School voucher debate: A contrary view

110217_school_cuts_ap_328

NOTE: In the interest of open debate, I have occasionally posted full-blown responses to my blog posts. The piece below, by Randy Hicks of the Georgia Center for Opportunity, is offered as a rebuttal to a blog item that I posted Thursday about legislation to create so-called “education savings accounts” in Georgia. In that post, I referred to the proposed program as a voucher program, and as you’ll see, Hicks takes issue with that description and several other points as well.

Below the rebuttal, I’ve posted my own response to Hick’s arguments.

— Jay Bookman

——————————————-

By Randy Hicks
President, Georgia Center for Opportunity

Jay Bookman’s overly strident column grossly mischaracterized both the content and intent of House Bill 243 by making several incorrect statements and ignoring the much-needed innovations to public education that voters in very large numbers say they want.

Randy Hicks

Randy Hicks

House Bill 243 proposes a pilot Education Savings Account (ESA) program to allow a very small number of parents whose children are not doing well in public school to withdraw their kids from that system and use state education funds to customize programs that meet their unique needs. The simple fact is that some children simply do not learn well in a traditional classroom setting. Even the best public and private schools cannot meet the needs of every child with a learning challenge or who needs an accelerated learning program but who can’t access one because they do not have a medically defined disability or because they don’t fall below certain income levels. It is rather shocking, really, to think that Bookman might prefer for students to fall through such gaps because of a religious-like adherence to outmoded public school funding models.

Does Bookman think a child who struggles with dyslexia or speech impediments or who requires a more occupational approach to learning should be forced to tread water in a school setting just because his problem doesn’t meet certain thresholds of severity? Why should the next Steve Jobs be held back from achieving his potential because he lives in a failing school district that doesn’t offer a magnate program in math or science? Why shouldn’t the next Meryl Streep or Yo Yo Ma be allowed pursue programs that will allow them to grow to contribute to the cultural progress of our nation? What about a child trapped in a cycle of bullying or other unhealthy peer relationships that the school is unable to address?

In his column, Bookman incorrectly asserted that parents would be able to use ESA funds with, “no accountability, no standards,” yet a simple reading of HB243 proves otherwise. Parents will only be able to use the proposed ESAs to pay for a limited list of alternative education options strictly controlled by the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, which Bookman knows is chartered to ensure that all education programs that receive taxpayer support—including parochial and other private schools—meet or exceed the state standards for content, quality and delivery.

There is a reason that a whopping 76 percent of Georgia voters, both liberal and conservative, and 78 percent of African Americans want more school choice, and they specifically want Education Savings Accounts. They are tired of waiting for entrenched political interests on all sides to end the debate. Their kids need help now, not another damaging two, five, or ten years from now.

Finally, Bookman disingenuously characterized ESAs as a private school voucher program by ignoring the fact that the Georgia ESA program is specifically designed to be self-limiting. A typical voucher program pays for private schooling outright. House Bill 243 specifically restricts ESAs to the state portion of school funding, leaving every penny of the local and federal funding in the school and the district. By letting this small portion of public funds to follow the child, the parent must share the burden with the state on crafting a program for that child. Since more than ninety percent of children are suited to a public school setting, there is no threat of a mass exodus.

Besides, HB 243 is a pilot program with participation limited to a tiny one-half of one percent of the public school population in year one and only one percent in year two. That will give lawmakers, educators, and parents time to road test the program and make decisions based on real numbers, rather than numbers derived by research groups who admit there is no precedent on which to base their findings.

—————————-

My response:

1.) Hicks describes HB 243 as a pilot program affecting “a very small number of parents whose children are not doing well in public school.” He notes that participation is “limited to a tiny one-half of one percent of the public school population in year one and only one percent in year two.”

True, yet untrue. Oddly, Hicks fails to address what happens in Year Three under HB 243. Here’s what the language of the bill says: “For the 2017-2018 school year and thereafter, there shall be no limit” on the number of participating students.

In other words, HB 243 is not a pilot project at all and it is misleading to suggest otherwise. Nor does it affect “only a very small number” of students. By year three, by law, it is automatically a full-blown program available to everyone, without limit on the number of those participating.

