Obama supporter leaving democrat party

Artur Davis, a long-time Alabama democrat and the first democrat outside of Illinois to endorse Barack Obama is leaving the democrat party.

Artur Davis, one of President Obama’s earliest supporters and a former co-chairman for his presidential campaign, announced Tuesday that he was leaving the Democratic party for good. — LA Times.

Davis is in the process of moving from Alabama to Virginia. While he is vague about his future plans, he said, “If I were to run, it would be as a Republican.”  Davis represented Alabama’s seventh congressional district for nine years. He’ll be a democrat no longer.  Davis was a “blue-dog” and was the only member of the Black Congressional Caucus to vote against Obamacare.

In a parting statement, Davis said, “Wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities.  On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again,” he said. “I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country.”

The loss of Davis at this time will be a significant blow to Obama’s campaign. Not only was Davis the first democrat outside Illinois to endorse Obama, he was also the individual to second Obama’s nomination at the 2008 democrat national convention.  The Romney campaign noted Davis’ departure as more proof of the failing democrat agenda.

For us conservatives, this can only be good news.

Quotes and Gaffs

Sometimes it is so easy to find a topic…unlike most of the time.  There I was, sipping coffee and thinking about Dave Ramsey’s comment earlier.  He was discussing the Facebook IPO.  As best as I remember he said…

“Using your Grandma’s money to buy an extremely risky tech stock in a highly hyped IPO is STUPID!  What’s worse is blaming someone else when you lose your money because you were stupid is stupid!”

It was his opening topic. He was discussing the various complaints because the stock went from $38 to $29 in about a week.  He said the demands for an investigation was trying to  blaming someone else because you were stupid…like suing because hot coffee was…hot.

It’s obvious Dave is a conservative. Everything he preaches against is a common trait of democrats and liberals. You’re fun to listen to, Dave.


The next item is more serious. Much more serious. I supposed it could be filed under the topic, “How to lose friends and make enemies.” Obama just insulted 38 million Poles.

It’s not the first time he has insulted the Poles. A earlier incident occurred when he played golf instead of attending the funeral of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, the Polish First Lady, and 94 senior Polish officials who perished in the Smolensk air disaster. Eight months before that, Obama arbitrarily canceled the Euro missile shield site in Poland when he kowtowed to Vladimir Putin who insisted the deployment threatened Russia.

The current flap was caused when Obama described the WW2 death camps in Poland as, “Polish death camps,” instead of Nazi camps.  What was worse was that he was reading off a teleprompter! Is the Obama White House so incompetent that NO ONE knew the difference nor of the impact such a statement would have!?

The Polish Foreign Minister immediately demanded an apology.  That should not be difficult for Obama.  He has had so much practice apologizing to our enemies—and our friends, due to other similar gaffs and insults.  As expected, the White House tried to dance, unsuccessfully, around the incident.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement, “The President was referring to Nazi death camps operated in Poland. The President has demonstrated in word and deed his rock-solid commitment to our close alliance with Poland.” — ABC News.

In response, the Polish Foreign Minister called the incident an act of “ignorance and incompetence.”

You know, Obama opponents couldn’t make up stuff like this!  Some folks in a forum tried to create a list but it keeps growing. Geez! What a boob!

AARP: Not a non-profit organization.

Like many, when I hit 50 I received an invitation in the mail to join AARP, originally the American Association of Retire People. I tossed it. Every year since then I get more invitations…several times a year. If they were big enough to line our cat’s litter box, I’d use them. They’re not so I toss them. Now that I’m Medicare eligible, I get something from AARP several times a month wanting me to sign up for their Medicare Supplemental plan. I ignore these too. Why? Because I will never be an AARP member. I’ll not support one of Obama’s cronies.

AARP purports themselves to be a non-profit association to benefit seniors.  They’re not.  Terrance Scanlon writing in the Washington Times has investigated AARP. His findings did not surprise me.

SCANLON: Picking seniors’ pockets

AARP doesn’t care about elderly members

By Terrence Scanlon, Monday, May 28, 2012

I’m going to come right out and say it: AARP is about money and power. That’s all it’s interested in.

Formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, the nation’s largest seniors group hasn’t cared about its elderly members’ well-being for eons. It’s been too busy building a financial empire.

