Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

 

Concerns over inadequate educational accomplishments led to the bipartisan creation of the Common Core educational program. But the fears of parents and others that Common Core serves as an excuse for Washington topoliticize the American public school system have been heightened by recent disclosures that related textual material introduced partisan statements into English lessons.

 

Further objections have been raised about what some believe are bizarre common core assignments, including one report from Arkansas that sixth-graders were tasked to revise the Bill of Rights by removing two Amendments and adding two new ones. Education Secretary Arne Duncan added fuel to the fire when he described those expressing their dismay as “White suburban mothers.”

The NEW YORK ANALYSIS will examine the program and the concerns surrounding it. This week, we will outline how Common Core began, and what it is meant to accomplish.  We will then present the views of both its advocates and its opponents.

 

HOW DID THE COMMON CORE EFFORT BEGIN?

 

The creation of national standards had been a topic of discussion for many years.  Dismay about the failure of U.S. public schools to produce students adequately prepared for college or the workforce prompted discussions on how to resolve the issue.

 

The Common Core approach to this problem arguably dates back to November of 2007, according to Education Week,when state education leaders at a Council of Chief State School Officers  policy meeting agreed on the need for common academic standards. The following December (2008) a report urging states to create a common set of internationally benchmarked standardswas issued. The concept received considerable financial support from President Obama’s stimulus program, along with technical and logistical support from the U.S. Education Department. The assistance was part of the federal “Race To The Top” program.

 

In 2009, Governors and school chiefs subsequently met in Chicago where a call to support the concept of shared standards was issued. Writing panels were issued shortly thereafter, and public comment was invited.  A final draft was released in June of 2010.

 

The program, a product of cooperation between the Council of Chief State Schools Officers and the National Governors Association, applies to the annual standards in math and English that students from kindergarten through high school should meet.

__________________

 

RACE TO THE TOP SUMMARY

(US Dept. of Education)

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) … legislation … The ARRA lays the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in… strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased productivity and effectiveness.

 

The ARRA provides $4.35 billion for the Race to the Top Fund, a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers; and implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas:

 

Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;

 

Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;

 

Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and

 

Turning around [the] lowest-achieving schools.

 

Race to the Top will reward States that have demonstrated success in raising student achievement and have the best plans to accelerate their reforms in the future. These States will offer models for others to follow and will spread the best reform ideas across their States, and across the country.

 

___________________

 

 

WHAT IS COMMON CORE?

The National Governors Association/Council of Chief State School describeCommon Core as follows:

 

What is the Common Core State Standards Initiative?

 

“The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that established a single set of clear educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt. The standards are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce. The standards are clear and concise to ensure that parents, teachers, and students have a clear understanding of the expectations in reading, writing, speaking and listening, language and mathematics in school.

 

Why is the Common Core State Standards Initiative important?

 

 

“High standards that are consistent across states provide teachers, parents, and students with a set of clear expectations that are aligned to the expectations in college and careers. The standards promote equity by ensuring all students, no matter where they live, are well prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and abroad.. Unlike previous state standards, which were unique to every state in the country, the Common Core State Standards enable collaboration between states on a range of tools and policies, including:

• the development of textbooks, digital media, and other teaching materials aligned to the standards;
• and the development and implementation of common comprehensive assessment systems to measure student performance annually that will replace existing state testing systems; and
• changes needed to help support educators and schools in teaching to the new standards.

Bile acids corrode the walls of the bile ducts, gallbladder, sphincter of Oddi, duodenum; beginning of purchase cialis online https://pdxcommercial.com/property/brewery-pub-sale/bottline-pic-768×579/ the small intestine causing inflammation, spasms, bile reflux, and ulcers. Now they are more than willing lowest price viagra to accept the problems at hand and seek solutions for it. Many of the women around find cialis generika this medicine quite helpful. Would you love to be able to tell your check this site out line uk viagra friends and family acknowledge the help they have to battle their mental issues.

What guidance do the Common Core State Standards 

provide to teachers?

 

“The Common Core State Standards are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for the knowledge and skills students need in English language arts and mathematics at each grade level to ultimately be prepared to graduate college and career ready. The standards establish what students need to learn, but they do not dictate how teachers should teach. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.

 

How do the Common Core State Standards 

compare to previous state standards?

 

“The Common Core State Standards were written by building on the best and highest state standards in existence in the U.S., examining the expectations of other high performing countries around the world, and careful study of the research and literature available on what students need to know and be able to do to be successful in college and careers. No state in the country was asked to lower their expectations for their students in adopting the Common Core. The standards are evidence-based, aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and are informed by other top performing countries. They were developed in consultation with teachers and parents from across the country so they are also realistic and practical for the classroom.”

 

_________________________________

 

The concern that these common standards could lead to a nationalization of education is denied by the NGA/CCSSO group. They insist that this will remain a state-led effort.

 

Currently, all states other than Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia have adopted the curriculum. Minnesota has adopted only a portion of it.

 

U.S. EDUCATION SECRETARY ARNE DUNCAN

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is one of Common Core’s most enthusiastic backers.   In June, he addressed the need for the program:

 

 

“You may have heard President Obama say that America used to be number one in the world in college completion just one generation ago. Sadly, today, we have dropped to number 12 among young adults. That’s reality and that’s unacceptable.

 

“We’re not going to pave a path to the middle class with the cheapest labor. We’re not going to reverse the polarization of wealth in this country through unskilled jobs. The only way that we can promise all of our young people a genuine opportunity is through a world-class education…

 

“The problem is a lot of children, in a lot of places in America, have not been getting a world-class education. But rather than recognize that, for far too long, our school systems lied to kids, to families, and to communities. They said the kids were all right-that they were on track to being successful-when in reality they were not even close…

 

“What made those soothing lies possible were low standards for learning. Low standards are the equivalent of setting up for a track-and-field event with hurdles only one foot tall. That’s what happened in education in a lot of places, and everyone came out looking good-educators, administrators and especially politicians.

 

“The truth-the brutal truth-was that we had thousands of schools where as few as 10 percent of students were reading or doing math at grade level, and where less than half were graduating…

 

“Today a fourth grade teacher in New Mexico can develop a lesson plan at night and, the very next day, a fourth grade teacher in New York can use it and share it with others if she wants to.

 

“Today, the child of a Marine officer, who is transferred from Camp Pendleton in California to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, will be able to make that academic transition without a hitch, instead of having to start over in a widely different place academically…

 

“When these standards are fully implemented, a student who graduates from a high school in any one of these states-who is performing at standard-will be ready to attend and succeed in his or her state university without remedial education. Historically, in far too many communities, more than half of those who actually graduated from high school needed remedial help in college…

 

“When the Obama administration came into office in 2009, the Common Core standards were in development, and gaining momentum. We set out to support states and districts in changing the conditions that were limiting educational opportunity, and raising standards was a vital part of that.

 

“With governors and state leaders making major progress on standards, we gave them all the support we could, within the bounds of what’s appropriate for the limited federal role in education.

 

“Our big competitive reform fund, Race to the Top, awarded points-40 points out of 500-to states that were collaborating to create common college- and career-ready standards.

“It was voluntary-we didn’t mandate it-but we absolutely encouraged this state-led work because it is good for kids and good for the country…

 

“Did the points, and the dollars, matter to the states? Absolutely. But it’s not the only reason or even the most important reason why states adopted the Common Core. To be clear, total Race to the Top dollars were less than one percent of what we spent on K-12 education every single year.

 

“States signed on to the Common Core because it was the right thing to do. They knew that their children were being cheated and they refused to continue to be a part of it-and for that they deserve our deepest praise and gratitude. In fact, dozens of states that didn’t get a nickel of Race to the Top money are committed to those higher standards-and American education will be better because of it…

 

“The Common Core standards mark a sea-change in education. Not only do they set the bar high, they give teachers the space and opportunity to go deep, emphasizing problem-solving, analysis, and critical thinking, as well as creativity and teamwork. They give teachers room to innovate.

 

“And, all across the country, teachers have responded. Three out of four say the Common Core standards will help them teach better…”

 

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

 

The National Education Association (NEA) is a strong proponent. They note that:

 

“Examination of the education systems of high performing countries such as Singapore and New Zealand indicates that those countries have common standards or curriculum that articulate broad, high goals for students, provide adequate preparation and support to teachers, allow teachers to exercise professional judgment, and involve teachers in all aspects of the education enterprise including curriculum, standards, and assessments as well as instruction.

 

“The Common Core State Standards Initiative has the potential to begin to move education in the U.S. along this path.

1. 1.    NEA supports the Common Core State Standards Initiative as a potential means of providing access to a complete and challenging education to all children.  Currently, some states are not providing sufficient resources for students to meet standards and acquire a quality education.
2. 2.    The initiative is promising also because it will involve input from states and a wide range of stakeholders.  Most importantly, the standards will be voluntary.  NEA has consistently opposed mandatory national standards developed through a top down process.  The Common Core Standards Initiative has the potential to encourage states to participate, but not be coercive or rigid.
3. 3.    The effort to construct the common core of standards so that it is a manageable list of broad goals rather than an exhaustive list of bits of learning is another aspect of the initiative that NEA applauds.  This new notion of how standards should be articulated can allow for high goals while providing for instructional flexibility in reaching those goals.
4. 4.    The development of a bank of sample assessment items has the potential to provide states with flexibility and control while establishing concrete ways to determine student achievement.
5. 5.    The initiative has provided educators, parents, and a wide range of stakeholders and experts the opportunity to provide input.
6. 6.    Our current notion of content standards has been corrupted to be almost completely dominated by what can be tested rather than by the deep understandings and 21st century skills that students need.  The initiative is attempting to bring the focus back to the components of a quality education…”

          THE VIEW FROM STATE LEGISLATURES

 

The National Council of State Legislatures endorsed the concept of common standards but remains concerns about the potential abuse of the program:

 

“State legislators support the voluntary state standards initiatives so long as the initiatives remain voluntary, state-led and state-administered, and so long as the federal government does not overstep its role, and the U.S. Department of Education complies with its statutory authority and programs and does not condition the receipt of federal dollars on state participation in common standards efforts.

 

“Past federal attempts to create national standards or a national test have proven partisan, divisive and unsuccessful. Federal legislation creating the U.S. Department of Education prohibits direct federal involvement in a national test. Similar language in NCLB prohibits federal involvement in standards, assessments and curricula. These protections against federal involvement in state issues should be adhered to and continued. It is the position of the National Conference of State Legislatures that there is no authorized role for federal mandates regarding national academic standards or a unified national test.

 

“State legislators support the need to improve elementary and secondary education so that all students have access to a challenging and rewarding public education. Students in our schools need rigorous state standards that are anchored in real world demands students will face after high school, that are aligned to K-12 curriculum, assessments, high school graduation requirements, college placement standards and other related policy tools and practices. This can be most readily accomplished through individual state refinement of standards or the voluntary participation of states in joint efforts like the Common Core Initiative led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The Common Core and other consortiums have worked diligently to develop a set of standards in Math and English that will enhance the standards set by many states. It is critical that such standards not represent a step backward for some states…”

 

Is the Common Core approach to improving standards in America’s schools an answer to the problem, or is it a threat to local and parental control?  Can the abuse of the system by those seeking to insert their political views be prevented? 

 

In Part One, THE NEW YORK ANALYSIS described Common Core.  In Part Two, the views of those supporting Common Core were described.  In our final installment, we present the concerns of those opposing it. 

 

The National Council of State Legislatures while endorsing the Common Core concept, has significant concerns:

 

“…federal actions have contributed to our concerns that this effort may have as its ultimate result a nationalized K-12 system that will not remain voluntary and may have already been compromised by actions of both the state-led consortia and the federal government. Specifically:

• The federal government required a state commitment to adopt the common standards as an eligibility criterion for federal Race to the Top funds even before the common standards were fully developed, released or endorsed.
• The federal government has committed $350 million to develop the common assessments that match up to the common standards and the Common Core Initiative has acknowledged the need for on-going public support for its activities.
• The current administration’s blueprint for reauthorization of ESEA suggested that Title I funds for disadvantaged children be contingent upon each states’ acceptance of a set of voluntary common standards.
• The federal government has a history of co-opting successful state policy initiatives by effectively making them mandatory through the ‘condition of grant’ process.

“The preceding actions raise concerns that this voluntary, state-led effort will prove too attractive for federal officials to ignore. Therefore, state legislators assert that the U.S. Department of Education should refrain from the actions described above that are in conflict with its statutory authority, and specifically that it does not condition the receipt of federal dollars on state participation in common standard efforts.”

 

Senators Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn, James Inhofe, Deb Fischer, Rand Paul, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions, and Ted Cruz have expressed their concern that the U.S. Department of Education has made adoption of Common Core standards requirements for states obtaining waivers and funds.  They want to restrict this from occurring.

 

In a statement earlier this year, Senator Grassley stated that:

 

“What’s happening violates the structure of our education system, where academic content decisions are made at the state level giving parents a direct line of accountability to those making decisions.  The federal government should not be allowed to coerce state education decision makers…

 

“The first principle of education, and therefore of education policymaking, is that parents are the primary educators of their children.  And because responsibility for children’s education lies primarily with parents, to the greatest extent possible so should decision-making authority over Pre-K to secondary education. While the Common Core Standard Initiative was initially promoted as an effort to move in this direction, it has become polluted with federal guidelines and mandates that interfere with the ability of parents, teachers and principals to deliver the education our children deserve.”

 

A joint study  by the Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project, the Pacific Research Institute, and Civitas warns:

 

“By signing on to national standards and the assessments that will accompany them, participating states have ceded their autonomy to design and oversee the implementation of their own standards and tests. The implications of ceding this autonomy are varied. Not only do some states risk sacrificing high quality standards for national standards that may be less rigorous, all states are sacrificing their ability to inform what students learn. Moreover, the act of adopting national standards has and will continue to disrupt legal and other processes upon which states rely to ensure the adequate and equitable delivery of educational materials and resources. Finally and, perhaps, most distressing, the predicted cost to states of implementing the Common Core is in the billions of dollars, a number that only stands to grow if implementation ramps up.”

 

In his 2011 testimony before the House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee’s subcommittee on Early Childhood, Jay P. Greene, a 21st Century Professor of Education Reform, stated:

 

“I believe this centralized approach is mistaken. The best way to produce high academic standards and better student learning is by decentralizing the process of determining standards, curriculum, and assessments. When we have choice and competition among different sets of standards, curricula, and assessments, they tend to improve in quality to better suit student needs and result in better outcomes.