2.) As expected, Hicks takes issue with my characterization of the program as a school voucher program, calling it “disingenuous”. He does so on the grounds that HB 243 gives parents only the state portion of funding, which accounts for roughly 42 percent of per pupil funding, and does not include local or federal funding.

I’m honestly stumped on what difference that makes. I am not aware of any definition of “voucher” or “school voucher” limiting the term to programs that cover 100 percent of funding. If I have a $10 voucher that I use to buy a $20 product, for example, it remains a voucher nonetheless. HB 243 is a voucher program.

3.) Hicks also takes issue with my statement that “the money would flow with no accountability, no standards, no nothing.” I stand by that description. As I pointed out, there are no curriculum requirements in the bill, no teacher-quality requirements in the bill. Parents who collect the vouchers aren’t even required to report to the state how taxpayer funds were spent. The only apparent oversight of such spending will be through an unspecified number of “random audits” conducted by the governor’s office, a thoroughly inadequate safeguard against abuse.

Two other states have adopted Education Savings Accounts, and both have adopted much more extensive safeguards.  Arizona requires that parents submit quarterly reports of how the money is spent, including receipts. Florida requires verification of expenditures before they are made, which is how administrators caught a family attempting to use taxpayers’ money to finance an “educational trip” to France.  Georgia’s HB 243 does none of that.

4.) Throughout his rebuttal, Hicks cites “children (who) are not doing well in public school,” children with dyslexia or speech impediments, children with learning challenges, etc. But the reality is that such children would be a very small minority of those who take advantage of the proposed program. They are being used as the sympathetic public face for changes that would be far more profound.

In Florida, by contrast, ESA eligibility is limited by law to children with
autism, Down syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, spina-bifida, Williams syndrome and other disabilities. In Arizona, eligibility is limited to those with disabilities, those in failing schools or those in foster care or military families.

Again, Georgia’s proposed program has none of those limitations.

Reader Comments 0

747 comments
ALibNotToBeMessedW/
ALibNotToBeMessedW/

This for our climate change deniers:

Floating balloons prove gravity isnt real! Newton's a cheat!

Recon2/3
Recon2/3

Glad they arrested the cowardly fool who shot those two police officers in Furguson, MO.

Orange15
Orange15

@Recon2/3  They're saying he may have made those shots from 120 yards. Heck, I can't even see 120 yards.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Recon2/3

 the cowardly fool who shot those two police officers

Naturally I'm glad an arrest was made; however, I hope they have an actual case to bring.

Hey, wonder how recon, td1234 and others would feel if a state prosecutor took over at this point, and decided to just throw a bunch of evidence at a grand jury and tell 'em to come to their own conclusions? 

If there's no indictment, hey no biggie...

Wascatlady
Wascatlady

Love how you addressed his points as "Hicks" since he was not able to use the honorific with your name.  Pretty well describes his modus operandi.

JayBook
JayBook moderator

@Wascatlady No, that's not true. In his original version, he referred to me as Mr. Bookman, but we had to remove the honorific to stay with our AP style.

Kamchak
Kamchak

@RaindroidWillBoy

Smerconish - Michael floats a theory: Do Obama and Netanyahu have a secret plan ...

IT'S A CONSPIRACY.

This guy sounds as wacky as Alex Jones.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

EdUktr
EdUktr

@Kamchak @RaindroidWillBoy

I'm sure your mother's relieved, Tulip, to see your spirits finally rebounding after your side's November shellacking.

Even as she remains concerned about all the time you spend as "Tuna Meowt."

Kamchak
Kamchak

@EdUktr

Even as she remains concerned about all the time you spend as "Tuna Meowt."

While I'm certainly flattered to be in such august company as Tuna, alas and alack we are two separate individuals, EdUktionless-poo.

Just remindin'.