With $1.6 billion in assets and $1.2 billion in revenue in 2010, AARP is a moneymaking powerhouse. The bulk of its money comes not from membership dues but from product endorsements and business agreements with insurance companies.

These mountains of money and the generous salaries that AARP lavishes on its corporate executives recently drew the attention of members of Congress who have asked the Internal Revenue Service to review AARP’s tax-exempt status. Their findings appeared in an eye-opening investigative report, “Behind the Veil: The AARP America Doesn’t Know,” that was issued by Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Much of the self-described “nonprofit” group’s revenue comes from the sale of supplemental Medicare insurance provided by UnitedHealthcare, which pays a royalty fee to AARP to use its name for marketing purposes. This licensing earned AARP $284 million in 2007, a figure that ballooned to $427 million in 2009 and $670 million in 2010.

As it amasses huge profits, AARP also has become the 800-pound gorilla of special-interest advocacy groups.

As journalist Fred Lucas writes in the current issue of Capital Research Center’s monthly newsletter, Foundation Watch, AARP has a much deserved reputation for throwing its weight around on Capitol Hill.

AARP burned through $198 million in lobbying fees from 1998 to 2010, according to a recent congressional report. That places it behind the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association and General Electric but ahead of PhRMA, the trade association that represents pharmaceutical manufacturers.

AARP has run afoul of the tax man before. In 1994, it forked over a one-time settlement of $135 million to the IRS to settle an audit over its tax returns from 1985 through 1993. The IRS found that AARP had engaged in commercial activities and had to remit “unrelated business income tax” or UBIT. That same year, AARP also paid $2.8 million to the U.S. Postal Service to resolve claims that in 1991-92 it improperly mailed health-insurance solicitations at nonprofit rates.

Like other “liberal” organizations, AARP lies. They lie about their goals. They lie about their methods. They lie about their motivation.  To top it all, they are tax-exempt to boot!

Why should AARP be tax-exempt while it rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties by sponsoring health insurance and offering hotel and travel discounts and deals on auto rentals? That’s the question former Sen. Alan Simpson, Wyoming Republican, asked at a 1995 hearing on AARP’s operations.

AARP remains a steadfast enemy of even the mildest entitlement reforms. The group would prefer to send the bill for previous generations’ spendthrift ways to young people and those who have yet to be born.

AARP attacked Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, when he advanced an extremely modest proposal last year aimed at getting a handle on exploding Social Security and Medicare costs. Even though it knew the plan would not affect today’s seniors or anyone over the age of 55, a disingenuous AARP-produced TV ad said, “Some in Congress want to make harmful cuts to Medicare and Social Security, cutting your benefits so Washington can pay its bills.” It was complete nonsense, but AARP didn’t care.

AARP CEO Barry Rand doubled down, misrepresenting the Ryan plan in an effort to scare seniors. Although the Ryan plan would not reduce Medicare spending, Mr. Rand told lawmakers in a letter that Mr. Ryan’s “proposed budget caps” would “very likely trigger cuts to Medicare benefits for today’s seniors.”

At the same time, AARP gave its enthusiastic support for Obamacare, which would slash $500 billion from Medicare’s budget. AARP’s cheerleading for President Obama’s socialist health care plan was decisive.

It is quite likely that without AARP’s lobbying for Obamacare, it would not have passed.  Their support gave liberals an appearance of support by seniors. Support that, if Obamacare had been fully described and documented, would not have been granted.  AARP, through their endorsements exemptions and the new medical referrals and provider pools under Obamacare, would reap huge profits under Obamacare. AARP pursued their own interests at the expense of their members.

At its core, AARP is, in essence, a fraud. Instead of turning their profits back to their members as should a true non-profit organization, they use those funds to support various liberal organizations—like the democrat party and other liberal social organizations.  Yes, crony socialism at its best, that’s AARP.

When I signed for United Healthcare’s Medicare Advantage program last Fall, I didn’t know UHC paid royalities to AARP for the use of their name.  When it’s time to choose again this Fall, I’ll find another alternative. I do not want any of my money supporting AARP.

I’ve been advised to never feed a fraud. AARP’s political policies do not reflect that of their members. In fact, when members object, AARP ignores them.  I’ll follow that advice and will not feed them either.

