call upon the editors of the New York Times to compel Krugman to write an apology and correct the factual inaccuracies in his column. Then their ombudsman should write a detailed explanation for why Krugman was allowed to publish such an obvious falsehood in the first place. If they’re not going to fire this tedious slander artist and fraud, they should assign editors to review what he writes, before he does any more damage to what remains of the Grey Lady’s reputation.
Meanwhile, I'm really looking forward to Wolf Blitzer going after Barack Obama like a prosecutor during the general election, and barking "Who pays?" at him during a question about ObamaCare, or anything else.
What got Krugman thinking about this important subject was an exchange during the GOP presidential debate in Tampa:
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.”
And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”
Never forget that Paul Krugman is a liar, in addition to being a coward. The crowd did not “erupt with cheers and shouts of yeah!” when Wolf Blitzer said that. One or two people threw out a rowdy “Yeah!” It’s hard to tell if it’s the same person shouting it twice, so let’s just be charitable to the New York Times’ pet propagandist and say two.
Ron Paul’s answer to Wolf Blitzer’s question, transcribed precisely, was “No.”
What made the crowd erupt in cheers was Paul saying, “That’s what freedom is about: taking your own risk.” Granted Paul Krugman responds to such ideas by blinking in numb incomprehension, and maybe sputtering something about how it would be nice if aliens attacked the Earth so we could have more infrastructure spending without public opposition, but I assume he’s still capable of understanding the actual words.
They applauded wildly again when Paul said that “we never turned anybody away from the hospital” during his medical practice days. He went on to make another point that a statist flatliner like Krugman can never understand, about the difference between a healthy and free society providing charitable emergency care for the truly needy, and a dead-end socialist bureaucracy taking over the entire medical industry – a process with results that Krugman famously lied about in August 2009 by penning this immortal line:
In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.
This line became a favorite chew toy of the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, who never fails to mention it when reporting the latest horror story from the world of British socialized medicine. Quite a few of them involve dead people, so I guess their system has made them “free to die,” eh, Krugman?
Now, let’s be clear: Paul Krugman is a slow-witted man living inside a hermetically sealed bubble of information, but it’s impossible that he didn’t know about the failures of British socialized medicine. He wasn’t quibbling about a story here or there – he made a blanket declaration that all of them are false.
Likewise, there is no way Krugman could have watched the GOP debate last Monday night, or read an accurate transcript of it, and honestly come up with the column he published today. Don’t believe me? Watch it for yourself:
Krugman’s entire column proceeds from his lie about the Blitzer-Paul exchange, and the false premise that people who resist totalitarian socialism are heartless monsters who want the sick and needy to drop dead.
Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts.
Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.
And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
In the reality Krugman desperately wants you to forget about, so his arguments make some kind of minimal sense, both RomneyCare and ObamaCare have wiped out jobs, driven up health care costs, and reduced the number of people with health insurance.
And ObamaCare has only just gotten started destroying private insurance plans. This process will eventually force most Americans into the kind of government-run socialist program Krugman favors, but that is emphatically not how the program was sold to Americans. Not only that, but we were fed nonsense about how ObamaCare would cost the taxpayers very little, but if we’re all forced into the public exchanges, its cost will blow our already horrific national debt into the stratosphere. In other words, ObamaCare was a lie. That’s probably why a liar like Krugman would be so comfortable with it.
I call upon the editors of the New York Times to compel Krugman to write an apology and correct the factual inaccuracies in his column. Then their ombudsman should write a detailed explanation for why Krugman was allowed to publish such an obvious falsehood in the first place. If they’re not going to fire this tedious slander artist and fraud, they should assign editors to review what he writes, before he does any more damage to what remains of the Grey Lady’s reputation.
Meanwhile, I'm really looking forward to Wolf Blitzer going after Barack Obama like a prosecutor during the general election, and barking "Who pays?" at him during a question about ObamaCare, or anything else.
The president's own economic words are coming back to haunt him.
The Obama Promise: Then and Now
The president's own economic words are coming back to haunt him.
By STEPHEN MOORE
Barack Obama now faces perhaps his most politically crippling deficit of all: a credibility deficit.
That observation is reflected in the latest Bloomberg poll, which finds that on the heels of his big jobs speech last Thursday night, more than half of Americans (51%) do not believe the president's claim that this latest $447 billion spend-and-tax-or-borrow scheme will create new jobs.
"As the economy has gotten worse, people have stopped listening to Obama and his speeches are no longer an asset, they're a liability," concludes Kellyanne Conway, president of the Polling Company. That is because the gulf between three years of rhetoric and reality is so gigantic.
Related Video
WSJ Editorial board member Steve Moore on President Obama's plan to pay for temporary tax cuts by hiking income and business taxes over the long haul.
It is hard to make a persuasive case for a $447 billion economic stimulus plan that looks and sounds so much like the $830 billion plan that Americans were sold two-and-a-half years ago. That first plan didn't "create or save" the 3.5 million jobs the White House promised, and most Americans don't agree with Vice President Biden that it worked beyond his "wildest dreams." Tell that to the 14 million Americans—two million more than when all the spending and borrowing began—who are still out of work, or the tens of millions who do have jobs but have seen their income drop in the last two years.
American voters can't conceive of how $447 billion of more debt and spending will create jobs when the last three years have already given us $4 trillion of new debt with no jobs. What is even harder to believe is the president's assurance that the new American Jobs Act "will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for." How can this plan be paid for when the first, $830 billion, plan has never been paid for?
While running for president Mr. Obama promised "pay as you go budgeting," and in February 2009 during his "fiscal responsibility summit" he sounded like Ronald Reagan when he said that "this is the rule that families across this country follow every single day, and there's no reason why their government shouldn't do the same." But the Obama government isn't doing the same. It is doing the opposite.
Here's another Obama promise that sounds like a whopper today. In 2008 he pledged he would "go through our federal budget—page by page, line by line—eliminating those programs we don't need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." That hasn't happened.
In the wake of the lousy economic news, Mr. Obama, who promised a new era of "accountability," has blamed the ongoing jobs recession on "a run of bad luck." Who knew there would be a tsunami in Japan, disruptions in the oil supply from the Mideast—when has that ever happened before?—and so many other job-killing events beyond the president's control?
stevemoore0916
stevemoore0916
Getty Images
The president touts his latest economic plan.