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@Kamchak @EdUktr "While I'm certainly flattered to be in such august company as Tuna"


Aren't you kind.  >^..^<


td1234
td1234

"Other witnesses who have suggested that Brown was shot with his hands up in surrender have either recanted their statements, such as Witnesses 119 and 125, provided inconsistent statements, such as Witness 124, or have provided accounts that are verifiably untrue, such as Witnesses 121, 139, and 132. Witness 122 recanted significant portions of his statement by acknowledging that he was not in a position to see what either Brown or Wilson were doing, and who falsely insisted that three police officers pursued Brown and that the shooter was heavy set (in contrast to the slimly-built Wilson). Similar to Witness 128, Witness 122 told Brown’s family that Brown had been shot execution-style. Witness 120 initially told law enforcement that he saw Brown shot at point-blank range as he was on his knees with his hands up. Similar to Witness 138, Witness 120 subsequently acknowledged that he did not see Brown get shot but “assumed” he had been executed while on his knees with his hands up based on “common sense” and what others “in the community told [him.]” There is no witness who has stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender whose statement is otherwise consistent with the physical evidence. For example, some witnesses say that Wilson only fired his weapon out of the SUV, (e.g. Witnesses 128, 101, and 127) or that Wilson stood next to the SUV and killed Brown right there (e.g. Witnesses 139, 132, 120). Some witnesses insist that Wilson shot Brown in the back as he lay on the ground. (e.g. Witnesses 128 and 139). Some witnesses say that Wilson shot Brown and he went to the ground immediately upon turning to face Wilson. (e.g. Witnesses 138, 101, 118, and 127). Some say Wilson went to the ground with his hands raised at right angles. (e.g. Witnesses 138, 118, and 121). Again, all of these statements are contradicted by the physical and forensic evidence, which also undermines the credibility of their accounts of other aspects of the incident, including their assertion that Brown had his hands up in a surrender position when Wilson shot him. 28 The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.”


http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

td1234
td1234

DDR: Actually statements of the DOJ report. 


"Furthermore, there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. The accounts of the witnesses who have claimed that Brown raised his hands above his head to surrender and said “I don’t have a gun,” or “okay, okay, okay” are inconsistent with the physical evidence or can be challenged in other material ways, and thus cannot be relied upon to form the foundation of a federal prosecution.28 The two most prominent witnesses who have stated that Brown was shot with his hands up in surrender are Witness 101 and Witness 127, both of whom claim that Brown turned around with his hands raised in surrender, that he never reached for his waistband, that he never moved forward toward Wilson after turning to face him with his hands up, and that he fell to the ground with his hands raised. These and other aspects of their statements are contradicted by the physical evidence. Crime scene photographs establish that Brown fell to the ground with his left hand at his waistband and his right hand at his side. Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson. Other aspects of the accounts of Witness 101 and Witness 127 would render them not credible in a prosecution of Wilson, namely their accounts of what happened at the SUV. Both claim that Wilson fired the first shot out the SUV window, Witness 101 claims that the shot hit Brown at close range in the torso, and both claim that Brown did not reach inside the vehicle. These claims are irreconcilable with the bullet in the SUV door, the close-range wound to Brown’s hand, Brown’s DNA inside Wilson’s car and on his gun, and the injuries to Wilson’s face."


http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf



dreema
dreema

@td1234 I see you are going out of your way to defend an individual, but please remember the whole story. The DOJ report exonerated Wilson, but it roundly condemned massive injustice and widespread corruption in the police department, prosecutor's office, and judiciary in Ferguson. Wilson may not be criminally culpable. But he's still a killer.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

From Jim Galloway's blog on Georgia's former Sen. Sam Nunn, March 12, 2015:


Sam Nunn: “I think the United States is being weakened around the world because of the perception and reality of an ideological split and profound distrust between the president and the Congress.” 

td1234
td1234

Well, I guess the claim by the elected official that said the KKK set up the shooting of the Ferguson officers to stop progress was yet more crazy propaganda like the "Hands up, don't shoot" lie. 


"FERGUSON, MO (KTVI)- St. Louis County Police have confirmed to  FOX 2 that the suspected shooter of two police officers early Thursday morning outside of the Ferguson police department is in custody. Jeffrey Williams, 20, of north St. Louis County, has been charged with two counts of first-degree assault, firing a weapon from a vehicle, and three counts of armed criminal action. He is in custody with cash-only bail set at $300,000.

The two officers were shot just after midnight, as many protestors were headed home following a night of protests after the resignation of the city’s police chief. The two were standing with other officers in front of the police department on South Florissant Road working crowd control.

At a Sunday afternoon news conference, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said that Williams has admitted to firing the shots that struck the officers.

Williams was at the protest in Ferguson Wednesday. He left, possibly after a dispute, and then later returned and fired shots, possibly at someone other than police.

“We’re not 100 percent sure there was a dispute,” McCulloch said at the news conference.