 

“One thing that should be understood with respect to nationalized approaches is that there is no evidence that countries that have nationalized systems get better results. Advocates for nationalization will point to other countries, such as Singapore, with higher achievement that also have a nationalized system as proof that we should do the same. But they fail to acknowledge that many countries that do worse than the United States on international tests also have nationalized systems. Conversely, many of the countries that do better than the United States, such as Canada, Australia, and Belgium, have decentralized systems. The research shows little or no relationship between nationalized approaches and student achievement.

 

“In addition, there is no evidence that the Common Core standards are rigorous or will help produce better results. The only evidence in support of Common Core consists of projects funded directly or indirectly by the Gates Foundation in which panels of selected experts are asked to offer their opinion on the quality of Common Core standards. Not surprisingly, panels organized by the backers of Common Core believe that Common Core is good. This is not research; this is just advocates of Common Core re-stating their support. The few independent evaluations of Common Core that exist suggest that its standards are mediocre and represent little change from what most states already have.

 

“If that’s true, what’s the harm in pursuing a nationalized approach? First, nationalized approaches lack a mechanism for continual improvement. Given how difficult it is to agree upon them, once we set national standards, curriculum, and assessments, they are nearly impossible to change. If we discover a mistake or wish to try a new and possibly better approach, we can’t switch. We are stuck with whatever national choices we make for a very long time. And if we make a mistake we will impose it on the entire country.

 

“Second, to the extent that there will be change in a nationalized system of standards, curriculum, and assessments, it will be directed by the most powerful organized interests in education, and probably not by reformers. Making standards more rigorous and setting cut scores on assessments higher would show the education system in a more negative light, so teachers unions and other organized interests in education may attempt to steer the nationalized system in a less rigorous direction. In general, it is unwise to build a national church if you are a minority religion. Reformers should recognize that they are the political minority and should avoid building a nationalized system that the unions and other forces of the status quo will likely control.

 

“Third, we are a large and diverse country. Teaching everyone the same material at the same time and in the same way may work in small homogenous countries, like Finland, but it cannot work in the United States. There is no single best way that would be appropriate for all students in all circumstances.

I do not mean to suggest that math is different in one place than it is in another, but the way in which we can best approach math, the age and sequence in which we introduce material, may vary significantly. As a concrete example, California currently introduces algebra in 8th grade but Common Core calls for this to be done in 9th grade. We don’t really know the best way for all students and it is dangerous to decide this at the national level and impose it on everyone.”

 

In a published article, the Heartland Institute notes that:

 

“For four and a half decades, the federal role in education has been growing.  Costly in terms of taxpayer dollars spent and local control education lost, this expanding federal control has failed to outcomes for America’s children. National standards will further expand Washington’s role-and will remove parents from decisions about content taught in our children’s schools. Yet the Obama Administration is intent on nationalizing the content taught in every public school across America.  Without  Congressional approval,  the Administration has used a combination of carrots and sticks to spur states to sign on to the Common Core standards initiative.  Common Core includes costly and questionable national standards for English and math, and federally funded national assessments have been crafted to align with the standards.  State leaders who believe  in limited government and liberty should resist the imposition of national standards and tests in their states.”

 

CONCLUSION

 

The poor performance of many public schools in the United States is a serious issue, and the establishment of common standards was a bipartisan attempt to remedy this.

 

However, there is little evidence that doing this on a national level will be effective.  Further, concerns about the creeping politicization of our educational system are valid.

There 1,300 separate federal organizations that are a part of America’s national government. These entities have a more direct and personal impact on the daily lives of the citizenry than any elected official, court, or legislative body, through the rules and regulations they adopt.

There is a growing concern that regulations from these agencies have created an alternative and largely unaccountable system of governance, with an expense factor that is harming the national economy.

While the issue of adverse regulatory impact has been a flashpoint for decades, the increase of current and proposed federal agency activity and major rules or regulations related to them has brought a new emphasis on what many believe to be a roadblock to economic recovery and a rejection of the American ideal of participatory government.

A Newsmax article quotes Douglas Holz-Eakin, head of the American Action Forum noting that “It would be difficult for anyone to pretend that this isn’t a high water mark in terms of regulation,” Holz-Eakin describes the Obama years as an “incredibly intense period of regulation.”

According to the Congressional Research Service’s May report on “counting rgulations,” the number of final rules published each year is generally in the range of 2,500-4,500. During President Obama’s first term, an average of 3,262 final rules were enacted, of which a yearly average of 82 were considered “major.” In contrast, a yearly average of 62 “major” rules under President George W. Bush’s administration were enacted.

A Factcheck report which used some data supplied by the Heritage Foundation, found that:

“In its 2011 report to Congress, the [Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs] OIRA reported that the estimated cost of federal regulations under Obama from Jan. 20, 2009, (when he took office) to the end of the 2010 fiscal year was somewhere between $8 billion and $16.5. During the same initial stretch under Bush, the estimated cost of new regulations was between $1.3 billion and $3.4 billion. OIRA inflation-adjusted all figures to 2001 dollars. … it is clear that the cost of new regulations issued in the first six years of Bush’s administration – ranging from a midpoint of $1.3 billion in 2002 to a midpoint of nearly $5 billion in 2005 – was far below the average of $7 billion a year under Obama…

“By Heritage’s count – including the regulations from independent and executive agencies – the Bush administration issued regulations that cost about $60 billion over 8 years. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has imposed new major regulations with reported costs of about $40 billion in just over two years. Even with a handful of rules that reduced regulatory costs by $1.5 billion, that still leaves a net increase of more than $38 billion… That translates to a much higher average, per year cost of regulations under Obama..”

During the past four years, oppressive-and frequently incorrect-actions by departments such as the Environmental Protection Agency have become an increasing problem.

According to a July report by the Congressional Research Service on EPA regulations:

“Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution control statutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules. The House conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th Congress, and approved several bills that would overturn specific regulations or limit the agency’s authority. Similar action may occur in the 113th. Particular attention is being paid to the Clean Air Act, under which EPA has moved forward with the first federal controls on emissions of greenhouse gases and also addressed emissions of conventional pollutants from a number of industries; congressional scrutiny has focused as well on other environmental statutes and regulations implemented by EPA.”

Americans are used to (but not content with) the vast numbers of rules and regulations, and related explanatory documents, in some agencies. The Internal Revenue Code is approximately 11,000 pages long, according to Politifact.

Obamacare has about 10,535 pages. (The cost to the public, according to theAmerican Action Forum, of exchange-related regulations will be over $5.3 billion and 16 million hours of paperwork.) “According to administration data, the listed paperwork burden of the exchanges exceeds 16.6 million hours, $558 million in direct costs, and 40 new forms. Examining the regulatory impact analyses from exchange regulations, the total cost to states and private entities approaches $5.3 billion. Including all current requirements under Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency imposes 645 million hours of paperwork, $35.3 billion in costs, and 4,116 federal forms.”

Moving up swiftly in terms of numerous and onerous regulations is the Environmental Protection Agency. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

“The past 40 years have seen significant declines in the copper mining, steel, textile, furniture, coal mining and forest products industries. While a variety of factors have played a role in the decline of these industries, a common thread running through all of them has been the role of regulatory mandates and costs. Even when regulations are not the primary cause of change, regulations imposed on an industry can provide the tipping point that leads to plant closures and adverse economic impacts that otherwise might have been avoided or cushioned over time. While EPA continues to issue regulations to protect the environment, it must also be forthcoming and provide Congress and the American people with methodologically complete estimates of the impact its regulations may have on jobs and communities.”

Regulations based on the Dodd-Frank financial reform law have also been cited as a key added burden.

Laws are passed in public, with coverage in the media and public debate. But frequently, regulations structuring how those laws are enforced are adopted with minimal public oversight. Even worse, on occasion, they go beyond the law and impose restrictions that supporters of the legislation upon which they are based never intended. Individuals can find themselves subject to fines or even imprisonment based on harsh rules that, aside from obscure mentions in the Federal Register, are implemented beyond the scrutiny of everyone except bureaucrats and lobbyists.

America’s moribund economy, burdened by debt that has skyrocketed from 38% of gross domestic product in 2007 to nearly 75% today, has caused unemployment to soar from 6.7 million to 23 million in that same period of time.

The uncertainty and overregulation imposed on the private sector during the past four years has been a major cause of this. Reps. Greg Walden (R-Or)
and Fred Upton (R-MI) recently noted in a published article that “…costly regulations put business in a state of paralysis, and keep them from investing and hiring workers. The result is mediocre job growth and a stagnant economy.”

Reports are numerous that job creators are greatly hindered in their efforts by the rising regulatory tide. A Western Free Press article cited a number of examples:

“Government Seems to continually increase the number and complexity of the regulations governing small businesses, restricting their ability to grow and prosper,” according to Andrew F. Puzder CEO of CKE Restaurants, which employs 70,000.

“Tremendous volatility and uncertainty created by our regulatory system [is] costing American jobs,” notes Robert A. Luoto, president of the Cross & Crown logging Company.

The Economist examined the impact of regulations on commonplace activities. Its report provided salient examples, including:

“Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minute of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year, the number of federally mandates categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water skis.”

America, at one time a leader in free enterprise, now ranks only 10th on the global Index of Economic Freedom compiled by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation. Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, and Denmark all ranked higher.

The $70 billion in increased regulatory burdens over the past four and one-half years, the result of 131 major new regulations, is a central reason why America continues to lag behind those other free markets. This includes a $23.5 billion increase in 2012 alone. (Adam White, writing in the Weekly Standard, also stressed that these costs do not include “lost opportunity” expenses for blocked activity such as the Keystone XL pipeline.)

The heavy burden of increased regulatory control had been steadily rising before President Obama’s dramatic increases. In 2007, President Bush signedExecutive Order 13422, which required federal agencies to submit any proposed new policy guidance to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Bush’s rule demanded that federal agencies demonstrate that there was a “market failure” that justified government action.

President Obama, in response to widespread public outcry, also issued an executive order requiring a government wide review of outdated regulations, but little action has resulted, and, in fact, the regulatory burden has actually increased. Part of the reason for its ineffectiveness is that it basically examined only past regulations, essentially those from prior administrations, and has no impact on what many have called the “tsunami” of new and onerous rules emplaced by the federal government under the current White House.

According to Thomas Donohue, President of the United States Chamber of Commerce:

• The average regulatory cost for each employee of a small business exceeds $10,000 per year;
• Businesses with fewer than 20 employees incur regulatory costs 42% higher than larger business of up to 500 employees;
• The number of costliest rules (generally those with a $100 million annual economic impact) has increased by more than 60 percent in just the decade from 2002-2012, from 136 economically significant rules listed in the government’s regulatory agenda to 224 rules;
• The total number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations, which lists all regulations, has more than doubled since 1975.
Americans are concerned not only with the increased cost and number of new regulations, but the manner in which they are imposed. As noted by the U.S. Chamber, new rules “are imposed through a system that operates without effective checks or balances, or accountability. Currently, nearly all major regulations go into effect without our elected representatives in Congress ever voting on them.

“The process has lost all balance as Congress has yielded power to the federal agencies without proper accountability, and without taking responsibility for what agencies are doing…

“What’s more, agencies are often not transparent. Unaccountable agencies rarely have to justify decisions they make that harm the livelihoods of millions of Americans because the process does not allow for effective judicial or other independent review of major rules.

“Agencies can do this because they do not have to prove their assertions are based on sound fact, science, or economics. Rather all the agency must do is point to anything in the agency record that rationally supports their assertion, and the courts give the agency deference over the public in deciding the validity of the rule…”

The problem is accelerating, notes Donohue. The Obamacare legislation, 2,400 pages long, created 159 new panels, commissions, regulatory bodies and agencies. It follows on the heels of the 2,319 page Dodd-Frank Act, which calls for 400 new rules throughout 20 agencies.

The use of the regulatory process to enforce goals, often extreme, that could not succeed in a public Congressional vote has led to a significant upheaval in the energy sector.

As reported in a prior NEW YORK ANALYSIS report, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chair Ed Whitfield (R-KY) have noted that the “EPA is doubling down on its economically destructive plan to essentially end the construction of new coal-fired power plants in America…The consequences will be more job losses and a weaker economy. These stringent standards will actually discourage investment and the development of innovative new technologies that can help us meet the world’s future energy and environmental challenges….In the year President Obama took office there were over 18,600 employed in the coal industry in my state. But as of September 2013, the number of persons employed at Kentucky coal mines is only 13,000… And the picture is getting worse instead of better.”

“Federal Regulatory Agencies have become the unelected fourth branch of government”
–Frank Scaturro, former Counsel for the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee

Dr. James Sagner, who has extensively reviewed and written about the nation’s overregulation issue, believes that U.S. businesses face a “worldwide economic crisis” due to the federal government’s “outdated, unrealistic, and crippling” regulations. According to Dr. Sagner, the practice has led to an exodus of employment out of America. The effects permeate American society in numerous ways. He advises that the only viable and timely solution is the elimination of regulations that prevent U.S. enterprises from competing on a level playing field with our foreign competitors.

A Competitive Enterprise Institute study by Clyde Wayne Crews (originally published in Forbes) notes that jobs are lost when regulation pushes manufacturing offshore.

“Regulations that make it more expensive to create output that could have otherwise been created with less input must impact either existing jobs somewhere in the economy, or job creation and growth down the line…Policymakers should address regulation’s distributional effects and recognize that worker dislocation and other consequences are costs that some outside regulator imposed who needs to be held accountable…

“It would be nice to regularly double GDP again, the way the U.S. now doubles spending and regulation. Clarifying why high unemployment exists in the first place, and its possible linkage to the vast body of federal regulation and the rulemaking process, is needed.

“A recent Gallup Poll noted that small businesses put government regulation at the top of a list of complaints. In a global economy, understanding regulatory costs and their job impacts is even more urgent. … People need jobs to not be poor; policymakers owe a duty of examining job impacts of their economic interventions before they impose them.”

In testimony last March before Congress, senior researcher James Gattuso summarized the issue:

“Federal spending is only one part of the burden imposed on Americans by the federal government. Regulations impose hundreds of billions, or even trillions, of dollars in additional costs. These burdens not only increase the prices for consumers, but keep enterprises from growing and jobs from being created.