The green jobs revolution we were expecting to put America back to work is also browning out. A new Department of Energy study finds that between 2007 and 2010, clean-energy subsidies more than doubled. But after billions of taxpayer handouts have been pumped year after year into solar and wind power, these two industries supply 2.4% of America's electricity.
Mr. Obama says he wants to make America less dependent on foreign oil, but this week he called again for raising taxes on domestic oil and gas production. He said last year that he believes America is "running out of places to drill" even though in the last five years new discoveries of oil and natural gas have occurred in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Dakota, Texas, Montana and Colorado—causing a near doubling in U.S. recoverable reserves.
Mr. Obama said in his speech on Thursday that health-care costs are a major contributor to the debt and need to be reined in. He neglected to mention what voters surely remember, which is that last year Mr. Obama signed a health-care law that adds at least 30 million more Americans to Medicaid—the program Mr. Obama now says is the problem. During the debate over ObamaCare the White House insisted that the fees in the plan for not purchasing health insurance were not a tax. But arguing before the courts on the constitutionality of the law, the White House now says these are taxes. Which is it?
Mr. Obama says he has been one of the most constantly attacked presidents in history and he is probably right about that. But his attackers in the conservative movement aren't likely to be his undoing. His most damning persecutors are his own words and promises. The problem for President Obama is that fewer voters are listening to him. There's no blaming George W. Bush for that.
Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
The president's own economic words are coming back to haunt him.
By STEPHEN MOORE
Barack Obama now faces perhaps his most politically crippling deficit of all: a credibility deficit.
That observation is reflected in the latest Bloomberg poll, which finds that on the heels of his big jobs speech last Thursday night, more than half of Americans (51%) do not believe the president's claim that this latest $447 billion spend-and-tax-or-borrow scheme will create new jobs.
"As the economy has gotten worse, people have stopped listening to Obama and his speeches are no longer an asset, they're a liability," concludes Kellyanne Conway, president of the Polling Company. That is because the gulf between three years of rhetoric and reality is so gigantic.
Related Video
WSJ Editorial board member Steve Moore on President Obama's plan to pay for temporary tax cuts by hiking income and business taxes over the long haul.
It is hard to make a persuasive case for a $447 billion economic stimulus plan that looks and sounds so much like the $830 billion plan that Americans were sold two-and-a-half years ago. That first plan didn't "create or save" the 3.5 million jobs the White House promised, and most Americans don't agree with Vice President Biden that it worked beyond his "wildest dreams." Tell that to the 14 million Americans—two million more than when all the spending and borrowing began—who are still out of work, or the tens of millions who do have jobs but have seen their income drop in the last two years.
American voters can't conceive of how $447 billion of more debt and spending will create jobs when the last three years have already given us $4 trillion of new debt with no jobs. What is even harder to believe is the president's assurance that the new American Jobs Act "will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for." How can this plan be paid for when the first, $830 billion, plan has never been paid for?
While running for president Mr. Obama promised "pay as you go budgeting," and in February 2009 during his "fiscal responsibility summit" he sounded like Ronald Reagan when he said that "this is the rule that families across this country follow every single day, and there's no reason why their government shouldn't do the same." But the Obama government isn't doing the same. It is doing the opposite.
Here's another Obama promise that sounds like a whopper today. In 2008 he pledged he would "go through our federal budget—page by page, line by line—eliminating those programs we don't need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." That hasn't happened.
In the wake of the lousy economic news, Mr. Obama, who promised a new era of "accountability," has blamed the ongoing jobs recession on "a run of bad luck." Who knew there would be a tsunami in Japan, disruptions in the oil supply from the Mideast—when has that ever happened before?—and so many other job-killing events beyond the president's control?
stevemoore0916
stevemoore0916
Getty Images
The president touts his latest economic plan.
The green jobs revolution we were expecting to put America back to work is also browning out. A new Department of Energy study finds that between 2007 and 2010, clean-energy subsidies more than doubled. But after billions of taxpayer handouts have been pumped year after year into solar and wind power, these two industries supply 2.4% of America's electricity.
Mr. Obama says he wants to make America less dependent on foreign oil, but this week he called again for raising taxes on domestic oil and gas production. He said last year that he believes America is "running out of places to drill" even though in the last five years new discoveries of oil and natural gas have occurred in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Dakota, Texas, Montana and Colorado—causing a near doubling in U.S. recoverable reserves.
Mr. Obama said in his speech on Thursday that health-care costs are a major contributor to the debt and need to be reined in. He neglected to mention what voters surely remember, which is that last year Mr. Obama signed a health-care law that adds at least 30 million more Americans to Medicaid—the program Mr. Obama now says is the problem. During the debate over ObamaCare the White House insisted that the fees in the plan for not purchasing health insurance were not a tax. But arguing before the courts on the constitutionality of the law, the White House now says these are taxes. Which is it?
Mr. Obama says he has been one of the most constantly attacked presidents in history and he is probably right about that. But his attackers in the conservative movement aren't likely to be his undoing. His most damning persecutors are his own words and promises. The problem for President Obama is that fewer voters are listening to him. There's no blaming George W. Bush for that.
Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Perry and the Profs - He picked the right fight.
September 19, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 01
If you want a glimpse of the way Rick Perry operates as an executive and a politician, consider the issue of higher education reform in Texas, which no one in Texas knew was an issue until Perry decided to make it one.
In his 30-year public career, Perry—how to put this delicately?—has shown no sign of being tortured by a gnawing intellectual curiosity. “He’s not the sort of person you’ll find reading The Wealth of Nations for the seventh time,” said Brooke Rollins, formerly Perry’s policy director and now president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free-market research group closely allied with Perry. At Texas A&M he majored in animal science and escaped with a grade point average a bit over 2.0. (Perry’s A&M transcript was leaked last month to the left-wing blog Huffington Post by “a source in Texas,” presumably not his mom. How his GPA compares with Barack Obama’s is unknown, since no one in higher education has thought to leak Obama’s transcript to a right-wing blog.)
