Co-Sponsor the Senate Democrat's Opposition Agenda. GO!

(From the diaries -- kos)

Senator Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have just released their opposition agenda and you have the opportunity to become a citizen co-sponsor.

The agenda looks very good as it includes specific Senate Bills that the Democrats will introduce to the full Senate.  The Bills cover a comprehensive set of issues including major reforms in our approaches to the military, trade, medicare, education, health care, and election reform.  Other targeted issues include terrorism, veterans issues, deficit reduction, and abortion prevention.

These Bills will be reconciled with the House Democrats and will hopefully spur action on a Democratic parallel to the Republican's infamous Contract with America.  I've created a quick bulleted summary of the Bills below.  I really hope whoever is responsible for the webpage description of these Bills will take a look at it.  Whoever drew up the descriptions was waayyyy to verbose.  These need to be presented as no-nonsense, serious policy proposals.  I'd like to see them present it as a resume to the American people of what we intend to do.

Read on for a summary...

Senate Bill 11: Standing With Our Troops.

• Increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007.
  
• Create a Guard and Reserve Bill of Rights.
  
• Fight for the families of soldiers by providing income security and affordable health care.
  
• Read more here.
  

Senate Bill 12: Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively.

• Increase our Special Operations forces by 2,000.
  
• Target the institutions that spawn new terrorists.
  
• Expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials.
  
• Read more here.
  

Senate Bill 13: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans.

• Expand the availability and accessibility of mental health care.
  
• Ensure that no veteran is forced to choose between a retirement and disability check.
  
• Commitment to the soldiers of today a 21st Century GI Bill.
  
• Read more here.
  

Senate Bill 14: Expanding Economic Opportunity.

• Restore overtime protection to 6 million workers.
  
• Increase the minimum wage for 7.4 million workers.
  
• Eliminate tax incentives for companies that take jobs overseas.
  
• Create new jobs through an expansion of infrastructure programs to repair America’s backbone.
  
• Pursue a trade policy that protects American workers.
  
• Read more here.
  

Senate Bill 15: Quality Education for All.

• Increase support for pre-school education.
  
• Fully fund No Child Left Behind and improve its implementation.
  
• Create tuition incentives for college students to major in math, science and special education.
  
• Providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition.
  
• Increasing the size and access to Pell Grants.
  
• Read more here.
  

Senate Bill 16: Making Health Care More Affordable.

• Make prescription drugs more affordable through the legalization of prescription drug reimportation.
  
• Ensure drugs are monitored after they are approved for use.
  
• Ensure that all children and pregnant women will have health care.
  
• Offer tax credits to small businesses.
  
• Read more here.
  

Senate Bill 17: Democracy Begins at Home.

• Reform the voting system in this country by creating Federal standards for our elections.
  
• Add verification, accountability and accuracy to the voting system.
  
• Increase access to the polls with Election Day registration, shorter lines and early voting.
  
• Modernize our election equipment while providing the resources to the states to implement the bill.
  
• Read more here.
  

Senate Bill 18: Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries.

• Repeal the provision that prevents Medicare from negotiating better prices.
  
• Eliminate the slush fund for HMOs.
  
• Improve the prescription drug benefit by phasing out the current doughnut hole.
  
• Buy down the Part B premium so premium increases are not too steep.
  
• Ensure that no seniors are forced into HMOs.
  
• Read more here.
  

Senate Bill 19: Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future.

• Restore the Senate pay-as-you-go rule.
  
• Reinstate sequestration to enforce pay-go and discretionary spending limits.
  
• Ensure that any legislation increasing deficits is subject to full scrutiny, debate, and consideration in the Senate.
  
• Prohibit the fast-tracking of Congressional budget resolutions that contain a reconciliation instruction that would worsen the deficit.
  
• Read more here.
  

Senate Bill 20: Putting Prevention First.

• Increase access to family planning services.
  
• Improve contraceptive coverage by assuring equity in prescription drug insurance.
  
• Provide relief to Medicaid by decreasing the financial burden of pregnancy-related and newborn care.
  
• Read more here.
  

In my estimation, this is pretty damn encouraging.  I really hope this means we're actually going to have a functioning opposition party.  Let's play some offense!

Make sure you take the time to co-sponsor this agenda and don't miss Steve Soto's breakdown of the bills.

Update [2005-1-24 16:57:29 by manyoso]: Please, use this as a forum for critiquing the bills. What parts did you especially like? What parts do you adamantly oppose? How can the Bills be improved through additions and retractions? Do you like how they are being presented or marketed? Finally, what did you tell the Senate Democrats when you co-sponsored the Bills?

Update [2005-1-24 17:38:3 by manyoso]: Maxspeak, You Listen! has the actual word documents being circulated. Here are the MS Word documents on election reform, fiscal policy, veterans, economic policy, Medicare, education, reproductive rights, health care, supporting the troops, terrorism, and "Keeping America's Promise." Also, I just called Reid's office and they said the actual text of the Bills is not available yet as they haven't introduced them.

•  Please Recommend

  I don't normally ask people to recommend my diaries, but I really hope fellow dKos'ers will recommend this one.  We need to support the Senate Democrats in their fledgling attempt at forming a viable opposition and playing a some offense.  This agenda could be the beginning of some much needed message discipline.  It helps to answer WHAT DOES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STAND FOR?  Well, when anyone asks you this or if you wonder it yourself, this is your answer.  Or, at least, it is the beginnings of an answer.  For this reason, I really hope you'll recommend this diary.  Let's spread this around the blogosphere and use it as a basis to critique and answer that all important question.

  Thanks,

  Adam

  by manyoso on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:16:04 PM PDT

  •  Spur not spurn

    in this line - "These Bills will be reconciled with the House Democrats and will hopefully spurn action on a Democratic parallel to the Republican's infamous Contract with America."

    Otherwise very good, I am still looking it over before voting in your poll.

    I like the details myself, but I agree with you that it is verbose for alot of people - someone needs to tell our Democratic leaders that Americans are becoming Powerpoint-trained to only respond to bullets.

    by MH in PA on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:20:18 PM PDT

    •  Oops, thanks :0

      BTW, this is what I wrote in the text entry of my sponsorship:

      Thanks for providing some real party opposition!  Let's go on offense.  -- A shout out from the netroots :)

      by manyoso on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:26:19 PM PDT

      •  No offense-do our leaders understand shout out?n/t

        by steve04 on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:10:17 PM PDT

    •  that was my exact thought

      there are some holes in this: ie, stands on getting our troops out of Iraq and stands on future wars, stands on the tax cuts.

      However, I think it is a good start.  It needs to be simplified and sound-byted, and then we need to get our congressional and senatorial candidates behind it.

      by darboy on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 09:13:16 PM PDT

  •  thanks

    I was just complaining yesterday that I wanted to see an actual platform with specifics. I'm not thrilled about some of these proposals (see my post about trade), probably because I'm predicting the Republicans won't want to give any ground on their agenda, but it's a decent attempt nonetheless.

    by catnip on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:38:22 PM PDT

  •  Amen

    We can't get anything passed, so there is no reason to screw around trying to find some "realistic middle ground."  

    We should be pushing for single payer health care.  Everyone hates their health insurer.  Eliminate all health insurance companies!!!

    by bdtlaw on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:25:45 PM PDT

•  Further discussion

  A couple of days ago I posted a diary titled Our Contract With America?