“During the past four years, the regulatory burdens placed on the American people and economy have grown at a breathtaking rate. During President Obama’s first four years in office, over 130 major rules increasing regulatory burdens (roughly defined as those costing $100 million or more each year) were adopted by agencies, imposing some $70 billion in new annual costs according to preliminary calculations based on agency estimates. By comparison, about 50 such rules, with about $15 billion in new annual costs, were imposed during George W. Bush’s first term…

“And more regulation is on the way. According to the latest Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations, 131 new major regulations are already in the pipeline. That compares to 90 in process when President Obama took office and only 56 in the spring of 2011…

“Under present practice, Congress gets to take credit for enacting popular but vague legislation but then can plausibly deny responsibility for the costly regulations that result. Thus, for example, the FCC is charged with furthering the “public interest,” the EPA with regulating “pollutants,” and the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency with limiting “abusive” financial practices without a clear indication of what those terms mean. This allows Congress to stand on the sidelines, ready to take credit or to denounce the agencies’ actions, rather than take responsibility itself…

“The result is power without accountability… Regulators have their own interested agendas. And political considerations, shockingly, do influence the process. Spend an hour in front of most any agency and watch the lobbyists flow in and out if you doubt that…Moreover, most regulatory decision-making requires more than scientific expertise. It involves value judgments as to what burdens will be placed on the American people for what benefit. Such decisions properly involve Congress…”

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF OVERREGULATION

But if such a condition does arise the user should seek medical attention as significant physical harm can come to the user if they allow the symptom to persist for a lengthy period of time. canada sildenafil It also helps in dealing with other sex problems relevant to health of males on line viagra bought this such as premature ejaculation, seminal leakage, nightfall can be removed by taking this capsule. Besides, it helps men regulate the ejaculation and improve the stamina viagra without and can boost your overall health. The best website best prices for cialis for these medications also carries a complete line of weight loss products aren’t designed to replace food or to assist you in starving yourself to shed weight. The growing economic impact of overregulation has become a hot topic for observers of America’s increasing financial woes. The Economist publication opined:

“America needs a smarter approach to regulation. First, all important rules should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis by an independent watchdog. The results should be made public before the rule is enacted. All big regulations should also come with sunset clauses, so that they expire after, say, ten years unless Congress explicitly re-authorises them.”

The problem appears to hit small businesses particularly hard.

According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses,

“Small businesses play a critical role in our nation’s economy, and they are being rightfully recognized as Small Business Week continues into its fourth day today. But the onslaught of new federal regulations, one of the biggest obstacles to our nation’s biggest job creators, shows no sign of letting up.

“Small businesses pay disproportionately to comply with federal regulations…[The] average cost borne by small businesses is $10,585 per employee – 36 percent more than the compliance cost for larger firms. It shows environmental regulations are especially burdensome on small firms, costing a whopping 364 percent more for small firms than large ones.

“More small businesses say government regulations are the top problem facing their business. … 20 percent of small-business owners said “government regulations and red tape” was the single most important problem facing their business last month. That issue received the greatest response, ahead of poor sales and taxes.

“While small-business owners understand the necessity for some government regulation to ensure clean and available natural resources and safety, the flow of costly new regulations being proposed today is excessive. According to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs there are over 4,000 new federal regulations in the pipeline. Pending major regulations – those costing the economy $100 million or more – have increased 60 percent since 2005.

“More small-business owners are calling for a more sensible regulatory process. This includes more feedback from small businesses built into the regulatory process and government enforcement that aides compliance rather than punishing with fines…

“One of the most immediate and impactful actions that the Administration could take to help small business would be to implement sensible reforms to the regulatory process. That could give instant relief to small businesses uncertain about the looming wave of federal regulations and the punitive enforcement that is sure to follow.”

In response to pleas from small businesses, the bipartisan Regulatory Flexibility Act of 2013 has been progressing through Congress. Although a law had been passed in 1980 providing for common-sense flexibility, it has, according to many, been frequently ignored.

The 2013 amendment to that law would require that the 1980 measure be followed more closely. It mandates federal bureacracies to consider all regulatory effects and side effects, and requires federal agencies to set up small business review panels.

While the issue of Obamacare’s regulatory impact is frequently debated, the current and potential impact of the Environmental Protection Agency’s water regulations have not received quite the same level of attention in the national press, despite its extraordinary potential impact on property rights.

Some have maintained that the EPA is conducting a “war on the states” due to its regulatory overreach in water regulation.

A 2011 minority report by the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on the EPA’s water regulations notes that “These rules carry with them significant unfunded mandates that will cost state and local governments tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. Importantly, these new rules are not the outcome of legislation or rigorous scientific findings, but a direct result of a number of lawsuits with environmentalists. The agreements to regulate often did not include any meaningful opportunity for input from state and local entities.”

According to the Capital Research Center,

“Congress intended the Environ¬mental Protection Agency to work closely with state and local officials-those nearest to the people. But since 2009, the Environ-mental Protection Agency has waged war on the states. In an end-run around the Constitution, the EPA has collaborated with environmentalist groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council to implement policies that have little to do with protecting the environment….

“Under both the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, the EPA has the authority to ‘disapprove’a state’s strategy to meet na¬tional environmental goals. A regulatory disapproval is no small matter. State offi¬cials spend countless hours and tax dollars crafting implementation plans to comply with the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. The EPA effectively throws this work out the window when it issues a regulatory disapproval.

“Since President Obama took office, the number of regulatory disapprovals has skyrocketed. The EPA issued 44 disapprov¬als during President Clinton’s second term, 42 during President George W. Bush’s first term, and 12 during Bush’s second term. But during President Obama’s first term, the EPA issued an unprecedented 95 disap¬provals.

“Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has authority to regulate “navigable waters” of the United States. Although it would seem simple to define “navigable waters”-and thereby define the limits of the EPA’s power-in practice it has proven conten-tious. Indeed, the Supreme Court has twice checked the federal government’s interpre¬tation as being too broad, in 2001 and 2006 …

“In 2011, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which co-administers a sec¬tion of the Clean Water Act, sought com¬ment on a new interpretation of “navigable waters” that would reflect the Supreme Court’s decision inRapanos limiting the federal government’s definition of its own powers. Remarkably, given that the new interpretation should have bowed to the Su¬preme Court by restricting federal powers, the EPA went in exactly the opposite direc¬tion, significantly expanding the agency’s authority.

“The EPA, along with the Corps, simply refused to acknowledge that the Supreme Court had narrowed its authority. Indeed, they admitted that they were expanding that authority, “that under this proposed guidance the number of waters identified as protected by the Clean Water Act will increase compared to current practice.

“That’s an understatement: In practice, the 2011 interpretation would extend federal jurisdiction to virtually every drop of mois¬ture in America.

“The key to the EPA’s expanded reach is an aggregate “watershed” analysis that will de¬termine whether isolated waters have a “sig¬nificant nexus” to navigable waters and are therefore subject to federal jurisdiction. The test is so amorphous that every ditch, vernal pond, mudflat, sand flat, and slough could easily fall under the EPA’s jurisdiction. The agency’s interpretation is so expansive that it expressly refuses to exclude swimming pools and ornamental ponds, saying that these water features are only “generally exempt” from federal regulations…”
—————————————————————————————–
EPA Expands its Reach Through Definitions

According to 40 CFR 230.3(s) The term “waters of the United States” means:
1. 1. “All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
2. 2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
3. 3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(I) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
(ii)(From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(II) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
1. 4. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;
2. 5. The territorial sea;
3. 6. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.”

——————————————————————————————

Republicans have called the EPA’s regulations a “massive power grab.”

LEGISLATION

The Obama Administration has been a study in contrasts between words and deeds on the topic of overregulation. It has arguably enacted more onerous and invasive regulations than any prior administration, and it has done so in manner openly defiant of traditional procedures.

However, it has clearly recognized the harmful effects on the economy, and it has sought to address its own practices. On January of 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” ordering each agency:

“to take into account ‘among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations.’ Executive Order 13563 emphasizes that some ‘sectors and industries face a significant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping,’ and it directs agencies to promote “coordination, simplification, and harmonization.’ Executive Order 13563 also states that to the extent permitted by law, each agency shall ‘propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs.’

“Executive Order 13563 directs that regulations ‘shall be adopted through a process that involves public participation,’ including an ‘open exchange of information and perspectives.’ Public participation can and should be used to evaluate the cumulative effects of regulations, for example through active engagement with affected stakeholders well before the issuance of notices of proposed rulemaking. The President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness has emphasized the need for a smart and efficient regulatory system and has drawn particular attention to the cumulative effects of regulation. Cumulative burdens can create special challenges for small businesses and startups.

“Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies should take active steps to take account of the cumulative effects of new and existing rules and to identify opportunities to harmonize and streamline multiple rules. The goals of this effort should be to simplify requirements on the public and private sectors; to ensure against unjustified, redundant, or excessive requirements; and ultimately to increase the net benefits of regulations. …

“Where appropriate and feasible, agencies should consider cumulative effects and opportunities for regulatory harmonization as part of their analysis of particular rules, and should carefully assess the appropriate content and timing of rules in light of those effects and opportunities. Consideration of cumulative effects and of opportunities to reduce burdens and to increase net benefits should be part of the assessment of costs and benefits, consistent with the requirement of Executive Order 13563 that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies must ‘select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits.” Agencies should avoid unintentional burdens that could result from an exclusive focus on the most recent regulatory activities. As noted, the cumulative effects on small businesses and start-ups deserve particular attention.”

In response to the heavy imposition of significant new regulations from the Executive Branch over the past 4 ½ years, H.R. 367, the “Regulations From the Executive Branch in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013” has been introduced.

According to the official summary of the bill,

“H.R. 367 alters the treatment of major regulations[1] under the Congressional Review Act, while preserving the existing congressional disapproval process under the Act for non-major rules. Specifically, H.R. 367 requires Congress to pass and the President to sign a joint resolution of approval before a new major regulation issued by a federal agency may take effect. For non-major rules, H.R. 367 continues the current process of allowing the rule to take effect unless Congress passes and the President signs a resolution of disapproval.

“For all new regulations-both major and non-major-the promulgating agency must submit to Congress and the Comptroller General a report generally containing the regulation, its classification as major or non-major, other related regulatory actions and their individual and aggregate economic impact, and the proposed effective date of the rule. Copies of the report must be provided to all congressional committees of jurisdiction. On the same day, the promulgating agency also must provide other relevant material, including a cost-benefit analysis of the rule. For major rules, the Comptroller General must, within 15 days of receiving the initial report, provide to the congressional committees of jurisdiction a report assessing the agency’s compliance with procedural steps required by H.R. 367 and an assessment of whether the major rule imposes any new limits or mandates on private-sector activity.

“For major regulations, H.R. 367 establishes specific time constraints within which a joint resolution of approval must be introduced, considered by the relevant committees of jurisdiction, and brought before the full House and Senate for a vote. Generally, H.R. 367 prevents major regulations from taking effect unless Congress passes and the President signs a joint resolution of approval within 70 legislative days of the initial report received by Congress. H.R. 367 limits the permissible contents in a joint resolution of approval for a major regulation.

“H.R. 367 provides a presidential exception, allowing a major rule to take effect for a 90-day period if the President issues an executive order saying the rule is needed because of an imminent threat to health or safety; to enforce a criminal law; for national security; or for international trade. The President must provide written notice to Congress if he uses the exception.

“When a non-major rule is promulgated, H.R. 367 provides that each congressional body has 60 legislative days to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval. H.R. 367 specifies the permissible contents of the joint resolution of disapproval for a non-major regulation. Non-major rules take effect after the report is submitted to Congress, unless a joint resolution of disapproval is passed by each house and signed by the President.”

The President has vowed to veto the matter if it passes Congress.

CONCLUSION
The very concept of participatory government, the foundation of the American Republic, is threatened by the number of new regulations, the scope of activities they cover, and the manner in which they are enacted.

Concerns over inadequate educational accomplishments led to the bipartisan creation of the Common Core educational program. But the fears of parents and others that Common Core serves as an excuse for Washington to politicize the American public school system have been heightened by recent disclosures that related textual material introduced partisan statements into English lessons. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/06/common-core-lessons-blasted-for-sneaking-politics-into-elementary-classrooms/ Further objections have been raised about what some believe are bizarre common core assignments, including one report from Arkansas that sixth-graders were tasked to revise the Bill of Rights by removing two Amendments and adding two new ones. www.examiner.com/article/common-core-assignment-remove-two-amendments-from-outdated-bill-of-rights.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan added fuel to the fire when he described those expressing their dismay as “White suburban mothers.”

How did the Common Core effort begin?

The creation of national standards had been a topic of discussion for many years. Dismay about the failure of U.S. public schools to produce students adequately prepared for college or the workforce prompted discussions on how to resolve the issue.

The Common Core approach to this problem arguably dates back to November of 2007, according to Education Week, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2013/06/common_core_development_when_d.html
when state education leaders at a Council of Chief State School Officers http://www.ccsso.org/ policy meeting agreed on the need for common academic standards. The following December (2008) a report urging states to create a common set of internationally benchmarked standards was issued. The concept received considerable financial support from President Obama’s stimulus program, along with technical and logistical support from the U.S. Education Department. The assistance was part of the federal “Race To The Top” http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf program.

In 2009, Governors and school chiefs subsequently met in Chicago where a call to support the concept of shared standards was issued. Writing panels were issued shortly thereafter, and public comment was invited. A final draft was released in June of 2010.

The program, a product of cooperation between the Council of Chief State Schools Officers and the National Governors Association, applies to the annual standards in math and English that students from kindergarten through high school should meet.

RACE TO THE TOP SUMMARY
(US Dept. of Education)

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) … legislation … The ARRA lays the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in… strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased productivity and effectiveness.

The ARRA provides $4.35 billion for the Race to the Top Fund, a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers; and implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas:

Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;
Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
Turning around [the] lowest-achieving schools.

Race to the Top will reward States that have demonstrated success in raising student achievement and have the best plans to accelerate their reforms in the future. These States will offer models for others to follow and will spread the best reform ideas across their States, and across the country.

What is Common Core?
The National Governors Association/Council of Chief State School describe common core as follows: http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions
What is the Common Core State Standards Initiative?

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that established a single set of clear educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt. The standards are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce. The standards are clear and concise to ensure that parents, teachers, and students have a clear understanding of the expectations in reading, writing, speaking and listening, language and mathematics in school.