Perry expends his considerable intelligence instead on using political power and, what amounts to the same thing, picking fights with his political adversaries. When Rollins came to Perry in 2007 with a radical and comprehensive proposal to overhaul higher education in the state, Rollins says the governor quickly understood the potential of the issue, not only politically but on its merits. The state operates more than 100 colleges, universities, technical schools, and two-year community colleges, organized into six separate systems. As in other states, public higher education in Texas is scattered, expensive, poorly monitored, and top heavy with administrators, even as it subjects students to often large annual tuition increases without a compensatory increase in educational quality.
Perry’s first poke at this sclerotic establishment came early in his first term. He suggested converting the money that the state gives to public colleges and universities into individual grants handed straight to students. Money is power, and Perry’s idea was to place the power in the hands of “consumers,” as he put it, rather than the administrators, to increase competition among schools and thereby lower costs and increase quality. “Young fertile minds [should be] empowered,” he said at the time, “to pursue their dreams regardless of family income, the color of their skin, or the sound of their last name.”
The higher ed establishment, led by regents of the University of Texas system, rebelled, and the legislature, well-wired with the system’s allies, agreed, and the proposal died. But Perry continued to poke. College graduation rates in Texas are unusually low, and the gaps among whites, blacks, and Hispanics are unusually high. Nationwide 38 percent of American adults (age 25-64) have a post-secondary degree; in Texas the figure is 31 percent. So Perry proposed “Outcomes-based Funding,” tying the amount of aid a school receives to the number of students it graduates. To keep a school from lowering its standards to increase its graduation rates, he suggested giving an exit exam to all students receiving a B.A. Students wouldn’t have to pass the exam to get their degree, but the information yielded by such a test—how much learning is going on around here?—would be useful, mostly to reformers. The proposal was seen, correctly, as a threat to the status quo, which has so far successfully fought it off.
The proposals Rollins brought to Perry in 2007 turned on the same themes of—apologizing in advance for the buzzwords—accountability and transparency: collecting information about how much students learn and how well schools function, and holding the schools responsible for the results. “His priority has been putting students back into the driver’s seat,” Rollins said. Perry said he hoped to apply the cost-benefit logic of business to public higher education. He incorporated Rollins’s ideas into a package of reforms and called a “higher education summit” to build support.
The reforms attacked the establishment from multiple angles. They would require schools to expand their websites to make vast amounts of new information available to students. For the first time, professors would be required to post course syllabi online. To suss out slackers among the faculty, schools would post every teacher’s salary and benefits along with the average number of students and course hours they taught every year. A summary of student evaluations would be posted too, and the average number of As and Bs professors handed out, to guard against grade inflation. Before choosing a particular school or enrolling in a major, students would be given a list of the specific skills or knowledge that they could expect to learn, as well as the average starting salaries of students who had graduated from a similar course of study.
Perry also suggested separating teaching budgets from research budgets, as a way of encouraging teachers to teach and researchers to do research. Tenure would be granted only to teachers who spent a large majority of their time teaching; a defined percentage of tenure jobs would go to researchers, who would concentrate on pure research. A system of cash awards and other incentives would compensate professors who successfully taught a large number of students.
Any businessman in a profit-seeking enterprise would see ideas like “pay for performance” as unremarkable, but they overwhelm the delicate sensibilities of people who have spent their professional lives on campus, where the word “nonprofit” is meant to act as a firewall against the unpleasantness of commercial life. “Texas Governor Treats Colleges Like Businesses,” headlined the Chronicle of Higher Education—a sentence sure to induce aneurysms in faculty lounges from El Paso to Galveston. The outrage was deafening, especially when university regents began acting on the recommendations. The Texas A&M system, for example, which includes a dozen schools, posted a spreadsheet on its website evaluating teacher performance on a cost-benefit basis.
“Very simplistic and potentially very dangerous,” an official of the American Association of University Professors said. “This is . . . simplistic,” said the dean of faculties at A&M. “Simplistic,” said the Houston Chronicle. A group of former regents and wealthy school boosters organized a pressure group to oppose -Perry’s reforms. The group hired Karen Hughes, a close aide to the second President Bush, as press spokesman. The rage at Perry from within the establishment has taken many forms: You think it’s easy stealing someone’s college transcript?
The protests might have been more effective except that Perry, for the last decade, has been seeding Texas higher education with like-minded reformers (cronies too). By 2009 he had appointed every regent in the state. The chancellor of A&M who issued the cost-benefit report, for example, was a former chief of staff of the governor. At least three campus presidents have been pressured to resign in recent years, to make way for Perry appointees—all Republican businessmen. A particularly popular (and vocal) vice president of student affairs at the University of Texas was removed and replaced by . . . a retired Marine Corps general.
The appointees weren’t as pliant as Perry might have wished. The implementation of the reforms has been difficult and at times dilatory. Perry barrels on. In his state of the state address this spring, he urged administrators to develop a four-year bachelor’s degree that would cost less than $10,000 “including textbooks.” The discount degree, he said, would be a “bold, Texas-style solution” to the problem of rapidly rising tuition. (The average in-state cost of a four-year degree in Texas, including books, is roughly $30,000.) After the goal was declared impossible by Perry’s critics, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board published a plan to lower costs dramatically: greater use of online classes and “open-source” course materials, accelerated or staggered student schedules, fuller integration of four- and two-year colleges, and more.
Perry’s admirers praise his sure-footedness—his ability to sense cultural trends before others do and turn them to his political advantage. He was the first national politician to ally himself to the Tea Party movement in 2009, a move that’s just now paying off. He caught the mounting anxiety among middle-income parents about college costs early on. Most American parents now say that a college degree will be essential for their children’s future success; at the same time, according to a new Pew Foundation poll, only 22 percent of Americans believe that most people can afford to send their kids to college. And 57 percent describe the quality of American higher education as “only fair” or “poor.” To address this anxiety Perry’s opponents offer more government subsidies, which in turn provide an incentive for schools to raise their prices—an attempt to douse the fire with gasoline. Perry’s ideas are cheaper, more comprehensive, more imaginative, and more likely to work.
And they have a good chance of being put into action. In late August, Perry scored another significant, if partial, victory. The University of Texas regents approved an “action plan” proposed by the system’s chancellor, who isn’t a Perry appointee. The plan is a compromise, but it incorporates many of Perry’s ideas, including some of the most radical, such as “pay for performance” and “learning contracts” between schools and their students. Amazingly, the plan has won support from both the right (Brooke Rollins’s Texas Public Policy Foundation) and left (Karen Hughes’s group).