  One item that should be added to the Senate list, IMO, is stem cell research.

  by Elwood Dowd on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:17:57 PM PDT

  •  in stem cell news...

    it turns out that all Bush approved stem cell lines are too contaminated to use.

    by Trix on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:45:53 PM PDT

  •  energy independence

    Stem cell research is important for a lot of people, but I would not put it in the top 10. Energy independence is crucial to the economy, our relation to the middle east, reducing terrorism, the environment. It needs to be a top priority. Why isn't it in the top 10?

    by miasmo on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:13:49 PM PDT

    •  Popularity

      
      On strict policy terms I'd agree, but stem cell research is a huge winner politically, gets more interest than energy, and in particular is a good wedge issue to hit at the GOP for being too tied to religious fundamentalists.

      Everything in this sort of a list should be good policy, but the point is to use catchy agendas like this to win elections as well as to set out ideal agendas.  I think it's smart politics to have a few items in there which are trendy and popular, but which wouldn't be justified strictly on policy wonk grounds.

      That being said, energy independence is damn important and play well with the public too, so I'd put it in there somewhere.  I don't recall the full list right now but I bet there's something in there I'd drop in favor of energy.

      by dburbach on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:47:21 PM PDT

    •  The Environment

      Once again, it get screwed.  This agenda is as derivative and cliched as the party leaders.  It's only 10 a.m., but after reading this, it's time for happy hour.  

      by lzachary on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 07:00:50 AM PDT

•  Recommended.

  I attached this note:

  
  PLEASE make the protection of Social Security a top priority. This means minimal and responsible adjustments to preserve benefits beyond 2042, NO privatization of existing accounts, and ZERO tolerance for Orwellian marketing-speak to give the issue a false frame.

  And keep up the fight by any means necessary -- we have your backs.
  

  by Penny Century on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:24:36 PM PDT

  •  Reid on SS

    I watched Sen. Harry Reid tell Peggy Noonan on MSNBC that the DNC wasn't putting Social Security at the top of their list, because there isn't a crisis! I was shocked at the sudden appearance of a spine! He also addressed the environment, as well as some of the items in the above list.

    by mrradon on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:33:31 PM PDT

    •  Spine is good,

      don't you think?

      by DCDemocrat on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:34:54 PM PDT

    •  Oooh

      Nice way of reframing the issue.  Wow, spine and strategy in one package.  Dare I actually start to get excited?

      by Toastman on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:18:55 PM PDT

      •  Weary and wary...

        I'm keeping a calm optimism. I've had my heart broken far too often by these guys.

        But, a quiet sort of hope is better than none.

        by lynne1 on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:36:58 PM PDT

        •  Yeah --

          -- Maybe I am too jaded, but what in the hell is everyone excited about? We - our country is in pretty serious shape in relation to this war, our relations with other countries, our economy and we have a little low key pamphlet.  Where is the urgency?  Where is the sense of needed change of frame?  This is the same frame, same though processes used by the republicans.  Is this really the best that we can do?  Do people really not see the problems with this agenda? Are we so beaten down that this is ok? If that is the case, then we are defeated before we even start.

          You donot oppose something by adopting the same frame, same priorities and same language. We donot, for example adopt a new frame for the word "security".  We just stand by the same old, same ol - terra.  No economic or real job, health care and environmental security is discussed or proposed.  We must not, cannot give ground to these people again for the next four years.  This is beyond voting for or against specific nominees.  It goes to the whole cloth of the reality that we embrace.  Are things mostly ok, just need a tweak here and there?  Or are we in a much more marginal situation requiring aggressive problem solving and elevated rhetoric and organizing?

          If you believe the former, then this agenda will serve just fine.  If you believe that we are in the latter, this not only will not suffice, it may actually be destructive as we will not be marshaling the level of explicit and assertive opposition necessary to reverse or at least stall events.

          I feel desperately frustrated and sad.  It is slipping away - our opportunity to do what we did not do in the last four years effectively in the Congress - prevent the excesses and damage inflicted upon our constitution and our national sense of trust and community.  We are mired in a horrible, unjust and catastrophic war and instead of screaming to the rooftops to get a plan to get us out, we have an agenda to send in more troops and train more special forces.  Not one word on the environment and social security...those things that have to do with deeper and fundamental security for our people.

          We must stop lying to ourselves that these little weak attempts are adequate.  You cannot use a garden hose to put out a house fire - not enough volume of water or pressure to smoother the flames.  If you wanna feel good, feel good.  But don't call this anything other than a weak stream from a weak hose. You are going to watch our house burn down.

          by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 08:54:36 PM PDT

    •  top 'o the list

      That was a good response by Reid to Noonan.  But the democrats may have to move it up the list because the republicans are going to work on it right away, and if there's not some defiance and opposition, they'll walk right over the baby boomers' rights to any retirement income at all.

      I hope the democrats are ready for a fight, not just on the floors of Congress, but in the tilted, crummy, lying press.

      by DollyLlama on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:26:53 PM PDT

  •  Maybe it's just me...

    but I have the feeling the SS issue is kind of a red herring to distract us from whatever it is they are really trying to do. Maybe I've had too much caffeine lately, but SS reform seems like a difficult thing to win, even their own party has a number of significant skeptics. They must have known that going in.

    Why are they putting so much attention on this issue? I simply find it fishy.

    by Noodles on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:03:08 PM PDT

    •  Yes! Yes!

      Finally someone else sees it... to be fair, I've mostly kept that thought to myself, but I totally agree with you.

      I think another strategy is to put something so extreme out there, that they can then back off and their new position will seem more palatable (to sheeple) because it is so much more "moderate" than what they first proposed. Oh and of course explain that everybody just misunderstood all along, you never meant all that extreme stuff. Kind of like a car dealer who thinks he's found a mark.

      Meanwhile, other balls just keep rolling along, like  - for one small example that I did a diary on recently - CAFTA.  Oh and that pesky inconvenient democracy thing down in Venezuela.  (I'd add in some links but I'm beat. You get the idea).

      by MH in PA on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:48:48 PM PDT

      •  complete agreement

        Reminds me of the gay marriage issue before the election. No way of winning it, but let's throw it out there and stir up some trouble. That way they will not notice we started a CIA-like agency within the Pentagon with no checks and balances, Oh and that we sent operatives into Iran...OH and that we are selling our children's future up the river.
        

        by melthewriter on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:22:52 PM PDT

    •  I half agree

      By which I mean, I agree that the Social Security serves to cover many more nefarious schemes, but I don't think they're any less committed to destroying Social Security than it appears. In fact I'd be willing to bet that this really is their #1 goal. Remember Norquist's statment? "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

      The standard right-wing approach since Goldwater is to press for the most extreme position that they can make appear legitimate, and take as much as they can get from anyone who'll compromise with them. And then do it again, each time moving closer to the ultimate goal.

      What I can't decide is whether they want this because of their ideology, or because it has brought and will bring them tons of money from the brokers (so they can get re-elected), or whether they simply want to bring on the apocalypse.

      You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

      by imagine on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 07:07:06 AM PDT

  •  Social Security Must be a major issue

    You hit the most glaring "hole" in this agenda, the lack of attention to SS.

    Privatization, otherwise known as the Broker's Full-Employment Act of 2005, is one of the most insidious proposals coming from this administration.  They are actively misleading people about the very functions of the system and encouraging them to help cut the safety net.

    by DrKen on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:59:47 PM PDT

    •  But You're Missing The Point

      This is about the Democrat's legislative vision.

      The notion of opposing the Whitehouse's own agenda should not be put forth as part of our positive vision for America. Democrats have (finally) got it right. You don't demonstrate vision and work your own frame by repeating the opponents', even as a negative reference.