Why is the Common Core State Standards Initiative important?
High standards that are consistent across states provide teachers, parents, and students with a set of clear expectations that are aligned to the expectations in college and careers. The standards promote equity by ensuring all students, no matter where they live, are well prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and abroad.. Unlike previous state standards, which were unique to every state in the country, the Common Core State Standards enable collaboration between states on a range of tools and policies, including:
the development of textbooks, digital media, and other teaching materials aligned to the standards;
and the development and implementation of common comprehensive assessment systems to measure student performance annually that will replace existing state testing systems; and
changes needed to help support educators and schools in teaching to the new standards.
What guidance do the Common Core State Standards provide to teachers?
The Common Core State Standards are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for the knowledge and skills students need in English language arts and mathematics at each grade level to ultimately be prepared to graduate college and career ready. The standards establish what students need to learn, but they do not dictate how teachers should teach. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.
How do the Common Core State Standards compare to previous state standards?
The Common Core State Standards were written by building on the best and highest state standards in existence in the U.S., examining the expectations of other high performing countries around the world, and careful study of the research and literature available on what students need to know and be able to do to be successful in college and careers. No state in the country was asked to lower their expectations for their students in adopting the Common Core. The standards are evidence-based, aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and are informed by other top performing countries. They were developed in consultation with teachers and parents from across the country so they are also realistic and practical for the classroom.
The concern that these common standards could lead to a nationalization of education is denied by the NGA/CCSSO group. They insist that this will remain a state-led effort.
Currently, all states other than Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia have adopted the curriculum. Minnesota has adopted only a portion of it.

SUPPORT FOR COMMON CORE

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is one of Common Core’s most enthusiastic backers. http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/duncan-pushes-back-attacks-common-core-standards In June, he addressed the need for the program:

“You may have heard President Obama say that America used to be number one in the world in college completion just one generation ago. Sadly, today, we have dropped to number 12 among young adults. That’s reality and that’s unacceptable.

“We’re not going to pave a path to the middle class with the cheapest labor. We’re not going to reverse the polarization of wealth in this country through unskilled jobs. The only way that we can promise all of our young people a genuine opportunity is through a world-class education…
“The problem is a lot of children, in a lot of places in America, have not been getting a world-class education. But rather than recognize that, for far too long, our school systems lied to kids, to families, and to communities. They said the kids were all right—that they were on track to being successful—when in reality they were not even close…
“What made those soothing lies possible were low standards for learning. Low standards are the equivalent of setting up for a track-and-field event with hurdles only one foot tall. That’s what happened in education in a lot of places, and everyone came out looking good—educators, administrators and especially politicians.
“The truth—the brutal truth—was that we had thousands of schools where as few as 10 percent of students were reading or doing math at grade level, and where less than half were graduating…
“Today a fourth grade teacher in New Mexico can develop a lesson plan at night and, the very next day, a fourth grade teacher in New York can use it and share it with others if she wants to.
“Today, the child of a Marine officer, who is transferred from Camp Pendleton in California to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, will be able to make that academic transition without a hitch, instead of having to start over in a widely different place academically…
Besides curing sexual weakness and low libido, the herbs in Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill function effectively and straight into reproductive technique and urinary program, to fully cialis cost cute-n-tiny.com clear up infections. prices viagra This particular product can be purchased singularly or as a bulk peptide. With the arrival of the weekend, finally you get some breathing space and decide to go to a restaurant to enjoy 5mg cialis tablets the cuisine that appealed to their taste buds. But if we talk about the cheap viagra order see for more info Cosmetic surgery in India, because of the many radical changes taking place in this sector, number of people are accepting and going for the walk. “When these standards are fully implemented, a student who graduates from a high school in any one of these states—who is performing at standard—will be ready to attend and succeed in his or her state university without remedial education. Historically, in far too many communities, more than half of those who actually graduated from high school needed remedial help in college…
“When the Obama administration came into office in 2009, the Common Core standards were in development, and gaining momentum. We set out to support states and districts in changing the conditions that were limiting educational opportunity, and raising standards was a vital part of that.
“With governors and state leaders making major progress on standards, we gave them all the support we could, within the bounds of what’s appropriate for the limited federal role in education.
“Our big competitive reform fund, Race to the Top, awarded points—40 points out of 500—to states that were collaborating to create common college- and career-ready standards.
“It was voluntary—we didn’t mandate it—but we absolutely encouraged this state-led work because it is good for kids and good for the country…
“Did the points, and the dollars, matter to the states? Absolutely. But it’s not the only reason or even the most important reason why states adopted the Common Core. To be clear, total Race to the Top dollars were less than one percent of what we spent on K-12 education every single year.
“States signed on to the Common Core because it was the right thing to do. They knew that their children were being cheated and they refused to continue to be a part of it—and for that they deserve our deepest praise and gratitude. In fact, dozens of states that didn’t get a nickel of Race to the Top money are committed to those higher standards—and American education will be better because of it…
“The Common Core standards mark a sea-change in education. Not only do they set the bar high, they give teachers the space and opportunity to go deep, emphasizing problem-solving, analysis, and critical thinking, as well as creativity and teamwork. They give teachers room to innovate.
“And, all across the country, teachers have responded. Three out of four say the Common Core standards will help them teach better…”
The National Education Association (NEA) http:/www.nea.org/home/46665.htm is a strong proponent. They note that:
“Examination of the education systems of high performing countries such as Singapore and New Zealand indicates that those countries have common standards or curriculum that articulate broad, high goals for students, provide adequate preparation and support to teachers, allow teachers to exercise professional judgment, and involve teachers in all aspects of the education enterprise including curriculum, standards, and assessments as well as instruction. “
“The Common Core State Standards Initiative has the potential to begin to move education in the U.S. along this path.
NEA supports the Common Core State Standards Initiative as a potential means of providing access to a complete and challenging education to all children. Currently, some states are not providing sufficient resources for students to meet standards and acquire a quality education.
The initiative is promising also because it will involve input from states and a wide range of stakeholders. Most importantly, the standards will be voluntary. NEA has consistently opposed mandatory national standards developed through a top down process. The Common Core Standards Initiative has the potential to encourage states to participate, but not be coercive or rigid.
The effort to construct the common core of standards so that it is a manageable list of broad goals rather than an exhaustive list of bits of learning is another aspect of the initiative that NEA applauds. This new notion of how standards should be articulated can allow for high goals while providing for instructional flexibility in reaching those goals.
The development of a bank of sample assessment items has the potential to provide states with flexibility and control while establishing concrete ways to determine student achievement.
The initiative has provided educators, parents, and a wide range of stakeholders and experts the opportunity to provide input.
Our current notion of content standards has been corrupted to be almost completely dominated by what can be tested rather than by the deep understandings and 21st century skills that students need. The initiative is attempting to bring the focus back to the components of a quality education…”
The view from state legislatures

The National Council of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/task-forces/policies-education.aspx#Common_Academic_Standards has endorsed the concept of common standards but remains concerns about the potential abuse of the program:

State legislators support the voluntary state standards initiatives so long as the initiatives remain voluntary, state-led and state-administered, and so long as the federal government does not overstep its role, and the U.S. Department of Education complies with its statutory authority and programs and does not condition the receipt of federal dollars on state participation in common standards efforts.
Past federal attempts to create national standards or a national test have proven partisan, divisive and unsuccessful. Federal legislation creating the U.S. Department of Education prohibits direct federal involvement in a national test. Similar language in NCLB prohibits federal involvement in standards, assessments and curricula. These protections against federal involvement in state issues should be adhered to and continued. It is the position of the National Conference of State Legislatures that there is no authorized role for federal mandates regarding national academic standards or a unified national test.
State legislators support the need to improve elementary and secondary education so that all students have access to a challenging and rewarding public education. Students in our schools need rigorous state standards that are anchored in real world demands students will face after high school, that are aligned to K-12 curriculum, assessments, high school graduation requirements, college placement standards and other related policy tools and practices. This can be most readily accomplished through individual state refinement of standards or the voluntary participation of states in joint efforts like the Common Core Initiative led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The Common Core and other consortiums have worked diligently to develop a set of standards in Math and English that will enhance the standards set by many states. It is critical that such standards not represent a step backward for some states.
Legislators applaud the efforts and results thus far of these state-led consortia.
The National Council of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/task-forces/policies-education.aspx#Common_Academic_Standards while endorsing the Common Core concept, has significant concerns:
“…federal actions have contributed to our concerns that this effort may have as its ultimate result a nationalized K-12 system that will not remain voluntary and may have already been compromised by actions of both the state-led consortia and the federal government. Specifically:
The federal government required a state commitment to adopt the common standards as an eligibility criterion for federal Race to the Top funds even before the common standards were fully developed, released or endorsed.
The federal government has committed $350 million to develop the common assessments that match up to the common standards and the Common Core Initiative has acknowledged the need for on-going public support for its activities.
The current administration’s blueprint for reauthorization of ESEA suggested that Title I funds for disadvantaged children be contingent upon each states’ acceptance of a set of voluntary common standards.
The federal government has a history of co-opting successful state policy initiatives by effectively making them mandatory through the ‘condition of grant’ process.
The preceding actions raise concerns that this voluntary, state-led effort will prove too attractive for federal officials to ignore. Therefore, state legislators assert that the U.S. Department of Education should refrain from the actions described above that are in conflict with its statutory authority, and specifically that it does not condition the receipt of federal dollars on state participation in common standard efforts.

Objections

Senators Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn, James Inhofe, Deb Fischer, Rand Paul, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions, and Ted Cruz have expressed their concern that the U.S. Department of Education has made adoption of Common Core standards requirements for states obtaining waivers and funds. They want to restrict this from occurring.

In a statement earlier this year, Senator Grassley http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=45715 stated that:
“What’s happening violates the structure of our education system, where academic content decisions are made at the state level giving parents a direct line of accountability to those making decisions. The federal government should not be allowed to coerce state education decision makers…
“The first principle of education, and therefore of education policymaking, is that parents are the primary educators of their children. And because responsibility for children’s education lies primarily with parents, to the greatest extent possible so should decision-making authority over Pre-K to secondary education. While the Common Core Standard Initiative was initially promoted as an effort to move in this direction, it has become polluted with federal guidelines and mandates that interfere with the ability of parents, teachers and principals to deliver the education our children deserve.”
A joint study http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/a-republic-of-republics-how-common-core-undermines-state-and-local-autonomy-over-k-12-education/ by the Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project, the Pacific Research Institute, and Civitas warns:
“By signing on to national standards and the assessments that will accompany them, participating states have ceded their autonomy to design and oversee the implementation of their own standards and tests. The implications of ceding this autonomy are varied. Not only do some states risk sacrificing high quality standards for national standards that may be less rigorous, all states are sacrificing their ability to inform what students learn. Moreover, the act of adopting national standards has and will continue to disrupt legal and other processes upon which states rely to ensure the adequate and equitable delivery of educational materials and resources. Finally and, perhaps, most distressing, the predicted cost to states of implementing the Common Core is in the billions of dollars, a number that only stands to grow if implementation ramps up.”
In his 2011 testimony before the House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee’s subcommittee on Early Childhood, Jay P. Greene, http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/09.21.11_greene.pdf a 21st Century Professor of Education Reform, stated:
I believe this centralized approach is mistaken. The best way to produce high academic standards and better student learning is by decentralizing the process of determining standards, curriculum, and assessments. When we have choice and competition among different sets of standards, curricula, and assessments, they tend to improve in quality to better suit student needs and result in better outcomes.
One thing that should be understood with respect to nationalized approaches is that there is no evidence that countries that have nationalized systems get better results. Advocates for nationalization will point to other countries, such as Singapore, with higher achievement that also have a nationalized system as proof that we should do the same. But they fail to acknowledge that many countries that do worse than the United States on international tests also have nationalized systems. Conversely, many of the countries that do better than the United States, such as Canada, Australia, and Belgium, have decentralized systems. The research shows little or no relationship between nationalized approaches and student achievement.
In addition, there is no evidence that the Common Core standards are rigorous or will help produce better results. The only evidence in support of Common Core consists of projects funded directly or indirectly by the Gates Foundation in which panels of selected experts are asked to offer their opinion on the quality of Common Core standards. Not surprisingly, panels organized by the backers of Common Core believe that Common Core is good. This is not research; this is just advocates of Common Core re-stating their support. The few independent evaluations of Common Core that exist suggest that its standards are mediocre and represent little change from what most states already have.
If that’s true, what’s the harm in pursuing a nationalized approach? First, nationalized approaches lack a mechanism for continual improvement. Given how difficult it is to agree upon them, once we set national standards, curriculum, and assessments, they are nearly impossible to change. If we discover a mistake or wish to try a new and possibly better approach, we can’t switch. We are stuck with whatever national choices we make for a very long time. And if we make a mistake we will impose it on the entire country.
Second, to the extent that there will be change in a nationalized system of standards, curriculum, and assessments, it will be directed by the most powerful organized interests in education, and probably not by reformers. Making standards more rigorous and setting cut scores on assessments higher would show the education system in a more negative light, so teachers unions and other organized interests in education may attempt to steer the nationalized system in a less rigorous direction. In general, it is unwise to build a national church if you are a minority religion. Reformers should recognize that they are the political minority and should avoid building a nationalized system that the unions and other forces of the status quo will likely control.
Third, we are a large and diverse country. Teaching everyone the same material at the same time and in the same way may work in small homogenous countries, like Finland, but it cannot work in the United States. There is no single best way that would be appropriate for all students in all circumstances.
I do not mean to suggest that math is different in one place than it is in another, but the way in which we can best approach math, the age and sequence in which we introduce material, may vary significantly. As a concrete example, California currently introduces algebra in 8th grade but Common Core calls for this to be done in 9th grade. We don’t really know the best way for all students and it is dangerous to decide this at the national level and impose it on everyone.
In a published article, the Heartland Institute http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/11/06/biggest-common-core-pros-and-cons notes that:
“For four and a half decades, the federal role in education has been growing. Costly in terms of taxpayer dollars spent and local control education lost, this expanding federal control has failed to outcomes for America’s children. National standards will further expand Washington’s role—and will remove parents from decisions about content taught in our children’s schools. Yet the Obama Administration is intent on nationalizing the content taught in every public school across America. Without Congressional approval, the Administration has used a combination of carrots and sticks to spur states to sign on to the Common Core standards initiative. Common Core includes costly and questionable national standards for English and math, and federally funded national assessments have been crafted to align with the standards. State leaders who believe in limited government and liberty should resist the imposition of national standards and tests in their states.”

Conclusion

The poor performance of many public schools in the United States is a serious issue, and the establishment of standards is a valid approach. The Common Core initiative was a bipartisan approach to accomplishing this.
However, there is little evidence that doing this on a national level will be effective. Further, concerns about the creeping politicization of our educational system are valid.

Washington has again become a battleground as the President refuses to compromise with Republicans, who want to amend Mr. Obama’s signature legislative piece, the Affordable Care Act, which they maintain is a budget-breaker. But it is this just another political skirmish, or is it a philosophical battle between two sets of beliefs so fundamentally different that they cannot be reconciled?