Reforms like these would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, before Perry picked up his stick and started poking the system until it had to respond. It’s been a remarkable display of political entrepreneurship: Create an issue, define it on your terms, cultivate public support, and your opponents, who never saw it coming, will have to go along, even if only partway—at first.
Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard and the author, most recently, of Crazy U: One Dad’s Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College.
If you want a glimpse of the way Rick Perry operates as an executive and a politician, consider the issue of higher education reform in Texas, which no one in Texas knew was an issue until Perry decided to make it one.
In his 30-year public career, Perry—how to put this delicately?—has shown no sign of being tortured by a gnawing intellectual curiosity. “He’s not the sort of person you’ll find reading The Wealth of Nations for the seventh time,” said Brooke Rollins, formerly Perry’s policy director and now president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free-market research group closely allied with Perry. At Texas A&M he majored in animal science and escaped with a grade point average a bit over 2.0. (Perry’s A&M transcript was leaked last month to the left-wing blog Huffington Post by “a source in Texas,” presumably not his mom. How his GPA compares with Barack Obama’s is unknown, since no one in higher education has thought to leak Obama’s transcript to a right-wing blog.)
Perry expends his considerable intelligence instead on using political power and, what amounts to the same thing, picking fights with his political adversaries. When Rollins came to Perry in 2007 with a radical and comprehensive proposal to overhaul higher education in the state, Rollins says the governor quickly understood the potential of the issue, not only politically but on its merits. The state operates more than 100 colleges, universities, technical schools, and two-year community colleges, organized into six separate systems. As in other states, public higher education in Texas is scattered, expensive, poorly monitored, and top heavy with administrators, even as it subjects students to often large annual tuition increases without a compensatory increase in educational quality.
Perry’s first poke at this sclerotic establishment came early in his first term. He suggested converting the money that the state gives to public colleges and universities into individual grants handed straight to students. Money is power, and Perry’s idea was to place the power in the hands of “consumers,” as he put it, rather than the administrators, to increase competition among schools and thereby lower costs and increase quality. “Young fertile minds [should be] empowered,” he said at the time, “to pursue their dreams regardless of family income, the color of their skin, or the sound of their last name.”
The higher ed establishment, led by regents of the University of Texas system, rebelled, and the legislature, well-wired with the system’s allies, agreed, and the proposal died. But Perry continued to poke. College graduation rates in Texas are unusually low, and the gaps among whites, blacks, and Hispanics are unusually high. Nationwide 38 percent of American adults (age 25-64) have a post-secondary degree; in Texas the figure is 31 percent. So Perry proposed “Outcomes-based Funding,” tying the amount of aid a school receives to the number of students it graduates. To keep a school from lowering its standards to increase its graduation rates, he suggested giving an exit exam to all students receiving a B.A. Students wouldn’t have to pass the exam to get their degree, but the information yielded by such a test—how much learning is going on around here?—would be useful, mostly to reformers. The proposal was seen, correctly, as a threat to the status quo, which has so far successfully fought it off.
The proposals Rollins brought to Perry in 2007 turned on the same themes of—apologizing in advance for the buzzwords—accountability and transparency: collecting information about how much students learn and how well schools function, and holding the schools responsible for the results. “His priority has been putting students back into the driver’s seat,” Rollins said. Perry said he hoped to apply the cost-benefit logic of business to public higher education. He incorporated Rollins’s ideas into a package of reforms and called a “higher education summit” to build support.
The reforms attacked the establishment from multiple angles. They would require schools to expand their websites to make vast amounts of new information available to students. For the first time, professors would be required to post course syllabi online. To suss out slackers among the faculty, schools would post every teacher’s salary and benefits along with the average number of students and course hours they taught every year. A summary of student evaluations would be posted too, and the average number of As and Bs professors handed out, to guard against grade inflation. Before choosing a particular school or enrolling in a major, students would be given a list of the specific skills or knowledge that they could expect to learn, as well as the average starting salaries of students who had graduated from a similar course of study.
Perry also suggested separating teaching budgets from research budgets, as a way of encouraging teachers to teach and researchers to do research. Tenure would be granted only to teachers who spent a large majority of their time teaching; a defined percentage of tenure jobs would go to researchers, who would concentrate on pure research. A system of cash awards and other incentives would compensate professors who successfully taught a large number of students.
Any businessman in a profit-seeking enterprise would see ideas like “pay for performance” as unremarkable, but they overwhelm the delicate sensibilities of people who have spent their professional lives on campus, where the word “nonprofit” is meant to act as a firewall against the unpleasantness of commercial life. “Texas Governor Treats Colleges Like Businesses,” headlined the Chronicle of Higher Education—a sentence sure to induce aneurysms in faculty lounges from El Paso to Galveston. The outrage was deafening, especially when university regents began acting on the recommendations. The Texas A&M system, for example, which includes a dozen schools, posted a spreadsheet on its website evaluating teacher performance on a cost-benefit basis.
“Very simplistic and potentially very dangerous,” an official of the American Association of University Professors said. “This is . . . simplistic,” said the dean of faculties at A&M. “Simplistic,” said the Houston Chronicle. A group of former regents and wealthy school boosters organized a pressure group to oppose -Perry’s reforms. The group hired Karen Hughes, a close aide to the second President Bush, as press spokesman. The rage at Perry from within the establishment has taken many forms: You think it’s easy stealing someone’s college transcript?
The protests might have been more effective except that Perry, for the last decade, has been seeding Texas higher education with like-minded reformers (cronies too). By 2009 he had appointed every regent in the state. The chancellor of A&M who issued the cost-benefit report, for example, was a former chief of staff of the governor. At least three campus presidents have been pressured to resign in recent years, to make way for Perry appointees—all Republican businessmen. A particularly popular (and vocal) vice president of student affairs at the University of Texas was removed and replaced by . . . a retired Marine Corps general.