      The Dems have taken it on the chin, somewhat deservedly, for not demonstrating vision. This is a big step in the right direction.

      Time to stop defending, and instead, counterattack.

      by wystler on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:11:52 PM PDT

      •  I agree this is vision...

        and that's one part of their strategy. Blocking Social Security privitization is another part. I think it's great that the Senate Dems have put up a new "Bill of Rights" (perhaps they can recast these 10 bills in terms of fundamental rights, like "You have a right to affordable drugs"). They should also put up a "Bill of Particulars" which enumerates the many wrongs that the Republican party plans to do to America. Privitizing Social Security is on that list, gutting ethics rules is another, encouraging torture is another, fiddling while the dollar burns is another oh hell if I don't stop now I'll go on until I slit my wrists!

        You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

        by imagine on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 07:13:51 AM PDT

•  Signed and also posted:

  Thank you for uniting as an opposition party and clearly stating ideas that are easy for the American public to understand.  This is the future for the Democratic Party and by extension the United States of America!

  by Intellectually Curious on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:45:33 PM PDT

•  Critiquing the Bills

  I have absolutely no problem with Senate Bills 11-14, but I think the Bills for Education, HealthCare and Fiscal Responsibility are lacking.  The Senate Democrats are limited in what they can find common consensus on, but I really wish they would propose increasing the calendar year for education to allow more time in class.*  It'd be a real winner.  I also think they are not bold enough in calling for a national single-payer health care program.  Perhaps we need some Cato like institutes of our own lobbying for such a proposal.  Probably need to develop some language that congressional dems would all rally around.

  I also think we need to be more proactive in abortion prevention.  We need some new thinking on how to reduce the amount of abortions.  A pro-active stance would do wonders to soften the impact of social conservatives using this as a battering ram against our Representatives.

  * Yes, I picked up this idea from the recent West Wing ;)

  by manyoso on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:49:11 PM PDT

  •  Reducing the number of abortions

    I think that the single best way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide basic services that low income families need in order to be able to bring a child into the world. That means that we need to find ways to provide both low cost health care and low cost quality child care, neither of which are available to working mothers.

    In addition, we need to raise wages so that mother could adequately provide for the child if it was brought into the world. That means raising the minimum wage OR perhaps specifically raising the minimum wage for working mothers/parents to $7.15 or so an hour (framed as a "life wage".

    Finally, if Republicans really wanted to lower the number of abortions, they would stop teaching that abstenince only crap. Provide decent sex education to teenagers and access to condoms.

    by displacedyankeedemocrat on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:06:59 PM PDT

    •  I agree, but it doesn't specifically address it

      Those are all good ideas that we need to push further, but I'm trying to think of a single legislative tact we can use to tout as a preventative for abortion.  All of the things you listed address the problem indirectly.  That is probably the only thing we can do, but it sure would be nice to find something that would directly address the problem.  The Republicans have theirs in the so-called 'partial-birth' abortion ban.  This is a bill that is specifically and directly related to abortion.  Democrats need something to rally around that is also specifically and directly -- read: easy to communicate -- related to abortion prevention.

      by manyoso on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:14:44 PM PDT

      •  Contraception

        On another thread, someone advocated that Democrats push a "Right to Contraception" bill.  It would be broadly supported, as even many pro-lifers agree that women should have access to contraception, and it would peel off the fundies who see women as incubators.  It would make people aware of exactly where Republicans stand on the issue.  

        Plus, it opens the abortion debate on terms more friendly to us, as it presupposes that women have the right to control their bodies and their fertility.  

        by KB on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:32:16 PM PDT

        •  But, how would that work?

          Would we have the Federal government paying for contraception?  I don't think that sounds like a good idea.

          by manyoso on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:40:04 PM PDT

          •  Not exactly

            I think that if health plans can cover Viagra, they should sure as hell cover contraceptives.  And I think condoms should be free at doctors offices, colleges (at mine, they were, everywhere), family planning centers.  I'd support them in libraries and McDonald's too, but I understand people want a line drawn somewhere :-)

            Actually, though, I was thinking more of guaranteeing the right to contraceptives.  As in, pharmacists cannot "morally refuse" to fill a birth control prescription.  Educators cannot LIE to teenagers about effectiveness of condoms in sex-ed classes.  

            by KB on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:53:42 PM PDT

            •  Now, THAT I can get behind

              "Actually, though, I was thinking more of guaranteeing the right to contraceptives.  As in, pharmacists cannot "morally refuse" to fill a birth control prescription.  Educators cannot LIE to teenagers about effectiveness of condoms in sex-ed classes."

              One hundred percent.  Along those lines, I'd like to see a Bill implicating the Republicans shitty manipulation of Science.  Something like a, "Respect for Sound Science Act".

              by manyoso on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:12:35 PM PDT

              •  Rx refusals

                Here's a question...I think I read recently that in some states, pharamists can refuse filling birth control Rx on the bases of "conscientious objections".  Now, I'm not sure if this is a fact, or if its just a nightmare scenario I imagined...but then, the two have been colliding lately. Also, has anyone heard about the Virginia legislature vote today that would have repercussions on funding/filling contraception?  

                by cognocenza on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:23:55 PM PDT

                •  That is precisely what I was talking about

                  The following states allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense medicine: TX, MS, SD, AR.

                  Proposed legislation to allow refusal in the following states: RI, WA

                  I found this at USA Today, linked text, by googling "birth control precription refusal".  

                  Plenty more info there, if you are interested.

                  by KB on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:30:58 PM PDT

            •  S.20 - (partly covers it)

              End Insurance Discrimination Against Women.  The legislation ensures equity and fairness in contraception coverage by ensuring that private health plans offer the same level of coverage for contraception as they do for other prescription drugs and services.

              That should cover the viagra vs. the pill.

              Then,

              Increase Access to Family Planning Services.  This bill increases funding for the national family planning program (Title X) and will allow states to expand Medicaid family planning services to women with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

              Now, that's not the same as forcing pharmacists to dispense birth control pills. BUT, if access to family planning clinics is improved, that will help access to contraceptives.

              I would imagine they wanted to avoid the "third rail" of the religious debate.  I agree that the law should require pharmacists to dispense what is prescribed by the doctor. However, I am okay with this particular proposal sticking with less controversial items that improve on the situation.  The idea is to have a platform that has wide appeal, to start moving things back in the right direction. Getting half a loaf is better than starving to death.

              by MH in PA on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:00:18 PM PDT

              •  Hurrah!

                It appears I did not read closely enough.  I am SO impressed with what Reid and the Democrats are doing.  We complain and, BOOM, it's already there.  

                Are all my dreams going to come true?  Maybe I should buy a lotto ticket...or check on my grad school app.

                by KB on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 07:22:08 AM PDT

      •  Reduce Infant Mortality

        Beef up public health including pre-natal care.  Infant mortality has been rising in this country.  We can all get behind fetal health.

        by kaleidescope on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:35:54 PM PDT

      •  Manyoso:

        If I may, with great tact, point out that a good tack to take to make a point is to use tact in presenting it?

        </pedantry>

        I am torn between signing right up, to praise them for barking, or waiting to see if they have learned to bark in unison, as in, voting against Gonzales and Rice, in this coming week, and then praising them?  That would speak much more loudly of "Unified Opposition". That would give us an indication of how together they can come in support of this positive start towards an agenda.

        by claude on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 08:18:35 PM PDT

  •  I DO NOT want my child wasting any more of

    his time in the class room!  He spends plenty of time at school as it is and he learns little!