IS THE CURRENT BUDGET COURSE SUSTAINABLE?

The President, and many in the Senate, maintain that they were elected due in part to promises made about abundant spending for entitlement programs. The Affordable Care Act alone adds about $1.8 trillion in spending by 2023.

Republicans believe that there is abundant evidence that the current course of federal budgets is unsustainable.

According to the Government Accountability Office,”GAO’s simulations lead to an overarching conclusion: current fiscal policy is unsustainable over the long term. Absent reform of federal retirement and health programs-including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid-federal budgetary flexibility will become increasingly constrained. Assuming no changes to projected benefits or to revenues, spending on these programs will drive increasingly large, persistent, and ultimately unsustainable federal deficits and debt as the baby boom generation retires.”

The Congressional Budget Office concurs with this worrisome analysis:

“Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level. CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy … Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely…

Under the extended baseline, budget deficits would rise steadily and, by 2038, would push federal debt held by the public close to the percentage of GDP seen just after World War II-even without factoring in the harm that growing debt would cause to the economy.

By 2038, CBO projects, federal spending would increase to 26 percent of GDP under the assumptions of the extended baseline, compared with 22 percent in 2012 and an average of 20½ percent over the past 40 years. That increase reflects the following projected paths for various types of federal spending if current laws generally remain in place …
• Federal spending for the major health care programs and Social Security would increase to a total of 14 percent of GDP by 2038, twice the 7 percent average of the past 40 years.
• In contrast, total spending on everything other than the major health care programs, Social Security, and net interest payments would decline to 7 percent of GDP, well below the 11 percent average of the past 40 years and a smaller share of the economy than at any time since the late 1930s.
• The federal government’s net interest payments would grow to 5 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 2 percent over the past 40 years, mainly because federal debt would be much larger…”
The National Debt is approaching $17 trillion dollars. The 2013 budget deficit is clocking in at over $800 billion.

The Federal Reserve, as noted by Forbes, has attempted to delay the drastic result of this imbalance by printing more currency ($85 billion per month, 6% of GDP annually; since 2007, the money supply has been increased by a factor of 4X!)

The annual deficits are not the result of a lack of revenue.

In the past 11 months, Washington collected $2,472,542,000,000-a record high, and an increase of $285 billion from the same time period the prior year. Nevertheless, the federal government still incurred a $755 billion deficit.

A Heritage Foundation analysis reveals that “total spending has increased 40 percent since 2002, even after inflation… Defense, however, has been slashed. Obamacare will add $1.8 trillion to federal health care spending by 2023.” The study notes that the President’s budget, which would increase spending in his second term by $335 billion, never balances, even with a $1.1 trillion tax increase stretched over a decade. Mr. Obama proposed $7 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts, and those cuts don’t occur until 2018, when he has already left office.

The dramatic growth in spending comes from federal programs that are not central to the traditional governance activities of the nation.

According to the American Enterprise Institute:

“The rate of entitlement growth per capita has been nearly twice as fast as per capita income growth for the last fifty years…In the 1960s, the federal government spent $2 on governing for each $1 it spent on entitlement transfers. Today that ratio has completely flipped… In 1969, government benefits accounted for 7.8% of Americans’ personal income. In 2009, government benefits accounted for nearly 18% of Americans’ income. And the regions which relied most on benefits in 1969 have become even more dependent. Nearly 50% of the U.S. population lives in a household that receives some government benefits. 31% of US households are receiving means-tested public benefits.”

“We’ve become so used to these unfathomable levels of deficits and debt-and to the once-rare concept of trillions of dollars-that we forget how new all this debt is. In 1981, after 190 years of federal spending, the national debt was “only” $1 trillion. Now, just 33 years later, it’s headed past $17 trillion. Traditionally, the national debt as a percentage of GDP rose during major wars and the Great Depression. But there’s been no major war or depression in the past 33 years; we’ve just run up $16 trillion more in spending than the country was willing to pay for.”
-CATO Institute

In Part one of this analysis, we reviewed the extraordinary financial crisis the U.S. government currently faces. The problem is not the result of a lack of revenue, which is at an all-time high. It is the product of excessive spending on entitlements.

SKYROCKETING ENTITLEMENTS,
BUT POVERTY REMAINS UNCHANGED

The Congressional Research Service
has estimated that federal welfare programs will grow almost 80% over the next decade. Already, entitlement spending, which has increased 41% since President Obama first took office, is at unaffordable levels.

This is not a pragmatic attempt to assist the poor, according to the Tax Foundation. According to that organization’s research, “Redistribution is ultimately at the heart of all tax and spending debates in Washington. But lawmakers are doing the public a great disservice if they fail to talk in honest terms about who currently pays for government programs and services, who benefits, and how new policies will change that balance.”

CATO’s new study has found that:

“…a family collecting welfare benefits from seven common programs could receive more than someone in a minimum-wage job in 35 states …roughly 60 percent of Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes… because of policies put in place by President Obama, as many as 70 percent of Americans are now net recipients of government largesse.”

Less than 40 percent of federal transfer payments-from 126 individual “anit-poverty programs” costing $688 billion annually– are actually going to those classified as “poor.” CATO concluded that “welfare spending appears to have little effect on poverty rates.”

Entitlement spending growth is shocking. A 2012 U.S. News analysis
found that entitlement spending has grown by an explosive 9.5 percent per year for 50 straight years.

“Entitlement transfer payments to individuals …have been growing twice as fast as per capita income for 20 years, totaling $2.2 trillion in 2010 alone…In 1960, entitlement spending accounted for less than a third of all federal spending; in 2010, it was just about two thirds of government outlays, with everything else-defense, justice, all the other duties of government-making up less than one third.”

A Forbes editorial provided an illustration of the explosive growth in health care costs:

“In absolute dollar terms, federal health spending in the last year of the Clinton administration was 75 percent higher than in the last year of President George H.W. Bush, while Medicare spending was two-thirds higher.”

Because of this, according to fiscal policy expert Dan Mitchell, “the long-term position of the United States is worse than either Greece or Portugal.”

Our procedures are customized to meet you http://davidfraymusic.com/david-fray-returns-to-the-cso-for-the-2018-19-season/ online levitra and your unique needs. Besides, the other fraction did not claim the medicine cipla viagra india useless but their remarks were less effectiveness. This has created an opportunity for living a normal life by rescuing them from the attacks of high level cholesterol or the subsequent bad impacts in form of heart disorders. professional viagra When you keep your prostate in good condition, it will ward viagra in usa off the chances of developing any problems with it.

In testimony before the Congressional Budget Committee last year, Heritage researcher Robert Rector noted:

“Although the public is aware that Social Security and Medicare are large expensive programs, few are aware that for every $1.00 spent on these two program, government spends 76 cents on assistance to the poor or means-tested welfare.

“… In FY2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare came to $717 billion. State contributions into federal programs added another $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion. Total spending from all sources reached $927 billion.

“About half of means-tested spending is for medical care. Roughly 40 percent goes to cash, food, and housing aid. The remaining 10 to 12 percent goes what might be called “enabling” programs, programs that are intended to help poor individuals become more self-sufficient. These programs include child development, job training, targeted federal education aid and a few other minor functions.

“The total of $927 billion per year in means-tested aid is an enormous sum of money. One way to think about this figure is that $927 billion amounts to $19,082 for each American defined as “poor” by the Census. However, since some means-tested assistance goes to individuals who are low income but not poor, a more meaningful figure is that total means-tested aid equals $9,040 for each lower income American (i.e., persons in the lowest income third of the population).

“If converted to cash, means-tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to bring the income of every lower income American to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, roughly $44,000 per year for a family of four. (This calculation combines potential welfare aid with non-welfare income currently received by the poor.)…

“In the two decades before the current recession, means-tested welfare was the fastest growing component of government spending. It grew more rapidly that Social Security and Medicare and its rate of increase dwarfed that of public education and national defense. While means-tested medical benefits have been the fastest growing part of the welfare system, most other forms of welfare aid have grown rapidly as well.

“For example, spending on means-tested cash, food and housing has grown more rapidly than Social Security over the last two decades. Adjusting for inflation and population growth, the U.S. now spends 50% more on means-tested cash, food and housing than it did when Bill Clinton entered office on a promise to “end welfare as we know it”. It comes as a surprise to most to learn that the core welfare state has expanded dramatically since reform allegedly “ended welfare” in the mid 1990’s.

“Total means-tested spending on cash, food and housing programs is now twice what would be needed to lift all Americans out of poverty. Why then does the government report that over 40 million persons live in poverty each year? The answer is that, in counting the number of poor Americans, Census ignores almost the entire welfare state: Census counts only a minute fraction of means-tested cash, food and housing aid as income for purposes of determining whether a family is poor…

“Despite the fact that welfare spending was already at record levels when he took office, President Obama has increased federal means-tested welfare spending by more than a third. Some might this is a reasonable, temporary response to the recession, but Obama seeks a permanent, not a temporary, increase in the size of the welfare state…”

Facing pressure to pay for skyrocketing entitlement costs, The United States defense budget will, under current planning, be slashed by lawmakers an extra $500 billion over the next ten years, in addition to the $487 billion cut already adopted. This comes at a time when Russia and China, who are now actively participating in joint war training exercises, have sharply escalated their spending, and when their client states Iran and North Korea continue to develop significant nuclear capabilities.

State governments, as well, are having a difficult time dealing the additional burdens of unfunded mandates brought about by significantly increased entitlement programs.

STATES REBEL AGAINST UNFUNDED MANDATES FOR ENTITLEMENTS

The United States Census Bureau has reported that state government tax collections increased $34.3 billion from fiscal year 2011 to a record $794.6 billion in 2012. Forty-seven states saw an increase, led by North Dakota (47%) Alaska (27.3%) Illionois (19.1%) and Connecticut (15%.)

Despite the record haul, unfunded federal mandates for entitlements remains a clear danger to the fiscal health of the states. Nebraska’s Gov. Dave Heineman has made explicitly clear the state of Nebraska cannot afford more unfunded federal mandates from Washington, D.C. According to an Americans for Prosperity report, The Affordable Care Act is “a massive new unfunded mandate on the states in the form of medicaid expansion and new bureaucratic programs like health care exchanges.”Obamacare provides an unfunded mandate requiring higher spending by state taxpayers in order to expand Medicaid.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, has suggested the following “model resolution” for state governments:

WHEREAS, the growth in federal spending of the Medicaid and welfare entitlements are astronomical and spiraling, significantly increasing the federal budget costs, and
WHEREAS, this growth will never be controlled unless the states have autonomous management of the programs, free from Federal mandates regarding individual entitlement, eligibility groups, benefits, payment rates, and financing structures to allow most citizens of the states to benefit from the Medicaid and welfare programs, and
WHEREAS, the states will be able to design and develop innovative, efficient and productive Medicaid and welfare programs that will meet the needs of the residents within the state of {insert state}’s budget capacity, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the legislature of the state of {insert state} urges Congress to pass federal funds on to States via block grants to be used for public welfare and Medicaid purposes, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution will be distributed to all Governors and members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.

DEFENSE SPENDING CUT TO PAY FOR INCREASED ENTITLEMENT SPENDING

The extraordinary impact of entitlement spending can be seen most clearly when comparing it to perhaps the most basic and essential federal endeavor: national defense.

Chris Conover, has noted that “[currently] Washington spends $50 billion less on defense than the outgoing secretary of defense said was the bare minimum needed.”

A 2012 U.S. News analysis emphasized that “government spending on entitlements not only exceeds defense spending these days, it completely overwhelms it. In 2010, America spent well over three times as much on transfer payments to individuals than it did on its entire national security budget-including on both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If current trends continue under President Obama, entitlement spending is set to increase by more than $700 billion over the next four years; the current national cost of all defense and security programs is roughly $700 billion as well. That means it will take only one presidential term … for the growth of entitlement spending to absorb the entire defense budget of the United States.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, because the inflation-adjusted costs of DoD’s plan will rise over time much more rapidly than the budget caps will, the reductions that DoD will have to make relative to its 2013 plan to comply with the caps will be larger in later years (see figure below). From 2018 through 2021, the caps will be about 12 percent below an extrapolation of DoD’s five-year plan and 19 percent below CBO’s projection of the cost of that plan.

The Foreign Policy Initiative notes that under current law, the defense cuts that will automatically take place will be, according to both civilian and military leaders, “devastating and high risk.”

In a CNN interview earlier this year former Secretary f Defense Leon Panetta warned of “the most serious readiness crisis” faced by the armed forces in over a decade. And a “serious disruption in defense programs and a sharp decline in military readiness.”

A Manhattan Institute study of federal budget issues found that:

“The fundamental problem in the federal budget is the relentless increase in entitlement spending. … Over the past four decades, the federal government has collected revenue that has averaged 18 percent of GDP annually. In 1972, when total spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was 4.4 percent of GDP, there was plenty of revenue left over for other priorities of government, like national security. But today, the situation is very different. [a reduction in military spending would make sense could] … only occur if a highly unusual period of tranquility suddenly materialized across the globe. If, on the other hand, the next decade in world history is more like what it has been for millennia, then it would be both financially foolish and utterly irresponsible to claim credit for a fictitious “peace dividend” in outyear budget projections. But, of course, that’s exactly what the Obama budget does to make the deficit forecast look better than it really is.”

Unlike cuts to entitlements, cuts to defense have profoundly negative impacts on the economy. Defense manufacturing produces high paid employment at a time when unemployment is rampant and well-paid jobs are increasingly scarce. According to former Navy Secretary John Lehman, quoted in a Thinkprogress article, “Defense cuts particularly hurt the economy… because defense spending creates more jobs and growth per dollar than entitlements, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. “If your objective was to maximize jobs, you’d cut entitlement five times more than defense.”

Of course, cutting defense has implications far beyond the economy. A Reuters report quotes defense manufacturers calling the cuts “irresponsible” and “dangerous.”

CONCLUSION

The extraordinary increase in entitlement spending has not reduced poverty in America. In fact, by removing dollars from the private sector as well as other federal efforts that are more productive in producing either employment or traditional and vital services, it has set in motion a cycle of ever-increasing need addressed by ever-increasing spending. This cycle has reached a critical stage where severe harm to the prosperity and safety of the nation can occur.

A generation of American students is being indoctrinated instead of educated. The results for the future of the United States are extremely worrisome.

The indications are clear and overwhelming that far too many pupils in the United States are being deprived of basic academic instruction in the key elements of American history and civics. The problem extends from grammar school straight through college. The evidence can be discerned in statistical studies, curriculum review, the actions of university administrators, and even anecdotal reports through visits to local schools.