The appointees weren’t as pliant as Perry might have wished. The implementation of the reforms has been difficult and at times dilatory. Perry barrels on. In his state of the state address this spring, he urged administrators to develop a four-year bachelor’s degree that would cost less than $10,000 “including textbooks.” The discount degree, he said, would be a “bold, Texas-style solution” to the problem of rapidly rising tuition. (The average in-state cost of a four-year degree in Texas, including books, is roughly $30,000.) After the goal was declared impossible by Perry’s critics, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board published a plan to lower costs dramatically: greater use of online classes and “open-source” course materials, accelerated or staggered student schedules, fuller integration of four- and two-year colleges, and more.
Perry’s admirers praise his sure-footedness—his ability to sense cultural trends before others do and turn them to his political advantage. He was the first national politician to ally himself to the Tea Party movement in 2009, a move that’s just now paying off. He caught the mounting anxiety among middle-income parents about college costs early on. Most American parents now say that a college degree will be essential for their children’s future success; at the same time, according to a new Pew Foundation poll, only 22 percent of Americans believe that most people can afford to send their kids to college. And 57 percent describe the quality of American higher education as “only fair” or “poor.” To address this anxiety Perry’s opponents offer more government subsidies, which in turn provide an incentive for schools to raise their prices—an attempt to douse the fire with gasoline. Perry’s ideas are cheaper, more comprehensive, more imaginative, and more likely to work.
And they have a good chance of being put into action. In late August, Perry scored another significant, if partial, victory. The University of Texas regents approved an “action plan” proposed by the system’s chancellor, who isn’t a Perry appointee. The plan is a compromise, but it incorporates many of Perry’s ideas, including some of the most radical, such as “pay for performance” and “learning contracts” between schools and their students. Amazingly, the plan has won support from both the right (Brooke Rollins’s Texas Public Policy Foundation) and left (Karen Hughes’s group).
Reforms like these would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, before Perry picked up his stick and started poking the system until it had to respond. It’s been a remarkable display of political entrepreneurship: Create an issue, define it on your terms, cultivate public support, and your opponents, who never saw it coming, will have to go along, even if only partway—at first.
Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard and the author, most recently, of Crazy U: One Dad’s Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College.
Economy should render Obama speechless
WASHINGTON — In societies governed by persuasion, politics is mostly talk, so liberals’ impoverishment of their vocabulary matters.
Having damaged liberalism’s reputation, they call themselves progressives. Having made the federal government’s pretensions absurd, they have resurrected the supposed synonym “federal family.” Having made federal spending suspect, they advocate “investments” — for “job creation,” a euphemism for stimulus, another word they have made toxic.
Barack Obama, a pitilessly rhetorical president, continues to grab the nation by its lapels but the nation is no longer listening. This matters because ominous portents are multiplying.
Bank of America, which reported an $8.8 billion loss last quarter, plans 30,000 layoffs out of a work force of nearly 300,000. The Postal Service hopes to shed 120,000 of its 653,000 jobs (down from almost 900,000 a decade ago). Such churning of the labor market would free people for new, more productive jobs — except that to reduce unemployment, the economy needs a 3 percent growth rate, triple today’s rate.
Consumers of modest means are so strapped that Wal-Mart is reviving layaway purchases for Christmas. The Wall Street Journal reports that Procter & Gamble, which claims to have at least one product in 98 percent of American households, is putting new emphasis on lower-priced products for low-income shoppers.
During the debt-ceiling debate, The New York Times [NYT], liberalism’s bulletin board, was aghast that Republicans risked causing the nation to default on its debt. Now two Times columnists endorse slow-motion default through inflation: The Federal Reserve should have “the deliberate goal of generating higher inflation to help alleviate debt problems” (Paul Krugman) and “sometimes we need inflation, and now is such a time” (Floyd Norris).
For two years, there has been one constant: As events have refuted the Obama administration’s certitudes, it has retained its insufferable knowingness. It knew that the stimulus would hold unemployment below 8 percent. Oops. Unemployment has been at least 9 percent in 26 of the 30 months since the stimulus was passed. Michael Boskin of Stanford says that even if one charitably accepts the administration’s self-serving estimate of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus, each job cost $280,000 — five times America’s median pay.
The economic policy the “federal family” should adopt can be expressed in five one-syllable words: Get. Out. Of. The. Way.
Instead, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, whose department has become a venture capital firm for crony capitalism and costly flops at creating “green jobs,” praises the policy of essentially banishing the incandescent light bulb as “taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”
Better to let the experts in his department and the rest of the federal family waste other people’s money.
Talk back at georgewill@washpost.com.
Having damaged liberalism’s reputation, they call themselves progressives. Having made the federal government’s pretensions absurd, they have resurrected the supposed synonym “federal family.” Having made federal spending suspect, they advocate “investments” — for “job creation,” a euphemism for stimulus, another word they have made toxic.
Barack Obama, a pitilessly rhetorical president, continues to grab the nation by its lapels but the nation is no longer listening. This matters because ominous portents are multiplying.
Bank of America, which reported an $8.8 billion loss last quarter, plans 30,000 layoffs out of a work force of nearly 300,000. The Postal Service hopes to shed 120,000 of its 653,000 jobs (down from almost 900,000 a decade ago). Such churning of the labor market would free people for new, more productive jobs — except that to reduce unemployment, the economy needs a 3 percent growth rate, triple today’s rate.
Consumers of modest means are so strapped that Wal-Mart is reviving layaway purchases for Christmas. The Wall Street Journal reports that Procter & Gamble, which claims to have at least one product in 98 percent of American households, is putting new emphasis on lower-priced products for low-income shoppers.
During the debt-ceiling debate, The New York Times [NYT], liberalism’s bulletin board, was aghast that Republicans risked causing the nation to default on its debt. Now two Times columnists endorse slow-motion default through inflation: The Federal Reserve should have “the deliberate goal of generating higher inflation to help alleviate debt problems” (Paul Krugman) and “sometimes we need inflation, and now is such a time” (Floyd Norris).
For two years, there has been one constant: As events have refuted the Obama administration’s certitudes, it has retained its insufferable knowingness. It knew that the stimulus would hold unemployment below 8 percent. Oops. Unemployment has been at least 9 percent in 26 of the 30 months since the stimulus was passed. Michael Boskin of Stanford says that even if one charitably accepts the administration’s self-serving estimate of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus, each job cost $280,000 — five times America’s median pay.