    Improve the quality of education don't spend more time in the crappy educational system we have!

    Test the teachers not the students.  Then, when the teachers pass the tests, pay them more.

    by TXsharon on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:18:30 PM PDT

    •  Too much like right

      not that this will EVER make it onto any legislative agenda, but it'd be nice to have a funding system for public schools that actually didn't punish kids for living in poor neighborhoods.  You know: redo the entire concept of property taxes funding schools.

      But that's waaaaayyy off...I'm happy with just stopping the hemoraging for now.

      by grannyhelen on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:08:18 PM PDT

      •  Stopping the hemorrhaging

        would work for me!  And a redo of the property taxes funding schools would be a good place to start!  I'm afraid it's a lost cause.

        How about letting the major pollution producing industries pay for schools?  ...2 birds...

        One thing that I learned from working in the oil business is how many billions of dollars in royalty money the oil companies are cheating schools out of.  They pay a low price for the oil at the wellhead then trade it downstream using an almost impossible to trace paper trail.  The end price is often $2 or more per barrel than the wellhead price.  This has been going on for over 20 years and it is illegal.

        by TXsharon on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 07:29:44 AM PDT

    •  test the teachers on what?

      most of us had to take tests to get certified in the first place.  And very little of those tests, or of any of the others I ahve seen, ahve any reality to what goes on -- or should go on -- in a classroom.

      BTW  I am considered by mos to be an exceptional teacher.  I get recommendations from students, from parents, from administrators, and my kids have terrific test scores.  And I absolutely do NOT believe in paying some teachers more because they are supposedly superior.  Teaching is a collaborative exercise  --  in my case I have kids for one of the 7 [or in some cases 8 ] periods in which they receive instruction each day.  Part of a studdent's success in my class is also do to how /she is tuaght and dealt with in other classes, by administrators, by fellow students, and, yes, by parents.

      I am a maverick   -- I believe the primary purpose of tests should be diagnostic, and not for the purpose of classification and sorting.  I have 170 students right now.  23 of them are new since January 3rd.  And yet I can tell yoou the strengths and weaknesses of everyone of those students because I pay attention to them.  yes, I give them tests, I have them write  -- and REWRITE--  papers.  I prod them in class discussions.   If they do not succeed at something on which they ahve tired, then it is quite likely -- if they want -- that they can get a chance to rework the assignment.   Why in the name of any deity you can imagine we assume that the purpose of school is to rank, to tell kids "sorry, you didn't cut it" is beyond me.  

      BTW   I will agree to tests for teachers when politicians will agree to tests before they can run for office, when parents  -- who have FAR MORE influence on MOST of the students that I teach than I do [and for the others, all I can say is shame on them that I have more influence] agree to take tests before they become parents, and if they do well enough, we'll let them ahve another child.

      Yeah, I know it's no the same thing.  My point is that relying on a test the way you describe will not necessarily get you a good teacher, or ven one who can help your kid get through the day without being bored out of her mind.  There are some things you simply cannot test, but if you walk into a classroom you will know immediately.

      by teacherken on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:56:03 PM PDT

      •  We need smarter teachers who are

        experts in their fields.  

        You may be a wonderful, competent teacher, although, I can't tell that by the way you write!  Writing well is an important skiil for a teacher!  

        A good teacher who is well educated has nothing to fear from taking tests similar to the bar examination for lawyers.  Wouldn't you like to make as much money as a lawyer for teaching?  I certainly think teaching is one of the most important jobs on this planet and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.  BUT I see far, far too many incompetent teachers!!!!

        I have taught in the public school system.  Now, I work for a university and I can assure you that the weakest students BY FAR are the education majors!

        by TXsharon on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:56:56 PM PDT

        •  I actually do quite well on tests

          which is one reason i don't particularly value them, at least not in isolation

          hey have their uses, as one emasure among many

          I have met a lot of people who knew a lot about their fileds, but could not teach their way out of a wet paper bag.  It is bad enough when it occurs at the university level, when is supposed to be able assume som e minimal level of competence and experience n the part of the students

          but in a public school one cannot make such assumptions.  and helping adolescents, whose brains are not completely formed as yet, make sense of a domain to which they don't automatically connect requires something much more than subject area expertise.

          Ideally a teacher would have both subject matter expertise and good pedagogical skills [which, by te way, are far more art than science, IMHO].

          And for waht it is worth, I don't believe in education majors at the undergraduate level.   I think instead one who wants to teach should major in some other domain, spend time assiting a classroom, observing in several more [to learn that there is more than one way of approaching a particular content area], and only then take courses related to pedagogy.

          And one of the most important courses has nothing to do with methods or discipline, but rather is one of thinking -- it is the entire question of the philosphy of education n --- what guides you as teacher in the decision you make?  What goal are you seeking?

          I also think educational training should include work in reflection  --- reflective practice is essential, albeit often difficult for which to find the time in the actual classroom situation.  What worked, what didn't, and why?   Can you as a tacher change in mid-class when you realize that a lesson is not working as you intended?  Do you have a plan c for when plan b fails?

          I question my own teaching constantly.   If a lot fo students do very poorly on a test where I xpect better performance, I fist try to see what patterns I can to see what may be causing it.  Was the test poorly constructed?  Are there questions that good students are missing while weaker students are getting them?  Is their part of the instruction that perhaps was not  done as effectively as I thought?  And what do i do about the disappointing overall perfromacne, reteach, retest, som other method of reinforcing correct knowledge and application?

          I am confronting this right now.  I ahve been able to discern this much   --  this is the first year we have ended second quarter BEFORE winter break.  Our students are not used to coming back after the New Year and immediately jumping into new material  -- in the past they expected about a week of summation and review and then getting into semester exams and projects that were retrospective.   Psychologically they were not prepared for the difference, and I am not the only teacher discovering this in the past two weeks or so.    And I would note that neither teaching in pedagogy nor subject matter expertise would help with this problem.  It is something that goes beyond that.

          And now I have to figure out how best to address the problem, something I will not accomplish spending any more time at dailykos this evening.

          Thanks for provoking some more in-depth thinking.

          have a nice night.

          by teacherken on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 08:02:50 PM PDT

          •  A test doesn't have to assess only

            knowledge it can also test other areas like the science of teaching.

            I have met a lot of people who knew a lot about their fileds, but could not teach their way out of a wet paper bag.

            I have known a lot of teachers who are empty slates and can ONLY teach what is written on their page for the day.  If that doesn't work, they are lost.  If the student doesn't get the math lesson they don't have another way to explain the concept because they don't fully UNDERSTAND the concept.  Ideally, teachers should be able to pull something out at a moment's notice and teach that if their plan fails.  Any person who is knowledgable and passionate about a subject is generally a great teacher.

            We need to teach critical thinking and logic.  That's is why I was teaching my son at home using the classical method of education.

            The sad fact is that our education system is broken and it badly needs to be fixed!

            by TXsharon on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 03:41:23 AM PDT

            •  I have several questions

              what is your basis for saying the educational system is broken?  I see lots of problems, I'm in a dysfunctional system [largely because of previous dysfunctional school boards and some of the top administratros, including the current, that we have gotten as a result] and yet I know enough about the various schools to say that many are not "broken."

              Those that are, I see little evidence that testing the teachers will address the underlying issues.

              Should teachers have knowledge about the sbuject?  certainly.   Should they have some understanding about pedagogy?  No disagreement.   Does a test measure whether they can apply either subject matter knowledge or pedgagogy knowledge in the classroom?  I see no evidence of that connection.