Consider the following:

According to the 2010 National Assessment of Education Progress, only 35% of 4thgraders know the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. Overall, only 20% of 4thgraders, 17% of 8th graders, and 12% of 12th graders were proficient in history.

A Brennan/Princeton survey of New Yorkers revealed that “New Yorkers, like most Americans, know very little about their Constitution and government.” The study indicated that only 42% of New Yorkers know basic information about the three branches of government.

According to the U.S. Education Department, “a staggering number of Americans do not know much of the basic history and traditions of our nation.… Nearly two-thirds of Americans cannot name all three branches of government. …Less than half of the public can name a single Supreme Court justice. And more than a quarter do not know who America fought in the Revolutionary War.”

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s (ISI) American Civil Literacy Project has conducted a survey revealing that a stunning 71.4% of those polled lack an adequate knowledge of American history and basic civics.

The problem is not limited to those without college degrees. According to the ISI, “Many Americans with bachelor’s degrees cannot answer the most basic questions about our nation’s history and founding documents. Many cannot name all three branches of government or major guarantees of the bill of rights…Students did poorly even at the most elite schools. Harvard seniors, who did best, earned an average score of only 69.56 [on basic US History and civics questions]…in 2008, in a random study of American adults, the average score was 49%; even those with college degrees scored only 57%.” Shockingly, the ISI study found that elected officials typically have less civic knowledge than the general public, scoring lower by about 5 points.”
Another benefit to taking the super antioxidant Acai berry is that it contains oleic viagra online store acid that promotes the health of the concerned male is recovered to the fullest. There viagra on must be an adequate flow of blood in the penile tissues. The severe patients will have abdominal pain. 2.Patients with chronic choose here generic cialis online orchitis will have a slowly enlarged testicle. The modern age has procured some of the greatest revelations in science and in technology that have ever been affected with viagra tablets for sale erectile dysfunction, then you will know the right spares that match exactly with the existing electric golf trolley.
It’s not what isn’t being taught that’s troublesome. It’s also what is being given in place of standard instruction. “The People’s History of the United States,” a Marxist view of the US, has been used as a text in Washington, D.C. schools. In Tucson, Arizona, “Occupied America,” written by the radical Rodolfo Acuna, is among the prescribed texts. The book recommends the conversion of the Southwestern US into a “Chicano Nation” and advocates the killing of whites “if necessary.”

Last year, the National Association of Scholars prepared a report for the Regents of the University of California. It’s comments were scathing. They found that “coursework in American history and institutions have been dropped, that writing courses often stress writing far less than tendentious political topics; that prescribed books are frequently no more than journalistic presentations of a simple political message instead of the more complex writings appropriate to an academic context; and that faculty teach what to think rather how to think; that is, they demand correct attitudes and beliefs of students more than they require independent reading and thought.”

Campus activities which once would have been considered “As American as apple pie” are actively discouraged. Earlier this month, a college student, Robert Van Tuinen, passing out pamphlets containing the text of the U.S. Constitution on Constitution Day at Modesto College, was informed by campus authorities that he could only do so in a tiny restricted spot known as a “free speech zone.”

It’s not only what isn’t being taught, it’s what is being forced on youth by politically biased educators. In 2009. There were cringe-inducing reports of grammar school children being instructed to sing creepy songs in praise of President Obama, in scenes that seem wholly copied from North Korea, where youth are forced to praise their dictator with religious fervor. A New Jersey school had children singing a song worshiping Obama. It was adapted from a religious hymn called “Jesus Loves The Little Children.”

“The People’s History of the United States,” a Marxist view of the US, has been used as a text in Washington, D.C. schools. In Tucson, Arizona, “Occupied America,” written by the radical Rodolfo Acuna, is among the prescribed texts. The book recommends the conversion of the Southwestern US into a “Chicano Nation” and advocates the killing of whites “if necessary.”

The end result of all of this is the production of a generation of Americans that is alienated from and hostile to the founding principles of their own nation. They have been indoctrinated to believe that the very concepts of individual freedom, unalienable rights, and the guarantee of those virtues through a constitution is irrelevant or worse.

Americans should be deeply concerned.

Assumptions about America’s energy policy are rapidly being called into question, due to four recent or ongoing events, including:

• The potential serious disruption of oil supplies from the increasingly tumultuous middle east. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz to dissuade the west from taking firm action against that nation’s nuclear weapons development, as well as engaging in activities meant to interfere with Iranian allies such as Syria.
• The tepid state of the American economy, made worse by increasing energy prices. Exceptionally high unemployment is one of the prime examples of this, as is the trade deficit of $39,147 Million (as of July 2013.) The United States Balance of Trade averaged $-32,055.49 Million from 1992 until 2013.
• Recent revised climatological information (including that contained in a leaked preview of an upcoming United Nations report about global warming) which indicates that for the past two decades the problem has been overestimated; and
• A dramatic increase in discovered domestic energy resources.
These events render it necessary to take a renewed look at U.S. energy policy. Partisan views, from industry and consumers on one hand, and environmentalists on the other, make it difficult to have an objective discussion on the topic.

THE PRESIDENT’S VIEWS

The President has taken positions which have been mostly praised by environmentalists, but soundly criticized by those favoring lower prices and American energy independence. In an often quoted 2008 newspaper interview, then-candidateObama stated: “Under my plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

When George W. Bush left office, gasoline cost consumers $1.78 per gallon. The current average price is $3.89, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
Since 2008, the average price for electricity for individuals, commercial enterprises, and industrial users have all risen, despite a weak economy and the discovery of vast new energy resources.

The White House has been criticized for failing to open federally owned lands for energy exploitation. The U.S. government owns and manages 650 million acres of land.The White House response has been that “Domestic oil and natural gas production has increased every year President Obama has been in office. In 2012, domestic oil production climbed to the highest level in 15 years and natural gas production reached an all-time high.”

Critics respond that the increases have all come from private land outside of the federal government’s control. According to the Heritage Foundation, The President has impeded access to a treasure trove of supply on federal lands. Heritage notes: “America is one of the few nations to put known domestic supplies of oil and gas off-limits to exploration. Harsh restrictions aimed ostensibly at protecting the environment place oil, coal, and natural gas out of favor…Moreover, because of a broken regulatory process and no legitimate solution to spent fuel management, we are not building nuclear plants at the rate we could be…”

The Administration has clearly stated its opposition to the use of coal. According to an article by Nicolas Loris in the Yale Environment 360 publication,
“Phasing out coal, electricity prices would increase 20 percent and cause a family of four to lose more than $1,000 in annual income…significantly reducing coal as a source of energy would destroy more than 500,000 jobs by 2030. All of this economic pain would come with no real impact on the climate.”

Mr. Obama has come under pressure from many of his own supporters to ban hydrofracking, based on scientifically incorrect rumors of problems, mostly disproved by science (but endorsed by Hollywood.)

POLICY CHOICES BASED
ON INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS

The President predicated his 2008 desire for fuel cost increases based on supply and environmental assumptions that have turned out to be incorrect. Dramatic increases in supply, not even counting known but untapped resources such as those in Alaska or offshore, have been discovered. Earlier this year, it was revealed that the US has three times the amount of natural gas, and twice the amount of oil, as previously thought.

According to the International Energy Agency, America has the potential become the kingpin of energy supplies, producing more than either Russia or Saudi Arabia within the next 15 years. By 2030, the United States could be exporting energy. The net boon to the economy in employment and particularly eliminating the approximately $450 billion spent on imported oil, would be vast.

However, the combined net effect of keeping resources on federal lands untapped, “waging war” on coal, implanting strict (critics say unnecessary) regulations in energy production, and limiting hydrofracking could produce a far different result.

_______________________________________________________________

THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE
In July, the President minimized the employment benefits of Keystone. His comments drew outrage from pipeline advocates, who noted that studies from his own State Department directly contradicted his comments. It is believed that the White House has decided to strategically hold the project “hostage” as a means of forcing Congress to agree to other energy-related matters.

The sweeping proposals are the result of the President’s June 25 Memorandum to EPA on “Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards,” part of the White House’s overall enivronmental proposals. Similar to other instances which the Administration feared Congresssional dissent, Mr. Obama maintains the plans do not require Congressional approval. The President stated that he “didn’t have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.”

The President’s position has been endorsed by organizations such as the National Resources Defense Council, which maintains that “The EPA has both the authority and responsibility to reduce pollution from these plants under the Clean Air Act.”

According to the Environmental Defense Funds’ Gneral Counsel, Vickie Patton,
“The sooner we get these protections in place, the clearer the signal [will be] that new power plants must do their fair share in addressing the heavy burden of carbon pollution on human health and the environment.”

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) condemned President Obama’s proposals, which he believes impose unreasonable restrictions that will have disastrous consequences for not only the coal industry, but also American jobs and the economy.

According to Sen. Manchin, “The regulations the President wants to force on coal are not feasible. And if it’s not feasible, it’s not reasonable. It’s clear now that the President has declared a war on coal. It’s simply unacceptable that one of the key elements of his climate change proposal places regulations on coal that are completely impossible to meet with existing technology.

“The fact is clear: our own Energy Department reports that our country will get 37 percent of our energy from coal until 2040. Removing coal from our energy mix will have disastrous consequences for our recovering economy. These policies
punish American businesses by putting them at a competitive disadvantage with our global competitors. And those competitors burn seven-eighths of the world’s coal, and they’re not going to stop using coal any time soon.

“It is only common sense to use all our domestic resources, and that includes our coal. Let’s make sure that government works as our partner, not our adversary, to create a secure and affordable energy future, and let’s invest in technology which will have the ability to burn coal with almost zero emissions.”

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) also responded quickly.

“EPA is doubling down on its economically destructive plan to essentially end the construction of new coal-fired power plants in America. The proposed standards would require the use of expensive new technologies that are not commercially viable. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, but this impractical rule restricts access to one of our most abundant, affordable, and dependable energy sources. The consequences will be more job losses and a weaker economy. These stringent standards will actually discourage investment and the development of innovative new technologies that can help us meet the world’s future energy and environmental challenges. The right policies should embrace our energy abundance as part of the solution. The committee will soon hold a hearing on this latest regulatory grab as part of our ongoing effort to protect Americans and jobs from unnecessary and costly red tape,” said Upton.

“President Obama and his EPA have once again moved forward with an extreme regulation that makes it illegal to build a coal-fired electricity plant in America. This move is another attempt to bankrupt the coal industry to fulfill a campaign promise to radical environmentalists. For example, the cleanest coal-fired electricity technology available is known as ultra-supercritical. EPA’s extreme regulation sets an emission limit that not even an ultra-supercritical plant can meet,” said Whitfield. “Sadly, electricity consumers will pay the price, making our economy less competitive in the global market place. Even though the president is taking these extreme steps, they do nothing to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, which even his own EPA administrator acknowledged in my hearing earlier this week. As Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, I intend to hold hearings to examine every aspect of this regulation. If it is as bad as we think it’s going to be, I, along with other Republicans and Democrats in the United States Congress, wilin the United States Congress, will take every step possible to prevent this regulation from taking effect. We simply cannot afford to place America at an economic disadvantage, particularly when CO2 energy-related emissions are at their lowest levels in 20 years.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McCOnnell (R-Ky) described the White House action as a “just the latest Administration salvo in its never ending War on Coal…The EPA has already stifled the permitting process for new coal mines; the agency has done this so dramatically that they have effectively shut down many coal mines through illegitimate, dilatory tactics…In the year President Obama took office there were over 18,600 employed in the coal industry in my state. But as of September 2013, the number of persons employed at Kentucky coal mines is only 13,000… And the picture is getting worse instead of better. This week, a major employer announced 525 layoffs in its eastern Kentucky mines.
This program lasted for 2 years where the men visited the nutritionalist and the cheapest viagra http://respitecaresa.org/job/directcarestaff/rcsa-logo-2/ exercise trainer regularly. Magnesium helps to control purchase of levitra blood sugar level and blood pressure regulation for healthy erections. The professional begins off referring to having the capability to be buy cialis pharmacy prepared for time when the time is right. You should stop generic india viagra intake of processed foods.
In addition to displaced workers, coal industry companies, and state governments concerned over the loss of jobs and revenue, those advocating U.S. energy independence and lower energy costs are expected to vigorously oppose the EPA proposal.
The timing is somewhat ironic, as new reports indicate that global cooling may have more of a scientific basis than global warming. In response, advocates of stricter controls on energy production have amended the phrase “global warming” to read “climate change” instead, but have not yet responded to how this significant change affects plans to cut greenhouse gases.

In what some media outlets are describing as “climategate 2,” (The original climategate involved approximately 1,000 emails from the University of East Anglia indicating that climate scientists manipulated data to boost global warming claims) United Nations scientist are attempting to explain why global warming has slowed down over the past fifteen years at the same time that greenhouse gases have been increasing.

PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCES

Far too frequently, the debate over U.S. energy policy has been one in which facts have played a second hand role. Examining how America uses each primary source of energy provides a clear picture of the challenges and opportunities that face the nation’s future.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration petroleum use accounts for 36% of total use; natural gas, 27%; coal, 18%; renewable energy (primarily hydropower) 9%; nuclear, 8%.

The use to which each source of primary energy is put varies widely. For example, 71% of petroleum is used for transportation purposes. 91% of coal is used to generate electricity. Along with nuclear power, which supplies 21% of all electrical power, coal and nuclear account for the lion’s share of electrical power used throughout America.

FUTURE PROSPECTS

OIL

The United States has increased oil production from 5.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 6.5 billion barrels in 2012. This is the result of technological advances, particularly in extracting shale and other “tight” oil formations, as well as the incentive of high prices. Prices could rise even higher as world-wide events, including the possibility of a military clash in the Middle East or Chinese disruption of sea lanes in the Pacific, make an impact.

This is a significant production increase considering a number of governmental handicaps imposed. Most federal lands (Washington owns 650 million acres of land) continue to be kept off-limits for exploitation, and regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency continue to tighten.

If American oil producers are allowed to make appropriate use of domestic resources, there is a continued possibility that the United States could become a net exporter of liquid fuels.

NATURAL GAS

The United States could become a net exporter of natural gas within three years.

According to the industry publication “Energybiz,” “The revolution in drilling technology that has made fracking a household word has changed the American energy policy discussion. Just a few years ago the focus was on dwindling fossil fuels reserves. Now the U.S is debating what to do with all this extra natural gas we have laying around. According to the Associated Press, up to 40% of the U.S. production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) could be exported if all of the current energy company export requests are approved by the government.”