Kenneth Tate, US Army, 1946 – 1967


Sgt. Kenneth Wayne Tate, US Army, 1946-1967

I had intended that last Friday would be my Memorial Day post. But I’ve been remembering a friend and today is a good time to record my thoughts.

I was born and grew up in Illinois, southern Illinois in Benton, IL, the Franklin County seat. I attended Benton Consolidated High School along with several hundred others. One of those in my class was Kenneth W. Tate, a very distant cousin from my mother’s side.

Ken was a tall, lanky, farm boy, who lived, if I recall correctly, to the northeast of town.  I lived on another farm in the opposite direction.  If it weren’t for the occasional family get-togethers and high school, I’d probably never have met him.  But we were distantly related and we did attend high school together.  We ran around with the same bunch.  We were geeks and band-members.  I played a trombone, Ken played the drums. 

For him, like many of us, being in the band was more of an opportunity to get out of PE class that is was for music. The school felt that being in the marching band in the fall was sufficient to meet the state’s PE requirement.  That drew many into our band clique.

Ken and I were also geeks. We took the same math and science classes. We were lab partners for Biology, Chemistry and Physics…the standard college-prep curriculum. When we graduated in 1964, I went off to Southern Illinois University. Ken started classes at a nearby Junior College but he didn’t attend long.

The draft was in force during that time.  It was a strong motivator to remain in school with a 2-S deferment. Rather than being drafted, Ken enlisted in the Army.  I lost track of him until a couple of years later whe I received a letter from my Father. Inside with the letter was a clipping…Ken’s obituary.  I didn’t know the details until later.

From the Benton Evening News, September 18, 2009.

Benton, Ill. —

A trip to Northern Illinois by a U.S. Army veteran resulted in an emotional tribute to a Benton man who died in the Vietnam War.

Joe Hare of Columbia, Ky., on Tuesday honored the memory of fellow Black Lions 28th U.S. Infantry member Kenneth W. Tate, who was killed in action on Sept. 6, 1967 — two days after his 21st birthday.

Hare and his wife, Pat, were joined by some of Tate’s family members and friends at his gravesite in the Masonic & Odd Fellows Cemetery.

“It’s not easy, is it?” Hare asked, his voice trembling. “I didn’t think I would do this bad.”
Tate was the first person from Franklin County to die in Vietnam.

“I’ve forgotten how many people came to his funeral,” said Tate’s stepsister, Alana Day, “but there were 140 cars at the funeral home.”

There’s a bit more information here at the Virtual Wall.  I didn’t know Ken was a LRRP. All that we heard was that he was on a patrol and was killed. Someone, I don’t remember who now, said he was killed by a mine.  I don’t know if that’s true or not. It doesn’t really matter, now.

I don’t know why I keep thinking of Ken. We weren’t all that close. Circumstances put us together forty years ago for a period of time. I can still remember his face.

Perhaps it is, as someone once said, that as long as we remember, they aren’t really gone but live within us.  I have no doubt Ken and I will meet again…and laugh remembering when we made nitroglycerin and bombed pigeons outside the window of our 2nd floor Chemistry lab using an eyedropper.

Candidate Review: MO State Senate Republican 2012 Race, District 31

Last Thursday, the Cass County Young Republicans had a candidate forum for three who were running for Missouri’s new 31st Senatorial District: Scott Largent, Ed Emery, and David Morris. The candidates had an opportunity to introduce themselves and give a short biographic review. Thereafter the moderator asked the candidates questions on three subjects: Education, Jobs, and how to work with a democrat Governor.  The audience was also able to submit questions in writing to the candidates.

I’m not going into the details of each candidate’s responses.  In most of the cases, they professed similar views at a high level.  The differences appeared when discussing details.  The one area that did not have consensus was the subject of vouchers for education.  Ed Emery and David Morris thought vouchers could be beneficial.  Scott Largent disagreed.