              Granted, a lack of knowledge is a clear counter-indicator.  I would want some floor level of knowledge of the subject, although I am not sure that a true expert level is necessary  -- one of the best math classes I ever had was one in statistics and probability where the teacher was at his own admission at most one chapter ahead of us..  he had a knowledge of the unhderlying domain (math, especially calculus) and he was knowledgeable and experienced in teaching adolescents.

              I have no argument about using tests as one screening device to determine eligibility for entry into teaching.  My objection is to their use as the (often sole) determinant in determining who gets higher pay  ..  I see no evidence that high scores by teachers even correlates with high test scores by students.  Now, correlation is not causation, and I don't have such a high regard for many of the tests given to students, but if we cannot even establish that correlation, isn't it somewhat silly to use such teacher tests as a basis for pay differential?

              And btw, while tests can assess higher level skills, I have seen very few that do.  I went through the entire battery of PRAXIS tests as part of my qualifying for certification about 10 years ago, and I saw nothing that assessed any higher level skills   ---  it was largely recall, and many questions could be answered by process of elimination even if one did not truly even recall the correct answer.  Of course, ti was relatively cheap to administer, and also quite profitable for ETS.

              by teacherken on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 04:10:22 AM PDT

              •  asdf

                what is your basis for saying the educational system is broken?

                One basis for my claim is where US students fall in comparison to the rest of the world!  Another basis is the HUGE increase in remedial classes taken at the college level!  I think those are pretty good indicators!

                I agree that not ALL schools are broken, just MOST.

                Testing the teachers was/is not my only suggestion.  I have made other suggestions but I stand by my insistance that we DEMAND a higher level from our teachers then improve their working conditions and pay.

                Does a test measure whether they can apply either subject matter knowledge or pedgagogy knowledge in the classroom?  I see no evidence of that connection.

                Then we need a series of tests that CAN accomplish that!  And, we need to make the testing requirement ongoing.

                isn't it somewhat silly to use such teacher tests as a basis for pay differential?

                Nope!  That's how the rest of the world works.  Those who say they can have to prove it!

                while tests can assess higher level skills, I have seen very few that do

                Why not get to work helping to develop some that will?

                one of the best math classes I ever had was one in statistics and probability where the teacher was at his own admission at most one chapter ahead of us..  he had a knowledge of the unhderlying domain (math, especially calculus) and he was knowledgeable and experienced in teaching adolescents.

                My point proven!  He understood math at a deep level, therefore, he could apply that understanding to many mathematical situations!  That is EXACTLY what is lacking in our teachers!

                while tests can assess higher level skills, I have seen very few that do.

                Why not get to work on developing some that will?

                by TXsharon on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:32:18 AM PDT

    •  So then you have teachers who test well.

      Being able to do well on a test and being able to do well in the classroom are two very different things.  Things like class size also matter.  Testing aimed at punishing teachers for failing to accomplish heroic things with limited resources is just totally counterproductive.

      by MissLaura on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:12:23 PM PDT

      •  More money for teachers

        who are experts in their field.  

        If you don't believe that testing determines anything except the ability to test well then lets forget about testing our doctors and our lawyers.  

        I don't want to punich teachers for anything!  I want to weed out the ones who are STUPID and there are PLENTY of those.  

        We need better, smarter teachers and we need to pay them more.

        Read Learning and Teaching Elementary Mathematics by Liping Ma if you don't think teachers in American need to imporve.

        by TXsharon on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:02:04 PM PDT

        •  Even experts not always the answer.

          The greatest high school history teacher I had was not a history major himself.  In fact, if I remember correctly, he had only taken one history class in college.  But he was tough-minded and he pushed us.  Both in our writing and in class discussions, he never let us get away with anything.  As my mom said after parents weekend, in his classroom you got the sense of a room full of students of different abilities, all working to the top of their ability.  But would this have shown up on a test?  I can't think what kind of test.  I'm not saying he didn't know history by the time he'd been teaching it for a few years, because he was the kind of teacher who did some reading outside the textbook, but I can tell you this: I was about 2 classes short of a history major in college and I'm sure that if I brushed up for a couple days I could do quite well on a test.  But that doesn't mean I should be in the classroom.

          While I think quality teachers are an important part of the educational process, I think focusing exclusively on teachers in your efforts to improve education is just a big mistake.  And I always think that turning to testing - whether for teachers or students - as the answer to a flawed school system is a mistake.  It's too easy to teach to too many tests.  Too many people will always test well and too many will always test badly.

          by MissLaura on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:06:13 PM PDT

          •  Read up thread and down thread

            by TXsharon on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:35:22 AM PDT

    •  Oh, sure, blame the teachers.

      Don't blame the legislators that mandate testing in every grade that kills two weeks of instruction - or almost 5% of the school calendar for the actual testing. Not counting the actual preparation for the testing.

      Don't criticize the special interest groups and Boards of Ed. that make sure their pet agendas are added to the curriculum. We must teach recycling! Community service! Tolerance! Intelligent design! And you get 30 minutes for American history every two days in 1st grade and wonder why.

      Don't criticize the parents who can't be bothered to attend ONE P.T.A meeting after 3rd grade or volunteer even ONE hour a year in their children's classrooms.

      Don't criticize the administrators who make sure elementary teachers get ZERO planning time, load them with POUNDS of paperwork and extra assignments.

      Don't blame the advocates for special education, who make sure every child with an IEP or 504 plan is another mountain of paperwork, filed in triplicate, with monthly reporting. Only nurses have more paperwork per patient than we do per student.

      Don't blame the state and local governments who subsidize or straight-out pay for food, shelter, and daycare for 15 year-olds having babies, encouraging a lifestyle that presents obstacles for both the teen mom and the child. I wish MY daycare, child's food and basic living supplies could be paid for by someone else.

      Don't blame the kids, coming in high at 8 a.m. in 11th grade, counting the days until they can legally drop out, and treating teachers with less respect than they treat their pets, knowing the worst that can happen is a few days suspension, and in some jurisdictions, not even that.

      Blame the teachers, the ones who work on their own at night and summers to earn a Master's degree (or get fired for not having one), grade papers at home and spend time with students before and after school.

      Yeah, blame them. Don't ask how many of your child's teachers have a B.A. or B.S. in their subject, or even an M.Ed. You might be surprised at the answer.

      It's easier to assume all teachers are some sort of lazy, slightly stupid offspring of some rich daddy who paid for college and just demands employment for their offspring, something easy, like teaching. Those that can, do, and those that can't teach, right?

      So who taught YOU how to read? Do calculus? Conjugate a verb? Describe how rainbows form?

      Somehow, I don't think you came from the womb with these concepts fully formed. And for having them, you'd better thank a teacher.

      Thank God for the NEA and the Democratic Party!
      

      by duck on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:23:26 PM PDT

      •  0 of 4

        So who taught YOU how to read? Do calculus? Conjugate a verb? Describe how rainbows form?

        Hmm, not to be snarky, but of that particular list, 0 of 4 came from school teachers.  Calculus certainly from a teacher, but in a college class after school, since my high school didn't offer calc.

        That being said, there are plenty of teachers for me to thank, and I do recognize what a tough job they face.

        Unfortunately, my grade school teachers ranged from useless to downright discouraging and disparaging towards my intellect and my interest in science.  There were a couple of years where I would have been better off just staying home, reading books, and watching PBS kids shows.