COAL

As the NEW YORK ANALYSIS previously described in depth, the Obama Administration continues to engage in efforts that will have the effect of sharply increasing the cost of coal use. Since the use of coal continues to be an important factor in U.S. energy production, particularly in electrical generation, costs benefits from increases in other energy sources could be offset if those policies continue, to the detriment of power consumers.

NUCLEAR

According to a 2011 assessment by the World Nuclear Association, “The USA is the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity. The country’s 104 nuclear reactors produced 821 billion kWh in 2011, over 19% of total electrical output. There are now 100 units operable and three under construction. Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that 4-6 new units may come on line by 2020, the first of those resulting from 16 license applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors.”

However, in the intervening period, much has changed. During 2013, five nuclear plants have been closed, and expansion efforts at a number of others were halted. Further, 38 older reactors may be shut down early, according to the Vermont Law School Institute for energy & the Environment. A decrease in the availability of nuclear power could have a significant effect on already high power prices, particularly for electricity. Nuclear power provides some of the least expensive energy in the U.S. Proponents note that it is environmentally friendly, providing few emissions. They also note that an ideal safety record in terms of injuries or deaths resulting from its use.

The Manhattan Institute performed a case study on the potential impact of closing the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which is located 40 miles north of New York City. In its study,The Manhattan Institute concluded that:

“… closing IPEC would increase average annual electric expenditures in New York State by $1.5 billion-$2.2 billion over the 15-year period 2016-30. For a typical residential customer, this would mean an increase in the household electric bill of $76-$112 each year. The average increase for a commercial customer would be $772-$1,132 per year. The average increase in industrial customers’ electric bills would be $16,716-$24,517. The largest increase would be for transportation customers, such as the subway system, which would see increases of $1.26-$1.85 million per year. The effects of these higher electricity costs absorbed by customers would ripple through the New York economy, leading to estimated reductions in output of $1.8 billion-$2.7 billion per year over the 15-year period 2016-30. The resulting loss of jobs in the state could range from 26,000 to 40,000 per year, depending on the alternative chosen to replace IPEC.”

Difficult federal roadblocks to the disposal of waste products continue to hamper future prospects.

RENEWABLES

To many, including President Obama, renewable energy-wind, solar, hydropower, biofuels– is the holy grail of energy production. But how much of America’s energy supply can renewables actually provide, and at what cost?

One source of renewable energy that has long been in use is hydroelectric power. According to the Institute for Energy Research,”In 2012, hydropower represented 2.8 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States-much lower than the level it reached in 2011. Hydroelectricity is dependent on amount of participation and will vary somewhat over time…In 2012, renewable energy accounted for 12 percent of the total net electricity generated in the United States Hydropower accounted for 56 percent of that total.”

It is projected that the share of American electrical production will grow, but only from the current 12% to 6% in 2040. Even that modest increase will require a significant increase in the power grid infrastructure, according to the energy collective.com site.

As Congress and the President engage in the annual battle over the federal budget, the massive subsidies given to renewable energy must again be examined. According to theHeritage Foundation “solar and wind receive subsidies of over $23 per megawatt hour compared to $1.59 for nuclear, $0.44 for conventional coal, and $0.25 for natural gas.

CONCLUSION

The United States has abundant sources of energy, sufficient to make it a net exporter within the forseeable future. However, federal regulations and environmental concerns could prevent that from ocurring, as well as keeping prices comparatively high for consumers.

“In regard to the issues of conflicting interest with its surrounding countries, including Japan, China has attempted to change the status quo by force based on its own assertion which is incompatible with the existing order of international law. The attempts have been criticized as assertive and include risky behavior that could cause contingencies. Thus, there is concern over its future direction”.
–Defense of Japan 2013

The planet’s second and third most powerful economies, China and Japan, may be on a path to conflict. The international economy could be devastated as a result.

The South China Sea is the passageway through which over 50% of the world’s merchant fleet tonnage passes. Fully one third of all seagoing traffic sails through it. In excess of six times the amount of oil that is transported through the Suez Canal and seventeen times that which goes through the Panama Canal traverses this vital body of water. It is also the potential battleground for a Sino-Japanese war.

The specific flashpoints include a variety of territorial disputes, some of which are merely points of sovereignty but in several cases also include claims to area which may have a wealth of natural resources vital to the economies of both nations.

Observers from across the globe consider the current tensions between the two nations the worst since World War Two, made even more dangerous by the immediate threat of armed conflict.

A Stratfor Global Intelligence http://www.startfor.com/weekly/understanding-china-Japan-island-conflict examination outlines the internal political dilemmas facing both nations:

“The islands dispute is occurring as China and Japan, the world’s second- and third-largest economies, are both experiencing political crises at home and facing uncertain economic paths forward. But the dispute also reflects the very different positions of the two countries in their developmental history and in East Asia’s balance of power.
“China, the emerging power in Asia, has seen decades of rapid economic growth but is now confronted with a systemic crisis, one already experienced by Japan in the early 1990s and by South Korea and the other Asian tigers later in the decade. China is reaching the limits of the debt-financed, export-driven economic model and must now deal with the economic and social consequences of this change. That this comes amid a once-in-a-decade leadership transition only exacerbates China’s political unease as it debates options for transitioning to a more sustainable economic model. But while China’s economic expansion may have plateaued, its military development is still growing.
“The Chinese military is becoming a more modern fighting force, more active in influencing Chinese foreign policy and more assertive of its role regionally.”
“Japan, by contrast, has seen two decades of economic malaise characterized by a general stagnation in growth, though not necessarily a devolution of overall economic power. Still, it took those two decades for the Chinese economy, growing at double-digit rates, to even catch the Japanese economy. Despite the malaise, there is plenty of latent strength in the Japanese economy. Japan’s main problem is its lack of economic dynamism, a concern that is beginning to be reflected in Japanese politics, where new forces are rising to challenge the political status quo. The long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party lost power to the opposition Democratic Party of Japan in 2009, and both mainstream parties are facing new challenges from independents, non-traditional candidates and the emerging regionalist parties, which espouse nationalism and call for a more aggressive foreign policy.
“Even before the rise of the regionalist parties, Japan had begun moving slowly but inexorably from its post-World War II military constraints. With China’s growing military strength, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and even South Korean military expansion, Japan has cautiously watched as the potential threats to its maritime interests have emerged, and it has begun to take action. The United States, in part because it wants to share the burden of maintaining security with its allies, has encouraged Tokyo’s efforts to take a more active role in regional and international security, commensurate with Japan’s overall economic influence.
“Concurrent with Japan’s economic stagnation, the past two decades have seen the country quietly reform its Self-Defense Forces, expanding the allowable missions as it re-interprets the country’s constitutionally mandated restrictions on offensive activity.
“China is struggling with the new role of the military in its foreign relations, while Japan is seeing a slow re-emergence of the military as a tool of its foreign relations. China’s two-decade-plus surge in economic growth is reaching its logical limit, yet given the sheer size of China’s population and its lack of progress switching to a more consumption-based economy, Beijing still has a long way to go before it achieves any sort of equitable distribution of resources and benefits. This leaves China’s leaders facing rising social tensions with fewer new resources at their disposal. Japan, after two decades of society effectively agreeing to preserve social stability at the cost of economic restructuring and upheaval, is now reaching the limits of its patience with a bureaucratic system that is best known for its inertia.
“Both countries are seeing a rise in the acceptability of nationalism, both are envisioning an increasingly active role for their militaries, and both occupy the same strategic space. With Washington increasing its focus on the Asia-Pacific region, Beijing is worried that a resurgent Japan could assist the United States on constraining China in an echo of the Cold War containment strategy.”

Despite historical animosity between the two great Asian powers, the level of tension now existing was not inevitable. But China’s meteoric development of military strength, fueled by its powerful economy, a newly belligerent attitude in Beijing, a desire to secure advantageous positions in trade and raw materials, and a sharply diminished American naval presence have left Tokyo vulnerable.

It was not that long ago that a far different relationship, at least temporarily, was envisioned by China’s leadership. Henry Kissinger noted in his book, On China, that in 1978, former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping began his series of visits abroad in Japan, ratifying a treaty normalizing relations. According to Kissinger, “Deng’s strategic design required reconciliation, not merely normalization.”

At the time, China feared the Soviet Union, and felt a need for both Japanese technical knowhow and American military backing.

But the Soviet Union fell, China’s economy outperformed Japan, and the U.S. military diminished sharply. Despite a lack of serious threats in the years when Boris Yeltsin reigned in Moscow, Beijing chose to invest heavily in developing a superpower-level military capable not just fully capable of defending the homeland, but of becoming a preeminent power both in Asia and across the globe.

China has been increasingly aggressive in its assertion of territorial claims not recognized by other nations. One year ago, it boldly sailed into and occupied a resource-rich offshore region belonging to America’s longstanding ally, the Philippines. http://www.examiner.com/article/china-philippine-dispute-could-spark-major-conflict The complete lack of an appropriate reaction by White House is reminiscent of Britain and France’s failure to react forcefully to Germany’s aggression in the years leading up to the 1939 start of the European conflict.

A U.S. Naval War College study http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/bfa92a47-1f5f-4c23-974c-f92e1ed27be4/The-Senkaku-Diaoyu-Island-Controversy–A-Crisis-Po.aspx of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island dispute between China and Japan controversy by Paul J. Smith illustrates the dangers in Sino-Japanese territorial disputes:

“The chances for unintentional conflict, perhaps ignited by tactical miscalculation or an accident involving patrol ships or surveillance aircraft, continue to grow. In general, because of changes in the geopolitical environment, including the relative power position of Japan vis-à-vis China, opportunities for peaceful resolution seem to be rapidly fading. The implications for the future of peace and stability in East Asia are potentially grave.
[Three factors are in play] first, the power relationship between Japan and the People’s republic of China, which drives the dynamics of this dispute, is shifting. In the 1970s and, especially, the 1980s Japan’s economic power was unrivaled in East Asia, while China was comparatively undeveloped and militarily weak. Today the situation has changed…
The second factor that negatively influences prospects for peaceful resolution of the controversy is the geographic location of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands within the East China Sea. As China’s naval power grows, the East China Sea is emerging as a “contested space” between China and Japan. Many American military observers believe that China’s military modernization efforts are increasingly oriented toward missions other than Taiwan—for example, defense of territorial claims in the east and south China seas. In addition to the Senkakus/Diaoyus, China and Japan have other ongoing East China sea disputes, some related to maritime boundaries and hydrocarbon resources. A 2008 agreement that would have facilitated joint exploration of hydrocarbon resources in the east China sea was essentially scuttled by the September 2010 dispute centering on the islands.

From a military perspective, Japanese defense officials appear to view China’s advances into the East China Sea with growing alarm. Japan’s 2012 defense white paper argued that China’s navy is seeking to protect and consolidate maritime interests in the east China sea: ‘It is believed that its naval vessels operated near the drilling facilities of the Kashi oil and gas fields in September 2005, partly because China tried to demonstrate [its] naval capabilities of acquiring, maintaining, and protecting its maritime rights and interests.’ The same document reported that the Chinese air force has deployed various types of aircraft (including H-6 medium range bombers and y-8 early warning aircraft) around the east China sea close to Japan’s airspace…the most important—the U.S. role in the islands controversy.

“The third underlying factor is arguably signaled to Japan, if in careful or conditional language, the applicability of article 5 of the U.S.-Japan defense treaty in a senkaku Islands military contingency. A briefing paper prepared for Henry Kissinger in 1972, for example, stated that the Mutual Security Treaty ‘could be interpreted’ to apply to the Senkakus. At various times Japanese officials sought to clarify whether the United states considered the islands within the scope of the alliance. For instance, in a March 1974 meeting between American and Japanese officials, defense agency chief Sadanori Yamanaka inquired whether the United States, notwithstanding its “neutral” position, would be willing to defend the islands on behalf of Japan under the security treaty. a U.S. defense office’ that the islands, which were administered by Japan, would indeed fall under the treaty.”

While the U.S. State Department has provided more direct assurances that its treaty obligations with Japan include these island disputes, Washington’s failure to protect the Philippines from Chinese incursions continues to worry Tokyo.

Beijing’s General Luo Yuan, in a statement issued in 2012, declared that China should prepare for “war at all costs” to take control of the strategic waterway. http://www.examiner.com/article/china-philippine-dispute-could-spark-major-conflict If it occurs, it could engulf the entire planet in a conflict on a scale not seen since World War two.

In July, China sent a fleet in the strait between Russia and Japan, a clear threat to the Tokyo government. According to Floating Steel staff writers, “Two missile destroyers, two frigates and a supply ship passed through the Soya Strait from the Sea of Japan to the Sea of Okhotsk…a fleet of 16 Russian naval ships was seen moving through the Soya Straight” as well. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_naval_fleet_seen_off_northern_Japan_999.html
Among various fatal diseases diabetes is one such dysfunction that can help you to get rid of unbearable penis trouble either due to weak male organ or due to excessive hand practice also online prescription viagra without cause weak erection. According levitra online india to the degree of rejection, medications are prescribed. Therefore, reducing extra pounds and bringing waistline back to the durable and strong phase where impotency can no longer be a worry in your life. raindogscine.com generic levitra online Go with canada viagra cialis and keep some money in your pocket! Ultimately, Sildenafil Citrate is one the highest-rated products for Erectile dysfunction, talk to a trusted doctor now. Overall, China’s activities include intensely provocative moves, including the violation of internationally recognized air and sea space, as well as overtly hostile acts. In January of this year, one of Beijing’s ships directed its fire-control radar at a Japanese naval vessel.

The hostilities have been directed at several nations, including the United States. Fishing boats of several countries have been shot at. In 2009, Chinese vessels intentionally obstructed an American Navy research ship.