Emery and Morris were of the opinion that vouchers gave parents more freedom in choosing schools…that vouchers would force schools and districts to be competitive and thereby improved the overall quality.  Scott Largent disagreed. He thought that vouchers could force educational conformity upon all who accepted vouchers and not for the better—more so if private and church affiliated schools were forced to accept vouchers.  Largent’s argument could be summed up as, “He who pays the gold makes the rules.”  The rules could be incompatible to the views of the private or church affiliated school.  For an example we only have to look at the recent HHS requirement that would force Catholic institutions to support contraception, abortions and other requirements incompatible with the Church. HHS is proposing to apply rules that would be contrary to the Catholic Church’s, core beliefs and canons. At last count, forty-three Catholic institutions have filed suit against HHS to block this political edict.  If the feds believe they can force such views on the Church in violation of the 1st Amendment, why should we believe they would allow private and/or religious educators to not comply with state curriculum and guidelines?  It’s a valid point.

Personally, I like vouchers but only if there are no strings attached with the funds.  It could be possible if the law was properly written.  But if it isn’t…  Well, let’s say that Largent’s argument has set me rethinking my position.

PROs:  All three believe that unions and disconnected policies have greatly impeded education. They all agree that reform is necessary. They don’t agree as to the methods. 

On jobs, all agree that passing Right-to-Work would draw industry to the state. Ed Emery stated that in a survey of CEOs on business friendly states, MO was in the middle, ranked as 24th.  He noted that the top 20 ranked states all had Right-to-Work legislation.  All three agree that state regulations must be streamlined and some eliminated. None provided any specifics.

The question of working with the Governor had a different response. Scott Largent was the only one to point out that the Legislature really didn’t have any way to force the Governor to do what they wanted.  The Legislature could override the Governor’s veto but he controlled the funds.  Funding for a specific program could be provided but the Governor was not obligated to spend the funds.The Governor could not be coerced into enforcing a bill that he did not support. The only real solution was to have a ‘Pub Governor and a ‘Pub controlled Legislature.

CONs:  Here is where I’m going to get into trouble with someone…most likely with a number of folks. I hope everyone will take my comments as constructive.

All three candidates professed conservative values. I have no reason to doubt any of those professions. I’m sure if any of the three win election next Fall, they would do their best to follow their convictions. Let’s examine each candidate. As I understand it, the ballot order is Scott Largent, Ed Emery and finally David Morris so let’s take Scott Largent first.

Scott Largent is knowledgeable. He had specific answers to the questions. He’s a serving state Representative and much of the new Senatorial district covers much of Scott’s current district. He has the advantage of the incumbent. His conservative credentials are quite good and he has an established track record in Jeff City.  He also has the support of the ‘Pub establishment.

I have a thing about the establishment. I don’t trust them. I’ve a number of friends who would count themselves as part of the establishment. I listen to their arguments. I don’t necessarily agree.  There’s still too much of an Old Boy’s club about the state’s ‘Pub committees.  The down side of this is that when a grassroots movement appears, like the Tea Party or the Ron Paul supporters, the establishment circles their wagons. It becomes an Us vs. Them. That position is a great impediment to the growth of the Party.

Be that as it may, Scott Largent is seen as a member of the ‘Pub establishment. If he is to be successful, he must reach out to those Tea Partiers and Paul supporters.

Ed Emery is a former Missouri state representative. He was term-limited in 2010. Professionally he is an petroleum engineer. He, like Scott Largent, has experience as a legislator in Jeff City.

Of the three candidates, Emery was the most polished speaker. From his comments at the forum and at other public sessions, I would judge his views as more Libertarian than run-of-the-mill ‘Pub. He is a strong small government advocate. He is also more outspoken on controversial issues that the others—his comments concerning “gay” marriage for example.  Those views have a strong draw among many. I like his comments about personal liberty and small government.

However, and there is always a however, I was disappointed in his performance last Thursday. In his responses to the questions, he never once gave a direct answer. To every question, he responded with a general statement supporting personal liberty, individual responsibility and the need for smaller government. But no specific answers to the question.  He was the only one, when asked to give a short bio, did not.  He did come back to that later during the questioning but not at the appropriate time.  During the give-and-take session during the questioning there was an implication that Emery may not be as capable of building consensus among fellow ‘Pubs as would another candidate…like Scott Largent.