The economic policy the “federal family” should adopt can be expressed in five one-syllable words: Get. Out. Of. The. Way.
Instead, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, whose department has become a venture capital firm for crony capitalism and costly flops at creating “green jobs,” praises the policy of essentially banishing the incandescent light bulb as “taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”
Better to let the experts in his department and the rest of the federal family waste other people’s money.
Talk back at georgewill@washpost.com.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
USC Football 2011: Trojans Answer Many Questions vs. Utah Utes in Week 2
Harry How/Getty Images
Welcome to the Pac-12, Utah. Although outmanned, you played hard and kept the first Pac-12 conference game close while the USC defense preserved a 23-14 win for the Trojans.
Last week we discussed the 10 questions for USC to answer in this game. Many were answered, but there is work to be done for the Trojans to have the successful season desired.
After the game in a national TV interview, USC coach Lane Kiffin congratulated the Utah Utes for playing very well and expressed his praise for the Trojans players. Kiffin told reporters at the post-game press conference, “I'm excited to finish this way. The energy on the sideline and energy on the field brings a team together.” Here is his post game interview courtesy of SCPlaybook.com.
Game Summary
Utah stayed in this game when the Trojans offense uncharacteristically coughed up three turnovers in the red zone. Two fumbles by freshman RB D.J. Morgan and TE Xavier Grimble resulted in all 14 points for the Utes.
Meanwhile, the USC defense held Utah to 319 total yards with only 81 yards rushing. Time and again, the Trojan defense stopped the Utes. This defense is much better than the 2010 USC defense ranked 83rd nationally.
Here is the USC-Utah final score for anyone still confused. The Trojans gained 416 yards with a balanced offense with QB Matt Barkley’s 264 yards passing (20 of 32) and 152 yards rushing on 39 attempts. USC could have easily scored another 21 points without the turnovers.
Senior RB Marc Tyler made a huge impact on the running game with 113 yards on 24 carries and one TD. Sophomore WR Robert Woods had a “quiet” eight receptions and 112 yards, but the ball was spread to six other receivers for 12 receptions and 151 yards.
Special teams blocked the Utah game tying FG attempt and CB Torin Harris ran it back for a TD.
Contrary to last season, the Trojans held on in the fourth quarter of a tight game for the second week in a row.
Here is game report card from ESPN’s Pedro Moura and excellent video highlights courtesy of T-Wire.
Answers to Questions
USC QB Matt Barkley
1. Will the Offensive Line open holes and give Barkley more time to pass down field?
Yes.
Utah has a very good front seven. The USC OL played better than expected giving QB Matt Barkley time to throw and opening holes for the running game. LG Martin Coleman made his first start and did well. However he left in the second quarter and Jeremy Galten relieved him.
2. Will more receivers get involved in the passing game?
Yes.
Lane Kiffin was criticized somewhat unfairly for the play calling in the second half of the Minnesota game. He realized that WR Robert Woods would be covered differently and there were eleven pass completions to seven different receivers in the second half. Unfortunately there were also seven drops including four by freshmen TEs Randall Telfer and Xavier Grimble. Together with penalties at the wrong time, those drops stalled USC drives and the USC offense looked as bad in this half as they looked good in the first half.
USC RB Marc Tyler ran for 113 yards on 24 carries in his first 2011 game against Utah The Trojans had seven receivers catch passes in the Utah game. However, both Grimble and Telfer had excellent games except for a fumble turnover by Grimble. Grimble was the second leading pass receiver with five receptions for 65 yards and one TD. Telfer had two receptions for 28 yards. Kiffin found a weakness in the Utes coverage and exploited it. Woods was the leading pass receiver again but with less than half the pass receptions in this game.
3. Will a running game be established?
Yes.
The experience and power of senior Marc Tyler made a big difference this week. While most of his runs were in the three to five yards range (averaging 4.7), he maintained positive yardage keeping drives alive. That was very important against the very tough Utah front four.
At the post-game press conference, Marc Tyler told reporters, “I just feel good. This is something I dreamed about.”
USC OT Matt Kalil blocks Utah FG to save game The balanced running and passing attack made the USC offense more difficult to stop (except for turnovers and some penalties in the fourth quarter).
4. Will Penalties be reduced especially at key times?
Yes, partially.
The Trojans had six penalties for 54 yards. However, too many were at key times, however three penalties in the fourth quarter almost cost USC the game.
In a drive starting with 12:27 remaining and USC ahead 17-14, a Trojan WR lined up in an ineligible receiver position and this caused a 36 yard reception by TE Randall Telfer to be called back and the Trojans penalized five yards. The Trojans were forced to punt after the third down failed.
With 6:04 remaining WR Brandon Carswell committed an illegal block (due to a new rule) that resulted in 14-yard penalty and the Trojans were forced to punt after the long third down failed.
Utah got the ball back with 1:01 remaining and drove to the USC 39 yard line when the Trojans were penalized 15 yards for pass interference by Tony Burnett. Fortunately the FG attempt from the 24 yard line was blocked by Matt Kalil to save the game.
USC Freshman kicker Andrei Heidari congratulated after first USC FG, a 47-yarder
5. Will Special Teams get a chance to kick FGs?
Yes.
Freshman Andrei Heidari made the first points in Pac-12 history when he kicked a 47-yard FG. He also made a similar one that was negated by a penalty.
6. Will the Trojans continue to go for two extra points?
Not this game. USC didn’t need the boo-birds in this close game.
You might be surprised that there are more good football reasons to go for two points than kicking the extra point. The pros and cons of this issue are discussed here.
7. Will the Trojans get a positive turnover margin?
No.
USC DT DaJohn Harris sacks Utah QB Jordan Wynn This was the biggest disappointment in the game. USC forced Utah’s RB White to fumble in the first quarter and this led to the first Trojan TD, which was a good start.
However, Matt Barkley threw an interception in the red zone in the second quarter at the Utah 15. Then on USC’s next possession, RB D.J. Morgan fumbled at the Utah 16. The Utes put together a long drive and scored their first TD. Finally, TE Xavier Grimble fumbled in the third quarter and Utah scored quickly after a 51-yard run by Reggie Dunn on a reverse.