According to the authoritative Jamestown Foundation,

“PLA generals have been up front about the possibility of using force to realize China’s oceanic aspirations. As Lieutenant General Wang Sentai, Vice Political Commissar of the PLA Navy, pointed out, ‘History has told us that when our navy is weak, our country is on a downward trend, and when out navy is strong, our country is on the rise,’ he added. Major General Luo Yuan, a hawkish PLA media commentator, reiterated that Beijing might consider the military option against the Philippines. Noting that the Philippine military capacity is among the weakest in Asia, General Luo said that ‘if [Manila] makes an advance of one inch, we will retaliate by making an advance of one foot.’ ‘The South China Sea will become a sea of peace after we have taken back the eight islets that the Philippines have [illegally] occupied,’ he recently noted (China Youth Daily, June 1; China News Service, May 13).” http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=41056&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=25&cHash=4c0f27c3f989560320958d0c44d7eb88#.UhoVaxttiDe
China has been broadly and rapidly modernizing its military forces, and has been rapidly expanding and intensifying its activities in its surrounding waters and airspace. These moves, together with the lack of transparency in its military affairs and security issues, are a matter of grave concern for the region and the international community, including Japan. It is necessary for Japan to pay utmost attention to them…The Chinese national defense budget continues to increase at a rapid pace. The nominal size of China’s announced national defense budget has approximately quadrupled in size over the past ten years, and has grown more than 33-fold over the past 25 years. –Defense of Japan 2013

China’s official military budget has been rapidly increasing, but even the official figure of a 12% increase may not reflect the vast resources available to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA.) The PLA controls a vast network of “private” enterprises, from which it can draw an almost limited amount of funds. China maintains the world’s largest military in terms of sheer numbers, and has progressed significantly to add top quality to its quantity.

China’s Philippine claims are not recognized by any nation or international body. In several cases, off-shores areas claimed and illegally occupied by Beijing are clearly within Manila’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

China recently launched its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, and is expected to develop others in the very near future.

China’s spending has extensively increased both the size and sophistication of its naval forces. Among the most startling developments was the successful deployment of a revolutionary new anti-ship ballistic missile, the DF-21D, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/china-has-begun-limited-deployment-new-antiship-ballistic-missile-pentagon/ the first of its kind on the planet. This unmatched and exceptionally deadly ship-killing weapon has, according to the United States Naval Institute, quickly forced the United States Navy to change its strategy.

JAPAN

This dramatic turn of events has had a profound impact on the people of Japan, who are now debating a sharp reversal in their largely pacifist foreign policy and constitution. Sharp differences regarding territorial claims exist between China and other regional countries, and Beijing’s heavy emphasis on a show of military strength against its far weaker neighbors such as the Philippines and Japan is indicative of the hostile nature and heavy influence of China’s military.
Masahisa Sato, top defense adviser to Shinzo Abe, recently and passionately stated (as quoted in the Wall Street Journal): “we have people we want to protect. We must have the resolve to hand this nation to the next generation.” Japan has finally (after an eleven year hiatus) has finally increased its defense budget.
Japan’s recently issued defense white paper http://www.mod.go.jp/e/publ/w_paper/2013.html outlines Tokyo’s distress:

“China has attempted to change the status quo by force based on its own assertion which is incompatible with international law…China has been rapidly modernizing its military forces…it is necessary for Japan to pay attention…The nominal size of China’s announced national defense budget has approximately quadrupled in size over the past ten years, and has grown more than 33-fold over the past 25 years.”
According to Gertz, China is building two new classes of missile submarine in addition to the eight nuclear missile submarines and six attack submarines being deployed as part of an arms buildup that analysts say appears to put Beijing on a war footing.” http://freebeacon.com/red-china-power/
These developments have forced Tokyo to strongly reconsider its peace constitution. Beijing’s aggressiveness and lack of interest in negotiated settlements, and the long standing hostility between the two nations (extending as far back as the 13th Century) is seen as an existential threat to the Japanese people, forcing the nation to rearm.

Japan recently commissioned the largest warship it has developed since the end of World War 2, the Izumo, a flat-top helicopter destroyer. A purely visual analysis of the new craft suggests it may be able to support VTOL (vertical take off and landing) fighters, as well. This development “would be a departure for Japan…which has not sought to build aircraft carriers of its own because of Constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role,” as noted by a Sky News report. http://news.sky.com/story/1125173/japan-unveils-largest-warship-since-wwii.

Tokyo is also considering instituting a Marine Corps-like capability, as well as the use of military-class drones, according to a SpaceWar sudy. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japan_eyeing_Marines_drones_in_defence_paper_reports_999.html

The recent, unprecedented joint maneuvers between Russia and China in the Sea of Japan sent an unmistakable signal to the United States that a new world order was being born, one which sharply reduces American influence in a portion of the planet that is the fulcrum of international commerce. The increased confidence of Beijing and Moscow, both of which have invested heavily in the development of naval power specifically targeting the supremacy of the diminished U.S. Navy, has dire global implications.

After the bitter experience of World War II, it would be natural to assume that Asian-Pacific nations would be wary of any move by Tokyo towards rearmament. But the threat from China is so significant that the opposite is true.

Defense expert Seth Cropsey, in his recent book, Mayday: The Decline of American Naval Supremacy, notes:

“Alberto del Rosario, the Foreign Affairs Secretary of the Philippines, a nation that imperial Japan ravaged in World War II, said publicly in December 2012 that he ‘would welcome very much’ the rearmament of Japan as a counterpoise to China.’ This startling about-face in a region where memories are long shows how seriously regional powers regard China’s unchecked rising military. American seapwer needs the resources to assure allies, control the seas if necessary, and restrict a potential conflict to the seas t\rather than risk its expansion to the Asian land mass.”

The mainland of the United States, while clear across the vast Pacific Ocean, is not so remote that it beyond the reach of China’s military expansion. According to the Washington Free Beacon, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/7/china-encircles-us-arming-western-hemisphere-state/?page=all “China has been quietly taking steps to encircle the United States by arming Western Hemisphere states, seeking closer military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, and sailing warships into U.S. maritime zone s.” http://www.examiner.com/article/china-a-major-factor-latin-america

In addition to Chinese investments on either side of the Panama Canal, giving Beijing a strategic point from which to counter the American Navy, Nicaragua, led by the Marxist-Leninist Daniel Ortega, has given China a “100 year concession” to build its own alternative to the Panama Canal, according to a report by The Guardian newspaper http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/o6/nicaragua-china-panama-canal

China’s President Xi visited Latin America in June in an effort to bolster Beijing’s arms sales to the region. Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador are recent regional purchasers of Chinese weapons, according to Bill Gertz writing in the Washington Free Beacon.

The sharply weakened American navy, less than half the size of its 1990 peak and the smallest since the First World War, combined with an unprecedented lack of support for American allies, renders this threat from China on a par equal to that faced by France and Britain during the rise of the Third Reich.

The extraordinary irony surrounding President Obama’s Rose Garden message concerning Syria should not be overlooked by the public.
Mr. Obama vehemently critiqued former President George W. Bush’s 2003 war that resulted in the downfall of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein used banned weaponry to murder members of his own citizenry, and committed numerous other crimes against humanity. Obama criticized Bush for his efforts that successfully toppled the illegitimate Iraqi regime.

Along with many other Democrats, Obama falsely stated that Bush was, essentially, acting without international approval. Largely ignored was the 49-member “Coalition of the Willing” that joined with the United States in an effort that was a model of international cooperation. In sharp contrast, Mr. Obama has failed to convince even America’s most steadfast ally, the United Kingdom, to provide assistance.

Rewriting history, many in Mr. Obama’s camp alleged that the Bush Administration acted without the support of the rest of the nation. Conveniently forgotten was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and Republicans. Again in sharp contrast, only after suffering humiliating rejection by both the U.N. and our allies did President Obama mention going to Congress for approval.

This alternative is really extremely safe and Click Here cheap viagra effective. Kamagra helps in fighting both temporary and permanent impotency. discount tadalafil from canada The good thing about web chemists is that they work greatly for viagra price uk men who have ED due to sleep deficiency or lifestyle change can also take kamagra tablets. Read the reviews carefully, note the ingredients in the drugs, make sure they are FDA approved and be certain to inform your doctor about viagra pfizer 25mg taking the drugs. Indeed, not only has Mr. Obama failed to win international support, but he faces vehement and potentially armed opposition from Russia, Iran, and possibly China. These powers now act with greater confidence against the West thanks to Obama’s continued defunding of the American military and his pointless concessions to Moscow in the New Start nuclear arms treaty.

Perhaps the most crushing irony of all was the charge that one of the several causes of the Iraqi War of 2003, the necessity of removing banned weapons such as the material used to gas Iraqi civilians, did not exist. Now, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that these forbidden items did exist and were moved to Syria before Coalition forces could intercept them.

Unlike toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime, the rationale for the Iraqi War of 2003, Mr. Obama’s proposed course of action, launching a limited number of cruise missiles at Syria not to depose Bashar al-Assad, and not to totally destroy his military, but to simply express America’s displeasure, seems unfocused.
The Bush toppling of Saddam Hussein opened up a new era both for the Iraqi people and the Middle East as a whole. Scenes of proud citizens holding up “purple fingers” proving they had voted in that nation’s first free election ouster seemed to foretell a potential new breath of freedom for the entire region. But that accomplishment was all but destroyed by Mr. Obama’s premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, which, in their absence, has fallen prey to extremists and now sits in Iran’s orbit.

Bashar al-Assad’s use of banned weaponry against his own civilians could not be a more blatant violation of United Nations standards. Yet that organization, which Mr. Obama has often deferred to during his tenure, has completely failed to live up to the tenets of its own charter.

The long-delayed western intervention in Syria may well be the most complicated Middle Eastern venture to date.

Unlike prior actions in Iraq or Libya, strong international interests, predominately from Russia and China, are arrayed against humanitarian action, and the regime of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad has shown no reluctance to employ weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, British news sources have reported that Assad’s forces have even fired on U.N. observers. An emboldened Iran could also become a major player.

A number of factors are in play. American credibility is at an all-time low following the Obama Administration’s failure to respond to the murder of its ambassador in Benghazi. The diminished size of the U.S. military, and the White House’s premature withdrawal from Iraq and the announced departure from Afghanistan portray an administration that is allergic to confrontation.

Assad may have a more significant arsenal at this disposal than prior regional adversaries. Israel’s Mossad has reported that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction were evacuated to Syria before the second Gulf War deposed the dictator.

Most worrisome, however, are China and Russia’s steadfast opposition to western action. Both have used their influence at the United Nations. Unusually strong language, including the phrase “catastrophic,” have been employed by Moscow to describe what they believe would be the result of western attempts to intervene on behalf of the Syrian opposition to halt Assad’s internationally banned use of poison gas against his own populace.
Erectile dysfunction (ED) refers to the trouble that a man faces, while achieving and sustaining penile erection. viagra 25 mg http://cute-n-tiny.com/page/48/ If you are older than age 65, or have genuine liver or kidney issues, you tadalafil overnight ought NOT to utilize Kamagra as the 100mg dosage may be excessively high for you. But it also has some other function of promoting the blood circulation and stasis-eliminating, clearing away heat and toxic materials and invigorating the spleen to tadalafil india cialis damp elimination. But, in order to get these details it is definitely necessary to insert the address you wish to make, you must affirm those thoughts daily. http://cute-n-tiny.com/category/cute-animals/page/44/ viagra without prescription
Russia’s opposition is clearly motivated by its direct military self-interest. Moscow has a key naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus. The facility service Russian naval vessels in the Mediterranean, an area that has once again become an active area of contention between Moscow and the West.

President Putin has been strongly dedicated to restoring and enhancing his nation’s oceanic prowess, returning to bases employed by the Soviet Union before it collapsed, and committing vast resources to modernizing and expanding its naval force. The Kremlin announced an unprecedented $700 billion programfor that purpose.
China, which has established close military ties to Russia, has had the most dramatic naval armament program of all. In addition to establishing key elements of blue-water navy such as an aircraft carrier, it has developed sophisticated ship-killing missiles that have no equal anyplace in the world.
The Chinese economy requires vast supplies of oil, and coming to the assistance of the Syrian regime may give it influence to secure supplies.
It is not an exaggeration to state that the possibility of a wider conflict arising out of this situation is a very real danger.

Largely ignored by the media, Coptic Christians, who have been targeted by the former Egyptian President Morsi’s Moslem Brotherhood, marched on the White House on August 22 to protest what they describe as President Obama’s support of that terrorist group.

According to the Coptic Solidarity organization,

“Houses of worship and Coptic-owned property have been systematically targeted and the geographic scope of the attacks has spread to several villages and districts within single governorates; the resulting damage is unprecedented.

“At least 45 churches came under simultaneous attack in various governorates as soon as procedures to clear the two sit-ins began, resulting in the death of 7 citizens, the torching of 25 churches, the looting and destruction of 7 churches and the partial destruction of 5 more churches. This is in addition to assaults on numerous schools, civic associations and church-affiliated social services buildings.” Other reports note that Christian nuns have been paraded through the streets of Cairo as “prisoners of war.”

This was not a reaction to any western influence. Coptics are native to Egypt, and actually constituted the majority religion of the nation as far back as 400 A.D. Even after the Moslem conquests, Coptics remained the majority for hundreds of years. After centuries of Moslem rule, they still represent a significant minority of the population. Both Catholic and Protestant sects of the religion exist.

The drug sildenafil without prescription effectively treats both erectile dysfunction and delayed ejaculation in males. After all, some new parents may prefer to increase the dose to 25mg or 10mg or sometimes may increase the dose to 100mg depending on your problem condition and your body tolerance levels. * Talk 5mg cialis generic to the doctor and do not take the pills from a reputable source. It is easy to get Kamagra from the internet so people want to have this medicine prior to carrying out any sexual purchasing cialis online activity and you can have your share of sexual bliss with your partner for the next 4 to 6 hours. As much as your partner wants you to believe that you just need alcohol to relax you and put you on the buying here levitra uk right track towards starting a family. The White House supported the ousting of former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, who did not oppress Christian groups, was friendly towards the United States, and supported peace in the region. His replacement by Mohammed Morsi, a Moslem Brotherhood leader, was seen as a blow to both Coptic Christians, those supporting middle eastern peace, and improved relations with the West. Despite Morsi’s anti-Coptic, anti-peace, and anti-Western policies, the White House continued aid to Egypt.

Morsi’s rule was marked by administrative chaos and attempts to impose strict Sharia, the harsh Moslem religious-based law. Widespread dissatisfaction with both governmental miscues as well as the attempts to impose Islamic law led to his downfall.

Following Mr. Morsi’s subsequent overthrow by the Egyptian military, the U.S. continued aid, despite federal legal prohibitions against assisting governments formed under those circumstances. In the aftermath of Morsi’s overthrow, however, his Moslem Brotherhood supporters, many of whom were well armed, initiated violent actions against the new government of interim president Adly Mansour. At the same time, the Brotherhood increased its campaign of violence against Coptic Christians.

The Mansour government reacted to the violence by deploying the Egyptian army to contain it. In the ensuing fighting, a number of Moslem Brotherhood fighters were killed. This apparently prompted the White House to cutoff assistance to Egypt. Coptic Christians believe that President Obama’s action encouraged the Moslem Brotherhood.