        In high school there were some real standouts though, including a couple of world-class history teachers who are partly why I migrated from physical science to social science, a speech teacher who saw past my shyness to draw out a future debate champ, and a physics teacher who was remarkably tolerant when my tinkering resulted in expensive equipment blowing up.  Absolutely had a huge, positive impact on my life.

        by dburbach on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:23:05 PM PDT

      •  O of 4 here!

        blah, blah, blah!

        The same old whining and blaming everything on the kids and their parents and...

        DON'T YOU GET IT?  The best way to get a better deal for teachers is to make it harder to be one!  Then and only then can you demand better pay and working conditions.

        Better educated teachers is a better deal for everyone!

        If you think teachers in America don't need improvement, I invite you to read Learning and Teaching Elementary Mathematics by Liping Ma.  You will hang your head in shame.

        And for your information, I am self taught.  I also have been a teacher in the public school system.  My best friend has been a teacher for 30+ years.  Her favorite saying is, "Teachers are the stupidest people in the world."  She is an excellent teacher with a double master's degree.  She has NEVER sent a child to the principal's office because she has NO discipline problems.  Her students are interested, captivated, entertained and inspired!  I have NEVER heard her blame anything on her students.  She lifts them up.  Why don't you try it?

        by TXsharon on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:22:06 PM PDT

        •  will you apply the same to all domains?

          store clerks, gas station mechanics, politicians, etc.

          Look, my objection is not that I don't think teachewrs shold have subject matter knowledge.  If they don't, they should'nt be teaching.  I would note that many of the tests that in theory are supposed to indicate such subject matter knwoedlge are themselves at best crude isntruments with a reliability that brings and validity to inferences drawn from the results into serious question.

          I object to using such tests as the SOLE determinant in which teachers are going to get paid more.  I know people brilliant in their field who have no ability to communiate that knowledge except to those who are already competent in the domain.  I sure as hell would not want them teaching my kids.

          BTW --   were I, or most of the decent teacher I know   --- paid for (a) the time we actually put in, (b) the educational requirements, inclding ongoing training we are required to ahve, and (c) all the additional non-teaching activities we are required to do, but which have nothing to do with actual teaching, most of us would be getting substantial raises.  When you have communities where the average sanitation worker makes more per hour actually worked than does the average teacher it says something for how society values teachers.

          it also says something when the solution to some tachers who are problematic is to treat all teachers as incompetent.   If we applied that to any other field, most doctors would be having all of their diganoses doublechecked, and I hate to think how we would treat Congressmen and presidents [you think politics is rough now!!!]

          I am not in teaching for the money, but it would be nice to be paid enough for the work I do, or far better, to be given a teaching load that is not insance.  I ahve 170 students.  I am sujppsoed to teach them not only content, but also writing skills, reading skills appropriate to my subject area [social studies], connect it with the real world.

          Isn't it interesting that some who want to blame the teachers [and I am not saying this about you] do not put their kids in public schools, but send them to private schools with class sizes less than half my average class size.    Theyare willing to spen 20,000 or more to put their kid in the "right" private school but object to spedning 1/2 that on "other people's children" to use the term popularized by Lisa Delpit.  And gee, when in pulbic schools, that average per student expenditure includes things you don't see in those private schools   --  security guards, in some cases metal detectors, special educators, ESOL teachers, etc ..  all of which are overhead that count against the average expenditure for each child.

          Americans are as unrealistic about education as they are about war.  So let me use that for an example.  We are horrified, perhaps rightly, by something over 1,000 dead Americans in 2+ years in Iraq.   But folks, during the Battle of Kursk, the Soviets were losing arouind 9,000 killed per day for well over a week.  We Americans are totally unrealistic about war, which is perhaps why Europeans who have known something of the cost of war often think our posturing is crazy.  When it comes to education everyone is an expert, and yet we are totally unrealistic about what is necessary to have the schools fulfill all of what is placed on them.

          Testing teachers solves little.  treating teachers in increasingly demeaning ways will make it even harder to attract precisely those you think you will be the after the factg increases in payh, which are about as likely as the additional money Bush in theory promised George Miller and Teddy Kennedy to get them to (foolishly, as I communciated to Miller at the time) back his paln for NCLB.

          Most of our better teachers can make far more doing something other than teaching.  I know that I still do not now, after 10 years of teaching, make as much as I did as a civil servant data processor in 1994 when I left to become a teacher because I wanted to make a difference in the lives of young people, and to have a more positive impact on the future of this country.  Hell, as I found out when I did it briefly in between competling my training and getting a teaching job, I can today make more money as a car salesman than I do as a teacher with two master's degrees, most of a doctorate in educational adminstration and policy studies, multiple awards for my teaching, multiple acceptances for participation in prestigious ongoing study at universities and foundations, oh heck, you get the idea.  

          Please look at my signature line ...  I teach because I can do more.  Hell, I could ace any test on my content area, and probably point out all the errors in the questions as I was taking it.   But I would at this point refuse to take such a test, as insulting to the work I ahve done the past 10 years, the professional judgments of the 4 principals for whom I have worked, the thanks of my many students and their parents.  All I ask for is a little respect and some common decency.  When I served as a union rep, I worked to ensure that the teachers we had were effective, and that those who weren't , while given their full due process, did not continue in a fashion that could injure our students.  I have no tolerance for bad teachers.  But I have seen very few ... I have seen weak teachers who need help, but no one seems to ahve the time or willingness to offer that help.  I seed decnet teachers who get burned out by the lack of spport and the overwork.  I see truly gifted teachers who quit in frustration because increasing mandates, such as totally unencessary testing, takes away the time, the energy needed from them to apply their creativity to helping their students blossom.  

          As a Quaker, I am often tempted by the vision of Quaker schools, which is far more human than your average public school environment.  Yes, I make much more money in a public school, but that is not why I stay.   I stay because I know I can make a difference.  But each additional external mandate that has NOTHING to do with how I am successful but for which I must give up even more of my precious instructional tiem makes it harder to justify staying.  I am a creative teacher, who will turn a dime to meet the needs of those students in that class this period.  Yet there are those making educational policy who believe teachers like me are the problem  -- I won't be on the same page as everyone else, I may bnot be on the same page in consecutive periods, heck, I may not even use the textbook.  Leave me alone and my kids will ace your stupid tests because they will UNDERSTAND the content area because they will have been ENGAGED in what they are learning, because it is not just to perform well on a test.  If I cannot teach according to my best professional judgment, if you insist as some do that not only will everyone be on the same page, but everyone will do the same, often scripted, lessons, that we will go to so-called 'teacher-proof" curricula, then teaching  becomes almost impossible, and I reufse to be that dishonest with my students.

          Teaching is inherently a subversive activity, because it is, if done proeprly, empowering to the students.  As Parker Palmer notes, it is a series of overlapping relationships.  Students have relationships with the material, with classmates, with the teacher.  I learn HOW to tech my students by LISTENING TO AND OBSERVING THEM.  I am NOT the teacher for every student, and I know that.  But I will go many extr steps for any student who will try.

          Are students part of the problem?  if tghey won't try, there isn't a damn thing I can do, beyond continuing to bug them.  Are parents problems?  Lord, the storeis icould tell about some.  But then there are those who are totally supportive  -- they don't let their kids lie [for some will], they turn off the tv, they will sit and discuss what went on in school, they come to back to school night, and/or stay in touch [every parent has my email, and anyone who wants it can have my home phone number].  

          I am not a perfect teacher, as I am not a perfect human being.  And right now I am so frustrated at so many levels that I seriously consider making this my last year.   But then i will have a student ask if i will teach Comparative Religion again nextg year [yes, I do every other year}, because they so want to {a} study something different, and/or {b} have me as a teacher [some becaue I have tuaght them or sibling before, others because they have never had me as a teacher and want to expereince that crzay man in Temp-10].