Things ended well with a blocked Utah FG and return by Torin Harris for a USC TD.
8. Will pass coverage be improved?
Yes, partially.
The Trojans played more man-to-man coverage and a very aggressive defense to contain the Utes. However, there were some pass interference calls and open receivers that could have been a problem if Utah QB Jordan Wynn had a stronger arm or was more accurate. Credit the USC pass rush for many of his problems.
9. Why did USC not make the right halftime adjustments and win the second half?
It will be difficult for the media and fans to criticize Lane Kiffin’s play calling in this game. If not for turnovers in the red zone, the Trojan offense and defense outplayed Utah for almost the entire game.
Monte Kiffin’s defense handled anything that Utah coach Norm Chow could muster except for one surprise reverse and a long drive. The Trojan offense was balanced and exploited the few Utah defensive weaknesses, but shot themselves in the foot with turnovers and a few untimely penalties.
As discussed in No. 2 above, Kiffin was unfairly criticized last week for not adjusting in the second half of the Minnesota game. The problem in that game was primarily dropped passes and untimely penalties, and the record shows that more receivers were involved contrary to some press reports. The running game was inconsistent due to many stops by Minnesota so the Trojans could not sustain a balanced attack.
10. Will more players participate in the game?
Yes, a few more.
Freshman MLB Lamar Dawson played in relief of Chris Galippo in two series and did well. There were four more players used than the first game for a total of 47.
Hopefully, the Syracuse game in Week 3 will give more Trojans an opportunity to play.
The USC-Utah game was viewed as a tipping point for the Trojans 2011 season. While there are certainly areas that need to continue to improve, it showed a team that is improving and has the potential to be successful this season with a 9-3 record or better.
The Trojans have a lot of inexperienced players since over half of the team are redshirt or true freshmen, but they should continue to improve as the season progresses.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
USC's wild win over Utah kicks off new Pac 12 era in style
LOS ANGELES -- Football is supposed to be a simple game.
Inches. That's what the movies will tell you football comes down to. Offense, defense and special teams. Most pundits will remind you each phase is worth a third of the game.
John Baxter was not a math major -- the USC special teams' coach has a physical education degree and a masters in higher education -- but he'll challenge you on both these points. It's a game not of inches, but yards. Special teams isn't a third but a fifth.
The fuzzy math might not make sense to some but on Saturday at the L.A. Coliseum, each were part of the equation as the Trojans beat Utah on a last second field goal block to win the first ever Pac-12 conference game 23-14.
"Special teams is one out of every five teams in football," Baxter said. "It's 20 percent of the game. Anybody that tells you it's a third of the game is crazy."
More on Utah-USC
Related links
Recap: USC survives Utah
Fischer: Scott not looking for expansion
USC: Postgame RapidReports | USC
More Pac-12 coverage with Bryan Fischer
Though Baxter's words might make sense to some, crazy and questionable calls were all over the place.
Down 17-14, Utah quarterback Jordan Wynn found DeVante Christopher for a 10 yard gain on 4th down with under a minute left to keep the Utes' hopes for a win or tie alive. Officials initially ruled him short as the crowd of 73, 821 celebrated.
Then the play was reviewed. First down.
As the crowd cheered fight on, the players came back out onto the field to play on.
Scrambling around on the next play, Wynn fired a pass in the direction of a wide receiver running a wheel route along the sidelines but former walk-on cornerback Tony Burnett was flagged for pass interference, putting the ball at the 24 yard line and 11 seconds on the game clock.
"Down there at the end, 11 seconds, no timeouts, do you run one more play or do you not?" Utah coach Kyle Whittingham said. "I don't think you have a chance to clock it. You take a shot at the end zone, you risk a sack or a turnover. We thought we had a very makeable field goal at 42 yards."
After a bit of confusion, Utes kicker Coleman Petersen trotted out to tie the game. Crowd roaring in the background, the snap was good but the kick was low.
"I'm lucky I'm a tall guy and I jumped up and blocked it," 6-foot-7, 295-pound USC offensive tackle Matt Kalil said. "It hit my forearm so it didn't even get over my hand."
Even the master of last second wins, LSU's lucky Les Miles, had to be impressed with what happened next. From the forearm of Kalil, the ball took one bounce and right into the hands of cornerback Torin Haris, who last week sealed USC's victory over Minnesota with a game-ending interception.
"I didn't break stride," Harris said. "It came right to me, it was the perfect play."
Harris returned the blocked kick 68-yards for a touchdown as the Trojans' bench -- used to having heart attacks at the end of games -- jumped up and down. While Harris celebrated with his teammates to sounds of Conquest, confusion reigned.
Officials called an unsportsmanlike-conduct on the USC bench for running onto the field. The points were off the board but the clock had expired and it appeared the Trojans had won 17-14.
"I was trying to follow what was going on with the refs," quarterback Matt Barkley said. "The defense won this game for us, no doubt about it."
Defense. Special teams. No matter how they did it, a win -- even the first in Pac-12 conference history -- was a win.
"I'm excited we finished that way," Lane Kiffin said, possibly to the chagrin of the USC fans at the Coliseum. "The energy in the locker room and the sideline, that energy and emotion pull a team together. Wins like this can be really special. I'm proud of our players. It's not an easy thing to do but I'm actually glad with the way it ended."
The way it ended though, was up for interpretation. For a conference that made a point to retool their officiating after taking heaps of criticism, the Pac-12 sure seemed a lot like the bumbling Pac-10 following the game.
Over a half hour after players and coaches had given their post-game press conferences, rumors circulated that the league office was reviewing the ending of the game. On the field, officials had ruled Harris' return a touchdown but took the points off the board due to the new unsportsmanlike-conduct penalty.
Not so fast said the Pac-12.
"The new Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule is Rule 9, Section 2, Article 1," officiating consultant Mike Pereira said in a statement. "Fouls by players are administered as either live ball or dead ball fouls depending on when they occur. The rule does not apply to substitutes. All Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls by substitutes are enforced as dead ball fouls.
"Since the game was over, the penalty could not be enforced and the referee stated it was declined by rule. The officials did rule it a touchdown making the final score 23-14."
With the Coliseum empty, there were no cheers for the change except in Las Vegas, where the Trojans were favored by 8.5 points. Call it the blocked kick cover or call it crazy, but the win remains in the USC record books.