Williams is on probation for receiving stolen property and wanted for failing to report to his probation officer."


http://fox2now.com/2015/03/15/st-louis-county-police-suspected-shooter-of-two-police-officers-in-custody/


DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@td1234 --  "Williams was at the protest in Ferguson Wednesday. He left, possibly after a dispute, and then later returned and fired shots, possibly at someone other than police"


OMG ya mean it wasn't a deliberate attack against the police of Ferguson like the claims from a  public official stated earlier? Ya mean the guy LIED just to fan the flames of stupidity?  Who would've thunk it!!

td1234
td1234

""I don't have any regrets at all. I stand by the letter," Wicker said. He and 46 other Republicans have been criticized for interfering with the negotiating process, and some Republicans who signed have reportedly said they were unhappy at how there was no chance to discuss the letter before it was signed.


But Wicker said the focus should be on the substance of the issue rather than the process of how the letter was written.

The president's own northern command admiral just last week said they are not abiding by the international inspection regime," Wicker said. "And they're developing new intercontinental ballistic missiles. I think the substance should be that this is a country that we're negotiating with, that frankly, our president and our secretary of state feel pretty comfortable with, and I don't have much confidence that any agreement that they make they will abide by."

The GOP letter outlined to the Iranian leadership that no deal signed by the administration on their nuclear program is valid unless approved by the Senate, and could therefore be overturned by the next president.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/roger-wicker-iran-letter/2015/03/15/id/630210/#ixzz3UU0s1dP1 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

td1234
td1234

"Veteran journalist Ed Klein said on Saturday that the Obama administration "is up to its eyebrows in efforts to stop" Hillary Clinton from running for the White House — including six investigations launched by longtime presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett involving Clinton's years as Secretary of State.


"This administration, the Obama administration, will do virtually anything to prevent Hillary from becoming president," Klein told renowned economist Larry Kudlow on his WABC radio show. Kudlow is also a Newsmax columnist and works for NBC's business channel, CNBC.

"It's their view that if she does become president — like her husband, Bill — she will govern from the left of center and not be a true liberal," Klein said, "and will, therefore, compromise with Republicans like Bill did when he was in office, and will undo a lot of the Obama legacy.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Klein-Obama-Hillary-Clinton/2015/03/14/id/630191/#ixzz3UU0LHmxa 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@Don't mess with this lib @td1234 --  What's so sad, (and funny), is that he actually believes that NEWSMAX is credible!!  He also shares links to breibart, Faux news, and Heritage websites.  It really sad to see the dumbing down of America via hatred and ignorance and intolerance!

td1234
td1234

@DebbieDoRight Only in your views are these not credible. 


And your opinion is coming from someone that was linking sites that claimed Wilson was guilty and Brown had his hands up and surrendering when gunned down. LOL

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@td1234 @DebbieDoRight --  The DOJ report, said that forensics showed that there was a distinct possibility that Brown had his hands up and no court of law ever had a CHANCE to prove Wilson's guilt or innocence.  The local government, which some have resigned or have been fired in disgrace, did not give We The People of Ferguson the chance to debate the issue in court.  

td1234
td1234

@DebbieDoRight Please give me the page number of the actual report that backs up your claims. I have been reading it and there is nothing I have found that even alludes to your accusation. 