          So please,   tell me how you are going to measure me as a teacher by giving me a test?  Please tell me what it will validly tell you abut my effectiveness as a teacher.  I can think of assemssents, including thests, that might, but I seriously doubt that those proposing teacher testing are prepared to spend the teh several hundred dollars required for a single administration of such an instrument.  Like everything else in education, tey want mircales on the cheap, proposing to use a mcahine scored instrument  wich will cost $20 or less for each application.

          give me a break.   That's like sending the troops to Iraq in Humvees not desingd to be armored vehicles, with the troops riding in them not being given proper body armor, and then wondering why so many are getting maimed.

          Enough of my bloviating.   But boy did this tick me off.
          

          by teacherken on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 08:38:44 PM PDT

          •  A gas attendant or store clerk?

            Is that the level upon which you want to place teachers?  I'm sorry, but that comparison makes NO sense!

            LOOK, I am ALL for anything that improves the deal for the truly good and passionate teachers.  I am ALL for getting rid of the useless administration and distributing that money to the GOOD teachers.  I am ALL for smaller classrooms if that's what you think will be more helpful.  I'm ALL for getting every teacher an aid who can help with grading and other administrative duties.

            I am NOT for continuing with this broken education system!  We have to find a way to weed out the sorry teachers, and there are A LOT of those.  We have to find a way to elevate the status of teachers, improve the working conditions and provide better pay and benefits.

            No, testing is not perfect but it's better than what we have now!  So, what's wrong with a test similar to a thesis examination?  I'm all for putting my money where my mouth is!

            by TXsharon on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 04:01:48 AM PDT

            •  You Prove The Other Side, Sharon

              Standardized testing for measurables, as codified into law, leaves out the key component that you most sincerely desire, for a test similar to a thesis examination, one which measures not only retained information, but also critical thinking skills, requires an answer that cannot be either true/false or multiple choice.

              Is that really what you want from our educational system? A simple application of game theory suggests that whatever is mandated will cause principals and schoolboards to attempt to maximize those results, to the detriment of other educational goals. Mandating a series of standardized tests only measures a youngster's ability to regurgitate facts that are pounded in via rote learning. The use of oral and written essay examination will never be successfully implemented in a national standard. Meanwhile, the required testing will generate curricula specifically engineered to improve test-taking skills.

              by wystler on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:27 PM PDT

            •  (Sheepishly) Damn: Reading IS a Skill

              You're talking about an exam for teachers ... (e letella moment) nevermind ...

              well, almost nevermind ... again, federally mandating standards for the kind of exam, even for teachers, goes far beyond something that creates an appropriate measurable ... i'd no more want to see local control of this ceded federally than i support national standardized testing for the students ... the ability to appropriately codify and administer the type of testing you recommend is a bureaucratic mess ...

              this issue really does serve the right as a smokescreen to union busting, though ... the real shame of it is that the teachers who would be least able to manage (as a group) are the same ones who are asked to dig deeply into their own pockets to augment the woefully undersupplied schools in impoverished districts ...

              really want to put your money where your mouth is? support level funding first ... teachers should not have to buy & bring paper, pencils & crayons, rulers and materials to classrooms, but it goes on every day in the most learning-challenged classrooms of the U.S. ... meanwhile, public school systems in the most tony of suburbs get their picks of the teaching talent ...

              to fix a problem, first you must identify the problem ... as our president has said, "Is our children learning?" ... if not, why not?

              that some schools will continue to outperform others is natural course ... what we must strive to do is to raise the baseline ... the schools most at risk have problems that, while not unique, are usually clearly attributable to lack of funding, and, in larger systems, to a bureaucracy that is less competent than it needs to be ...

              by wystler on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:35:54 PM PDT

              •  I agree!

                Let's raise the baseline!  But, in order to accomplish that you will have to raise the baseline of the people who teach our children.

                by TXsharon on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 05:54:48 PM PDT

  •  I'm feeling confident

    that the agenda is flexible enough to accommodate both tweaks and big additions, especially if we have many members of communities such as this adding their comments via the feedback box. This is an enormously useful tool, and everyone who signs the petition should avail themselves of it. Lay out your issues and concerns before you click that buy-in button -- that's what these folks are asking for, and it's the least we can give them (and ourselves).

    And I must say, props to Harry Reid. He's put a lot of thought into this opposition-party thing. Engaging the netizens like this is a really encouraging step.
    

    by Penny Century on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:28:26 PM PDT

  •  For once

    Let us stay on message.

    For once lets not quibble our visions to death.

    For once lets not nitpick one of the rare instances of true leadership in our party.

    For once lets Salute the courage and leadership of Harry Reid (who a lot of us including Myself owe a big apology and strong support if he keeps this up) and our Senators for standing tall.

    For once lets dont take a clear consise message and blab it to death.

    For once lets dont demand perfection and destroy the good in doing so.

    For once lets be Democrats rather than interest groups.

    by cdreid on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:54:05 PM PDT

•  what about

  voting no on condi and abu?  it didn't mention voting opposition.

  by Cedwyn on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:49:44 PM PDT

  •  Definately opposition, but that it is not offense

    This agenda is meant to layout what DEMOCRATS ARE FOR as opposed to what DEMOCRATS ARE AGAINST.  We don't always want to be on offense.  Now, when Tim Russert and the usual talking heads question our congressional leaders about what they are for, they have a way to respond.

    by manyoso on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:52:48 PM PDT

    •  I am NOT "for" NCLB.

      I am just, simply, not for it.

      This platform is a great start, but about a third of it is responding to, or playing by the rules of, the Republican platform and agenda.

      I really don't want my democratic leadership to say to Tim Russert "we are for fully funding NCLB and keeping that program."  What I want them to say is, "NCLB is a crock of shit and the money we have dedicated to it, in addition to xbillions of additional dollars, needs to be channeled to the following educational initiatives (then introduce truly progressive, sensible democratic educational proposals)."

      That's what I want to see in a democratic agenda re: education.  That's what I want my leadership to be "for."

      by concernedamerican on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:08:21 PM PDT

•  feels good to be a democrat

  always did, but this makes me all smiley.

  by skyesNYC on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:51:41 PM PDT

•  Missing two important platforms

  THE ENVIRONMENT!!!! Especially energy issues, which dovetail with our national security, global warming, and pollution

  and I want to see some sort of commitment to protecting our civil liberties.  

  by KB on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:54:31 PM PDT

  •  That's...

    ...what I mentioned, too. After thanking them for giving me ammunition the next time a REP accuses me of mindless obstructionism, and thanking them for leading, I mentioned that I missed something on global warming, that they should also support McCain -Lieberman.

    But I feel that's nitpicking. It's a great start.

    (You're right about the civil liberties, though)

    by mecki on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:57:20 PM PDT

    •  Other notable issues that are missing...

      Energy Independence, Equality in Marriage, Gun Control.  The former should definately be included, but I can understand why the latter two have been excluded.  They have to try and form some kind of consensus around the issues they feel comfortable going on the offensive.

      by manyoso on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:02:14 PM PDT

      •  Consensus

        When mentioning civil liberties, I was specifically thinking about marriage equality, abortion and the Patriot Act.  

        I left them out precisely because I feel the way you do about the need for consensus.  Civil liberties should be something the Dems stand for on principle.  We can decide on which specific proposals to support once everyone is listening.  

        by KB on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:09:17 PM PDT

        •  I think...