David Morris was the third candidate and a local one from Cass County.  He has a passion that was apparent when he spoke. But, when compared against the other two, he was simply outclassed.  Largent and Emery are politicians. They have the look and mannerisms of a politician. While that is not necessarily a positive impression, they do project an aura of experience and knowledge of the various subject matters under discussion—real or not.

The PROs and CONs for David Morris is that he is no politician.  I have no doubt of his strong conservative views. But…if he wants to enter the political arena he needs some experience other than being involved in the local Fire Protection District. Let David run for a county office, gain some experience before diving into state politics.  Jumping directly into a state sentorial race, however, is too much, too quickly. He needs some seasoning and more experience.

If you win the primary David, I’ll vote for you but I think your chances are slim.

Suggestions:  Scott, you need to practice more on extemporaneous speaking. Ed wiped the floor with you.  You knew your subject matter, you responded directly to the question and you appeared to quick on your feet. But you paused, noticeably, before you spoke. Add some polish. Practice speaking and make your responses smoother without the noticeable hesitations. Record yourself and then listen to the playback. You’ll be amazed what you are…and are not saying.

Ed, you have the vocal polish Scott lacks.  However, you need, when asked, to speak to the question, directly and without equivocation. Talk about specifics, not generalities.  Win the primary first, win your own party. Generalities are for the fall election when you have to pull in the independents and disillusioned democrats. That’s when you can be persuasive with your overall views. For now, you’re preaching to the choir and as a rule, us ‘Pubs and conservatives are more knowledgeable that the rest. Speak to us. Convince us that you’re a better choice than Scott or David.

David, I’ve dinged you pretty hard here. Try to understand that I want you to succeed but you have to do better.  First, when you come to a forum of the party faithful to debate your opponents, dress like it.  A candidate forum is a serious event. You are appearing before the party and the public. Appearing in shorts and sandals may be fine for a BBQ or outing at a neighbor but not for a scheduled political event—unless that is your point. If appearing as a non-politician, say so and make comparisons that you’re one of the “guys” not one of the establishment.

In addition, sit down and enumerate your positions on the various issues that you expect to come up in legislature. Write them down. Memorize them. Saying, “me, too” or, “yeah, what he said,” won’t cut it. You need to distinguish yourself from the others.  Why should folks vote for you instead of your opponent(s). Plan in advance what your response will be to a subject. It wasn’t too hard to expect questions about education and jobs. In these times, those questions are a given. Scott was prepared. He had specific answers to the questions.

For example, if someone asked for your views on making I-70 a toll-road, what would you say? You need to have that answer on the tip of your tongue, memorized and the issues understood for an immediate response. Compared to the others, you have no track record. You need to overcome that lack. If you have some successes, state them and how those successes can be applied as a Senator. Although you’re practically a neighbor compared to Scott and Ed, I know little about you. I came away from the forum knowing little more than I did before.

I have no public political experience.  I do have thirty years of observance of political maneuvering in large corporate businesses as an engineer, manager, and executive level project manager. Successful politics is all about perspectives—what you project, what you perceive and how you are perceived. I hope my observances of last Thursday and my review will help one of our candidates win in August and in November.

Repost: Eagle Veteran

This post was originally published last year on the 4th of July.  It is still appropriate this Memorial Day.


The photo below and the link to the news article is self-explanatory.  Let’s remember what Memorial Day is really about and how we’ve had to fight to retain our Heritage and Independence. (H/T to Mobius.)

Frank Glick took this photo at Fort Snelling National Cemetery. When he recorded the shot, he never could have guessed how much it was going to mean to the widow of the World War II veteran buried there.

It was a crow that first caught Frank Glick’s attention. It was flying around erratically, so Glick got out his Nikon camera and followed it. It was around 6 a.m. on a hazy spring day and he was driving through Fort Snelling National Cemetery because he was early for a training meeting at Delta Airlines, where he works.

Glick is an amateur photographer, but he always carries his camera, just in case. So he followed the crow, in some cultures a symbol of good luck and magic, until he saw it: a huge eagle perched on a tombstone, its eyes alert, its head craned, looking for prey. In the foreground, dew glistened on the grass.

He didn’t think too much about the photo, until he showed it to a co-worker, Tom Ryan, who e-mailed it to his brother, Paul.