"3. Shots Fired After Brown Turned to Face Wilson The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The physical evidence establishes that after he ran about 180 feet away from the SUV, Brown turned and faced Wilson, then moved toward Wilson until Wilson finally shot him in the head and killed him. According to Wilson, Brown balled or clenched his fists and “charged” forward, ignoring commands to stop. Knowing that Brown was much larger than him and that he had previously attempted to overpower him and take his gun, Wilson stated that he feared for his safety and fired at Brown. Again, even Witness 101’s account supports this perception. Brown then reached toward his waistband, causing Wilson to fear that Brown was reaching for a weapon. Wilson stated that he continued to fear for his safety at this point and fired at Brown again. Wilson finally shot Brown in the head as he was falling or lunging forward, after which Brown immediately fell to the ground. Wilson did not fire any additional shots. Wilson’s version of events is corroborated by the physical evidence that indicates that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he ran from the SUV, by the fact that Brown went to the ground with his left hand at (although not inside) his waistband, and by credible eyewitness accounts. Wilson’s version is further supported by disinterested eyewitnesses Witness 102, Witness 104, Witness 105, Witness 108, and Witness 109, among others. These witnesses all agree that Brown ran or charged toward Wilson and that Wilson shot at Brown only as Brown moved toward him. Although some of the witnesses stated that Brown briefly had his hands up or out at about waist-level, none of these witnesses perceived Brown to be attempting to surrender at any point when Wilson fired upon him. To the contrary, several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. For example, Witness 104 stated that as Wilson ran after Brown yelling “stop, stop, stop,” Brown finally turned around and raised his hands “for a second.” However, Brown then immediately balled his hands into fists and “charged” at Wilson in a “tackle run.” Witness 104 stated that Wilson fired only when Brown moved toward him and that she “would have fired sooner.” Likewise, Witness 105 stated that Brown turned around and put his hands up “for a brief moment,” then refused a command from Wilson to “get down” and instead put his hands “in running position” and started running toward Wilson. Witness 105 stated that Wilson shot at Brown only when Brown was moving toward him. These witnesses’ accounts are consistent with prior statements they have given, consistent with the forensic and physical evidence, and consistent with each other’s accounts. Accordingly, we conclude that these accounts are credible"


http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@td1234 @DebbieDoRight --  Try page 18:


Therefore, the autopsy results do not indicate whether Brown was facing Wilson or had his back to him. They do not indicate whether Brown sustained those two arm wounds while his hands were up, down, or by his waistband. The private forensic pathologist opined that he would expect a re-entry wound across Brown’s stomach if Brown’s hand was at his waistband at the time Wilson fired. 


And while you're at it read this part about the so called "ferocious beating Wilson allegedly took:

Brown also had small knuckle abrasions, but the pathologists could not link them to any specific source. The SLCME pathologist opined they may have been inflicted post mortem, while the AFMES pathologist opined that they were too small to determine whether they were caused pre or post-mortem.18 The private forensic pathologist did not note any knuckle abrasions or injury to Brown’s hands, explaining that he would expect Brown to have knuckle injury if Wilson sustained broken bones, but not necessarily bruising. AFMES pathologists likewise concurred that lack of injury to Brown’s hands is not inconsistent with bruising to Wilson’s face.

td1234
td1234

@DebbieDoRight And the report looked at ALL the evidence and concluded: 


"VI. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed."


This is not a local report, not a county report and not even a state report but the report of the Civil Rights division of the US Department of Justice. 


If you can not take this as facts and continue to hang on the the bits of information being fed to you (gruberd) then you are beyond help.  

dreema
dreema

@td1234 @DebbieDoRight td, you have cut and paste diarrhea. Your posts are tiresome and unoriginal, but thankfully, easy to blow right past because you don't even bother to add your own thoughts (assuming you have any). Stop wasting pixels and junking up the comment boards. 

td1234
td1234

Democrat Jim Webb: Congress Should Be Consulted on Foreign Deals


"
"I think you need to bring these things to Congress," Webb, who is actively exploring a campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination, told ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" program. "The strategic framework with Iraq. We did not get a full discussion or the possibility of voting on that. The Iraqi Parliament voted on it twice. The idea that the executive branch will negotiate these without the full participation of Congress is a bad idea."

Webb said there have been other incidents, "all the way back to the Bush administration on the strategic framework agreement in Iraq ... when President [Barack] Obama went to Copenhagen and announced he was going to bring back [an agreement] on climate change, a binding agreement without consulting Congress, I wrote a letter to him on that."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jim-Webb-Iran-Senate-letter/2015/03/15/id/630214/

Kamchak
Kamchak

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/huh-tom-cotton-says-iran-must-be-stopped-because-they-already-control-tehran/

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said on Sunday cited Iran’s control of their own capital, Tehran, as a reason that the country had to be stopped from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

[...]

“Moreover, we have to stand up to Iran’s attempts to drive for regional dominance,” he continued. “They already control Tehran"


Yes genius, Tehran is in the region because it is the capitol of Iran.

This is the mental midget who penned the letter and cons are looking to for leadership?

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

td1234
td1234

@MaryElizabethSings I hope your assessment about the deal being ruined is correct. Obama and Kerry are proposing a bad deal for the entire ME, Israel and the US so if it fails then Cotton is a hero. 