          ...just leaving it at 'Civil liberties' is good. Obviously, everyone can think of it what they want, but that we're for it in principle should be obvious.
          

          by mecki on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:10:45 PM PDT

          •  Very true, but to have a Bill you need specifics

            That is why just labeling it 'Civil Liberties' is not going to get you far.  I would prefer if Democrats would pro-actively come out with a plan for federal recognition of civil-unions.  These would be federally regulated and would be open to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.  We need a pro-active Bill we can use as an alternative to the Republicans amendment proposal.

            by manyoso on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:17:55 PM PDT

            •  I would like to see this as well

              I think Democrats should propose a bill that establishes civil unions for ALL couples, homo and hetero.  Get the state out of regulating marriage and leave it to churches, who should be under no pressure to do anything (except maybe from their own congregations).  

              by KB on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:26:04 PM PDT

              •  I'm conflicted.

                I would, of course, vote for such a bill in a heartbeat. But my worry is that if they were to put this in as the 11th bill, all the print would swirl around it (as it is the least obviously popular one, I believe) and suck all the oxygen out of the rest of the bills.

                Which is why my original suggestion was to go with something much less contentious - civil liberties.

                I think that this sort of bill would be best introduced when the DEMs have regained their feet, when the REPs are reeling from the impact of their voters yelling at them for having not supported a DEM bill or other.

                by mecki on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:55:57 PM PDT

                •  Right on

                  The civil unions bill would be my ideal solution, but I agree that it should be introduced later on.  

                  Something civil liberties related should be included in the contract, though, to give Repblicans notice that we will no longer allow them to run roughshod over the freedoms we as Americans cherish.  

                  by KB on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:04:03 PM PDT

      •  I was looking for

        Some kind of bill that ensured the right of workers to organize.

        I know the laws are on the books, but the Labor Dept. refuses to enforce them.  Isn't there any way to make sure those labor laws are enforced?

        We've got poor working Americans doing everything they possibly can--and paying a very heavy emotional price--to make sure they can organize at work.

        It never happens.  If our people don't have wages and health care the agenda above hardly means a damn  thing.

        [I cheered Bowers' diary on Solidarity up there now, but I have been a propononet of this for a long time.  Until the Democrats lay it all on the line for the workers at Walmart we will never adhere to what we truly should strive for, and we will couninue to lose votes from screwed workers.    For the life of me I don't get it.  How come Democrats ignore Labor?]

        by paradox on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:15:05 PM PDT

        •  Yes yes yes.

          Right to organize, with card-check.  Increased penalties for employers firing people during union drives.  Ideally find a way to make employer intimidation of workers more difficult - maybe no forcing workers to attend anti-union meetings during working hours.

          by MissLaura on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:57:30 PM PDT

      •  just as important...

        Is the fact that we cant just be a party of policy... we have to tighten the message belt down to key values and issues instead of spewing facts and policies down the people's throats.  It may make for good government, but it's not good politics.  I do agree that energy should have been a top issue, though.

        Also, it seems like it might have been a good idea to draft point-by-point bill alternatives to S.Bs.1-10, the GOP agenda.  I hope we see some real resistance to that agenda in the coming days.

        by samseaborn on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:35:07 PM PDT

        •  VALUES, VALUES, VALUES

          We need to remember that what resonates with people are VALUES.  This is where Rockridge Institute and Dr.Feldman @ NYU become very important.  We need to translate these policy areas into simple elevator pitches - points to talk about.

          This is a very rough draft, but these bills need to be put in a larger context of values.  I know I sound like a broken record, but that's what I understand framing is.

          Senate Bill 11: Standing With Our Troops.
          COMMON STRENGTH = America is stronger when we all stand together.

          Senate Bill 12: Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively.
          RESPONSIBLE FOREIGN POLICY - not just troop strength, communications offensive and intelligence reform

          Senate Bill 13: Fulfilling Our Duty to America's Veterans.
          FAIRNESS - towards our elders who have work for us

          Senate Bill 14: Expanding Economic Opportunity.
          ECONOMIC FAIRNESS not conservative market fundamentalism

          Senate Bill 15: Quality Education for All.
          EQUALITY

          Senate Bill 16: Making Health Care More Affordable.
          FAIRNESS RESPONSABILITY

          Senate Bill 17: Democracy Begins at Home.
          RESPONSABILITY

          Senate Bill 18: Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries.
          EQUALITY

          Senate Bill 19: Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future.
          RESPONSABILITY

          Senate Bill 20: Putting Prevention First.
          PREVENTION not punishment

          I ran out of ideas for now, but I hope you get the point.  

          We need precise, laser like tactical strikes stemming from policy directives.

          Fight on.
          

          by rapidfire on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:04:13 PM PDT

          •  damn

            just realized i mispelled responSIBIlity every chance I got.  

            Don't nominate me for a speech writer.

            by rapidfire on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:05:25 PM PDT

  •  AGREE!

    great start -- I'm very happy with this.  But the environment and civil libs are glaring oversights.  Environment would've fit in the "responsibility" section.

    by VirginiaDem on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:43:33 PM PDT

  •  Hit Them With Both Barrels

    The environmental movement is often really two movements: Conservation and Environmental Health;  John Muir and Rachel Carson.  Both strains are popular and we should be proactive on both threads.

    People want natural areas protected: more parks, wild rivers, public coastal access, more wilderness.  They want more beautiful areas they can visit.  They want to protect the environment for their children and grandchildren.  This is both good policy and good politics.  At the very least we can force Republicans to vote against coastal protection, national parks, wildernesss areas and trees.

    In the years since Rachel Carson wrote The Silent Spring, the effects of silent chemical killers is still a salient issue in any community where pesticides are sprayed or where toxic chemicals are disposed.  Here in Humboldt County, California one issue united the hippies with the property rights fundamentalists:  spraying toxic pesticides on private property and on public thoroughfares.  There's a reason the market for organic food is growing by 20% a year.  

    People are frightened by teratogens.  Toxic heavy metals and endocrine disruptors hurt the most vulnerable -- pregnant women, developing fetuses and children -- worst.  Protect our food supply, our air, water and soil.  Protect fetal health.

    We have little to lose in this.  Advocating for the environment may dry up some contributions from developers or from the chemical and Ag industries. But grass roots -- the netroots -- will contribute many, many small donations if people think it'll help protect the environment.  

    Wake up Democrats: By pushing environmental protection we can do well politically by doing good policy.

    by kaleidescope on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 08:10:24 PM PDT

•  Good start, but

  where are they?  Can't find the bills on thomas.loc.gov.  please post when the bill texts are up.

  by rba on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:03:17 PM PDT

  •  They are there now.

    click on the "Action Yesterday" link

    takes you here

    lists everything introduced on the floor yesterday.

    Or search by bill number (S.11, S.12, etc)

    by MH in PA on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:29:05 AM PDT

•  Where the heck is ENERGY?

  How can you make an agenda for this nation without dealing with the problem of energy sources?

  How about:

  Senate Bill 00: Take Control of our Own Fate.
     o Increase research and implementation of renewable energy sources.
     o Promote deployment of transportation systems thate decrease use of oil.
     o Secure our energy needs so that our government need never again place human rights secondary to the whims of a repressive regime.

  Put it in there, Harry.  There's little that can be solved as long as our soldiers are dying, our politicians lying, and our economy is bleeding, all to hold open the taps on imported oil.

  by Devilstower on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:04:09 PM PDT

  •  No kidding

    If the Dems as a party actively push for an alternative energy agenda, it will go a long way to s