Paul wondered whether a relative of the soldier might want a copy. The tail of the eagle partially covered the man’s name, but Paul did some research and looked up the soldier’s name in newspaper obituaries. The eagle had landed on the grave of Sgt. Maurice Ruch, who had been a member of the St. Anthony Kiwanis Club, the obituary said

Paul called the club, and it put him in touch with Jack Kiefner, Ruch’s best friend. When Glick took his photo, he never could have guessed how much it was going to mean to Kiefner and Ruch’s widow, Vivian.

One day this week, I met with Kiefner and Vivian Ruch in her St. Anthony condo. The actual print would be delivered later that day, but Vivian held a copy of the statuesque photo and her voice broke as she talked about Maurie, his nickname, who died from a form of Parkinson’s in 2008 at age 86.

“I’m sorry,” she said. “This is very emotional for me.”

Maurie graduated from college in mechanical engineering in December of 1941 and enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps. Known for his keen eye, he became a rifle marksman and was stationed in the Aleutian Islands. He served four years in the military and earned a bronze star.

To those who knew Maurie, he was a calm and deliberate giant. He stood 6 feet, 4 inches tall, with broad shoulders, but he was also unassuming and unpretentious.

“Used to call him Mr. Precise,” because of his love of order and knack for fixing things, said Vivian. The Ruches had a rotary telephone long after they became obsolete because Maurie scavenged parts and kept the phone working.

Go here for the complete article.

Education Alternatives: The Romney Plan

I seem to be on an Education kick lately documenting and protesting the failure of basic education.  The farce with the SC “teacher” claiming a person could be arrested for disrespecting Obama is hard to beat. When I read that story I immediately thought, “How can Obama be disrespected when we have no respect for him at all? Subtracting from zero is still zero.”

If you have read any of my education posts you know that I think we have been disserved by the state and federal education departments and more so by the NEA and AFT. The education “system” no longer has a primary interest in insuring our children can read, write coherently with good grammar, be able to perform basic math and algebra, and have a basic understanding of history and our state and federal constitutions.

What we have instead are organizations whose primary interest is preserving their positions—not individual teachers, preserving the institutions, the government agencies, the existence of the education unions, and their pet programs. The irony is those pet programs usually have nothing to do with education.

Mitt Romney is the apparent ‘Pub candidate for President. He has released his plan to reform education. It appears that Romney’s plan is to provide parents with options…and alternatives to public education.  I can hear the unions scream now.

Mitt Romney today released his plan to reform America’s ailing education system. It goes big on school choice and parental empowerment and calls for increased transparency of results. Along the way, it admonishes education unions — and rightly so — for standing in the way of reform. — National Review

Romney’s plan includes the following.

  • “Proposes making federal education funding for low-income children and children with disabilities portable, effectively voucherizing Title I of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).”
  • “Expand D.C.’s embattled Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), which provides vouchers to low-income children in the nation’s capital.”
  • “To receive the full complement of federal education dollars, states must provide students with ample school choice. In addition, digital learning options must not be prohibited. And charter schools or similar education choices must be scaled up to meet student demand.”

The Romney agenda hits the nail on the head in terms of the stranglehold special-interest groups — i.e., teachers’ unions — have on education. As Romney pointed out, the NEA alone contributes more to political campaigns than Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart, and ExxonMobil combined.

Overall, the Romney plan is choice-driven and tilts heavily in favor of empowering parents. In contrast, President Obama’s “blueprint” for federal education would concentrate more control at the U.S. Department of Education and put the desires of special-interest groups ahead of the needs of families. — National Review.

The Romney plan is a good start.  Everything listed should be on his to-do list. However, I’m disappointed that his focus is on the institutions and says nothing about the actual curriculum. Classes in “self-esteem”, social engineering programs are not needed. In many schools, social engineering has usurped meaningful education. 

When schools promote students automatically without regard whether the student has actually achieved the necessary skill level for promotion, something is drastically wrong. Reforming the institutions are necessary. But if the end product—educated children with the necessary basic skills for life, is not changed as well, the entire effort is wasted.  My concern with Romney’s plan is that it is incomplete.

As a businessman I would expect Romney to understand that a business plan that does not include improving the product is doomed to fail. Education is too important to be allowed to fail as it has since the passage of LBJ’s Great Society.