"I'm happy for our players and it's really fun to win," Baxter said. "It's so fun to win."
The ending of the game overshadowed its significance for both the conference and Utah. There wasn't just a stage for the first ever Pac-12 conference game, they had a Coliseum and a national television audience. In front of both, the Utes showed they were no longer BCS-busters but a BCS-caliber team despite falling short.
"There's no moral victory here," said offensive tackle John Cullen. "We don't look at it as we wanted to see if we can play SC to 17-14. We want to beat SC. We wanted to come out here and show these guys what we're all about. We showed them we can fight."
"We never had a situation where we felt overmatched or overwhelmed in any way shape or form," Whittingham said. "That's a talented football team from top to bottom. They have as much talent on the team as any in the country, maybe more."
A new, confusing, era of Pac-12 football kicked off Saturday. The team with more talent won.
Seems like a simple equation but, in college football, things rarely are.
Inches. That's what the movies will tell you football comes down to. Offense, defense and special teams. Most pundits will remind you each phase is worth a third of the game.
John Baxter was not a math major -- the USC special teams' coach has a physical education degree and a masters in higher education -- but he'll challenge you on both these points. It's a game not of inches, but yards. Special teams isn't a third but a fifth.
The fuzzy math might not make sense to some but on Saturday at the L.A. Coliseum, each were part of the equation as the Trojans beat Utah on a last second field goal block to win the first ever Pac-12 conference game 23-14.
"Special teams is one out of every five teams in football," Baxter said. "It's 20 percent of the game. Anybody that tells you it's a third of the game is crazy."
More on Utah-USC
Related links
Recap: USC survives Utah
Fischer: Scott not looking for expansion
USC: Postgame RapidReports | USC
More Pac-12 coverage with Bryan Fischer
Though Baxter's words might make sense to some, crazy and questionable calls were all over the place.
Down 17-14, Utah quarterback Jordan Wynn found DeVante Christopher for a 10 yard gain on 4th down with under a minute left to keep the Utes' hopes for a win or tie alive. Officials initially ruled him short as the crowd of 73, 821 celebrated.
Then the play was reviewed. First down.
As the crowd cheered fight on, the players came back out onto the field to play on.
Scrambling around on the next play, Wynn fired a pass in the direction of a wide receiver running a wheel route along the sidelines but former walk-on cornerback Tony Burnett was flagged for pass interference, putting the ball at the 24 yard line and 11 seconds on the game clock.
"Down there at the end, 11 seconds, no timeouts, do you run one more play or do you not?" Utah coach Kyle Whittingham said. "I don't think you have a chance to clock it. You take a shot at the end zone, you risk a sack or a turnover. We thought we had a very makeable field goal at 42 yards."
After a bit of confusion, Utes kicker Coleman Petersen trotted out to tie the game. Crowd roaring in the background, the snap was good but the kick was low.
"I'm lucky I'm a tall guy and I jumped up and blocked it," 6-foot-7, 295-pound USC offensive tackle Matt Kalil said. "It hit my forearm so it didn't even get over my hand."
Even the master of last second wins, LSU's lucky Les Miles, had to be impressed with what happened next. From the forearm of Kalil, the ball took one bounce and right into the hands of cornerback Torin Haris, who last week sealed USC's victory over Minnesota with a game-ending interception.
"I didn't break stride," Harris said. "It came right to me, it was the perfect play."
Harris returned the blocked kick 68-yards for a touchdown as the Trojans' bench -- used to having heart attacks at the end of games -- jumped up and down. While Harris celebrated with his teammates to sounds of Conquest, confusion reigned.
Officials called an unsportsmanlike-conduct on the USC bench for running onto the field. The points were off the board but the clock had expired and it appeared the Trojans had won 17-14.
"I was trying to follow what was going on with the refs," quarterback Matt Barkley said. "The defense won this game for us, no doubt about it."
Defense. Special teams. No matter how they did it, a win -- even the first in Pac-12 conference history -- was a win.
"I'm excited we finished that way," Lane Kiffin said, possibly to the chagrin of the USC fans at the Coliseum. "The energy in the locker room and the sideline, that energy and emotion pull a team together. Wins like this can be really special. I'm proud of our players. It's not an easy thing to do but I'm actually glad with the way it ended."
The way it ended though, was up for interpretation. For a conference that made a point to retool their officiating after taking heaps of criticism, the Pac-12 sure seemed a lot like the bumbling Pac-10 following the game.
Over a half hour after players and coaches had given their post-game press conferences, rumors circulated that the league office was reviewing the ending of the game. On the field, officials had ruled Harris' return a touchdown but took the points off the board due to the new unsportsmanlike-conduct penalty.
Not so fast said the Pac-12.
"The new Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule is Rule 9, Section 2, Article 1," officiating consultant Mike Pereira said in a statement. "Fouls by players are administered as either live ball or dead ball fouls depending on when they occur. The rule does not apply to substitutes. All Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls by substitutes are enforced as dead ball fouls.
"Since the game was over, the penalty could not be enforced and the referee stated it was declined by rule. The officials did rule it a touchdown making the final score 23-14."
With the Coliseum empty, there were no cheers for the change except in Las Vegas, where the Trojans were favored by 8.5 points. Call it the blocked kick cover or call it crazy, but the win remains in the USC record books.
"I'm happy for our players and it's really fun to win," Baxter said. "It's so fun to win."
The ending of the game overshadowed its significance for both the conference and Utah. There wasn't just a stage for the first ever Pac-12 conference game, they had a Coliseum and a national television audience. In front of both, the Utes showed they were no longer BCS-busters but a BCS-caliber team despite falling short.
"There's no moral victory here," said offensive tackle John Cullen. "We don't look at it as we wanted to see if we can play SC to 17-14. We want to beat SC. We wanted to come out here and show these guys what we're all about. We showed them we can fight."
"We never had a situation where we felt overmatched or overwhelmed in any way shape or form," Whittingham said. "That's a talented football team from top to bottom. They have as much talent on the team as any in the country, maybe more."
A new, confusing, era of Pac-12 football kicked off Saturday. The team with more talent won.
Seems like a simple equation but, in college football, things rarely are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)