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@Kamchak


Tom Cotton has undermined the possibility of the negotiations' with Iran being successfully completed.  He has fostered more hostility between many in the Middle East and America, instead of building those relationships, for the long run. He is intelligent enough, but has no wisdom.  Dangerous combination for our nation. 


 I believe that political forces in America, more powerful than Tom Cotton, put him up to this direct assault on the President's judgment, and he played out their will for his political future's gain.  Already Iranian leaders are talking that the U. S. is much too divided, as a nation.  How foolish to give them this opportunity to disparage our great nation.  These powerful, conservative Republicans must be voted out of office, imo, before our nation can again have harmony and not be broken as the world's first and most impacting democracy.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@Kamchak 


Thanks for these links, Kamchak, which I had not seen previously.  They certainly confirm my suspicions about Sen. Cotton's psyche.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@td1234 @MaryElizabethSings --  Yo td, you do realize that its NOT just America who supports this deal right?  There are other countries involved in the negotiations too.  You know that right?  Right?    [crickets]

td1234
td1234

"The Obama administration's handling of the nuclear talks with Iran shows the need for the controversial letter he wrote to Iran's leaders, Sen. Tom Cotton said Sunday on "Face the Nation." 


Cotton and 46 other Republican senators signed the open letter, explaining to Iran that any nuclear deal signed by the White House isn't binding if not ratified by Congress. 

Republicans, along with several Democrats, are angry that President Barack Obama is not allowing Congress a voice in the talks.

"Iran's leaders needed to hear the message loud and clear. I can tell you they are not hearing that message from Geneva," where the talks are being held, Cotton said. "In fact, if you look at the response of the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, it underscores the need for the letter in the first place. ... He thinks that international law can override our Constitution."

Zarif called the letter a "propaganda ploy" and said it has "no legal value."

The letter has draw fire even from some Republicans who say it serves no purpose other than scuttling the negotiations.

Secretary of State John Kerry himself told CBS the letter was an"unconstitutional, unthought-out action" written by someone who has been in the Senate for little more than 60 days.

Cotton told host Bob Schieffer he was surprised to hear Kerry use such descriptives, since the secretary had testified before the Senate just this past week that the agreement wouldn't be binding without congressional approval.

"Now he says that future Congresses can't change a mere executive agreement if we disagree with them or if a future president disagrees with them?" Cotton said. "That's not the way our constitutional system works."

In response to Kerry and others who have pointed out Cotton's short time in the Senate, he noted his previous tenure in the House where he was part of a 400-member majority that sought for almost two years to impose tougher sanctions on Iran.

He compared Iran to North Korea, which agreed not to use its nuclear program for military purposes in the early 1990s.
"They almost immediately started cheating on it, and a mere 12 years later they detonated their first nuclear weapon," he said. "Now the world has to live with the consequences of a nuclear North Korea. I don't want to live with the consequences of nuclear Iran."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Tom-Cotton-Iran-letter-oppose/2015/03/15/id/630226/#ixzz3UTuRsLxD 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

Republicans Blame Obama For GOP Letter To Iran:


#Hashtag They Thought The Were Signing A Birthday Card


WASHINGTON -- Republicans, under fire for a letter signed by 47 senators to the leadership of Iran, said Tuesday that complaints about violating foreign policy convention should be leveled not at them, but at President Barack Obama.

GOP lawmakers spent much of Tuesday being pressed on why Senate party leadership went around the White House with an open letter warning Iran that any nuclear agreement may be undercut in the future by Congress or Obama's successor. Several Republicans sought to distance themselves from the letter, saying that while they may not agree with the direction of nuclear talks with Iran, it was the purview of the president to conduct them.

But those who support the letter -- even some who didn't add their names -- deflected the blame. If it weren't for Obama's failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn't have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX98esJ1_LA


td1234
td1234

@DebbieDoRight The Ed Show. LMBO


Is this the same guy that could not stop Walker in the recall election even though he spent months on his show every night trying. 

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@DebbieDoRight


I noticed that the Republican junior senator from Arkansas, Senator Tom Cotton, who authored the letter to Iranians (and co-signed by Georgia's juniot Republican senator, David Perdue) has now stated publicly that he would do the same thing all over again and stands by his letter and his words.   Sen. Cotton is the senator of whom I warned citizens to be wary in the future because of his willful arrogance, uncompromising stands.  He is intellect, evidently, but embodies much anger, imo.  A dangerous combination for America's moral authority and leadership in the world.  I also read or heard on the news, yesterday, that Republicans have already started talks about running Cotton for President of the U. S. in 2020.  It is my opinion that both Cotton's and David Perdue's primarily interests are looking after their own political careers, not the interests of the people.

td1234
td1234

@DebbieDoRight @td1234 It is entirely Obama's fault the letter was sent. No ifs, ands or buts can change those facts. 


Obama is not a King and cannot lie about the Constitution to a foreign government just because he thinks he is has the power to do whatever he wants with a phone and a pen. 


Bottom line: The US Senate was within their Constitutional authority to send the letter and let the Iranians know that Obama was lying to them and the American people refuse to allow Iran to go nuclear.   

td1234
td1234

@MaryElizabethSings He maybe is angry (I do not personally see it) but could that be because he has actually put on the uniform, taken up arms and fought for the nation to stop future aggression. He has a much better prospective on the area and what needs to happen that Kerry, Obama or even you. He has actually seen it firsthand, on the ground with the Iranians shooting at him from the other side of the street. 


You can either listen to the people that actually know something or you can listen to the people that do not have the best interest of America at hand. 


A bad deal is not better than no deal and what Kerry and Obama are proposing is a horrible deal for both Israel, the ME as a whole and the USA. 

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@td1234 @DebbieDoRight -- ENTIRELY OBAMA'S FAULT THE LETTER WAS SENT?  OMG!  Carrying the water for the republicans can only get you a bad back and a lifetime of servitude.  Just saying.......


Bottomline -- NO the US Senate was NOT within their constitutional authority to do anything because there wasn't ANY DEAL in place, just NEGOTIATIONS. They had no business trying to subvert it; they just couldn't help it because they're nothing more than weak children with an appetite for destruction, which, of course, they'll blame on Obama.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@td1234 @DebbieDoRight --  Deflecturbation - Meaning -- feeling joy and an innate sense of pleasure from purposely deflecting from a given subject to a totally unrelated subject.

Example:  What td just did.

Use In a Sentence:  Every time td does not wish to talk about the subject at hand, he uses deflecturbation as a means of giving himself great pleasure, joy and solace.


Use in another sentence:  Deflecturbation is what republicans do to make reality more manageable and to keep themselves happy.

Kamchak
Kamchak

@td1234

The Ed Show. LMBO

Serial drudgey spammer says, "What?"

Check and mate.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@td1234 @DebbieDoRight --  "The Ed Show. LMBO"

You obviously didn't click on the link, (no surprise there), and now you've just shown the whole world that you'd rather NOT become more enlightened and informed, (again, no surprise there).

td1234
td1234

@DebbieDoRight @td1234 @MaryElizabethSings Obama is the worst CIC this nation has had since Carter. He has gutted the military both in leadership and preparedness and has only made ONE military decision that was the correct one for the countries best interest. 


His decision to pull all the troops out of Iraq is the very reason for ISIS and Iran getting more power.  

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@td1234 @DebbieDoRight @MaryElizabethSings --  Worst since Carter.....blah, blah, blah,..........HIS decision to pull all troops from Iraq, blahl blah........blah....


The mind is a terrible thing to waste.  YOUR mind is so wasted, that I am in fear for whats left of your sanity.  Seriously.

Wascatlady
Wascatlady

@td1234 @MaryElizabethSings Listen to people who actually know something.....or go with the Rs h3ll bent on dismantling public education.


Sauce for the goose, etc.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@DebbieDoRight @td1234

I would add that his ha-ha point about Ed being somehow ridiculous because he wasn't able to single-handedly remove a seated governor through a recall election is, well, just strange.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@td1234 @MaryElizabethSings --  " He has a much better prospective on the area and what needs to happen that Kerry, Obama or even you."


HAHAHAHAHA!!  Please, oh PUHHHLEEAAZZZEE Tell me how  low level captain in ANY military has a better idea of the big picture than the PRESIDENT, who's the CIC and makes policy, and the Chief Of Staff?  PUUUHHHLLLEAAZEE!


Your ODS is so far gone that you'll need shots and incubation before it can be cured.