DeVos Not Fit For ANY Cabinet Position, INHO

A friend of mine, a college professor – who is often on the opposite end of the political spectrum than me, I might add, yet we still seem to remain civil and can actually have intelligent conversations concerning the subject – shared an interaction with Senator Tim Scott (R-SC).

As you can read, she has been teaching for some time and actually has reason to be concerned with the nomination of the Secretary of Education – it is her career and passion to teach young (and old, like me) minds. So for her, and millions of teachers out there, the selection of the next Secretary is a personal issue for them.

(I start off with the comment my friend made on Facebook that accompanied the letter back from the Senator)

“FYI and for the record, I have been teaching for 19 years and find DeVos to be completely unsuitable for the position. I had to earn a degree in education to stand up in front of my students. She has no such degree and no such experience with our public schools. She did donate a hefty sum to Scott's campaign so take that as you will.”

(And now, the letter.)

Dear Mrs. XXXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me in regards to President Donald Trump's nomination of Betsy DeVos to serve as the U.S. Secretary of Education. I appreciate your input on this issue and the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, a new president must nominate hundreds of top political officials to fill out the new administration and this process typically begins before the sitting president leaves office. There are three stages to this entire procedure: the first step is the nomination by the newly elected president, the second step is the consideration and confirmation by the Senate, and the third step is the appointment by the president if the nominee is confirmed by the Senate.

My role in the process of appointing top political officials is explicitly laid out in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the president shall nominate with the "advice and consent" of the Senate.

I believe a great education is one of the most essential things we can give our children, and it is important that the American dream remains in reach for every American. However, despite tripling federal investments in K-12 education since 1965 and increasing involvement from the Department of Education, substantial achievement gaps persist and our rankings among other developed countries in math, reading, and science continue to decline. A larger federal government is not the solution to any of the challenges we face as a nation, and it certainly is not the solution in education.

For decades, Mrs. DeVos has been an advocate for parents who simply want more choice in determining the best education for their children. Her passion for helping children is undeniable and I am optimistic that, if confirmed, her leadership will help generate innovative solutions that will unleash students' potential like we haven't seen before.

I grew up in a low-income community and almost failed out of high school. Since coming to Congress in 2010, I have been a strong supporter of school choice. My mission has always been to help kids growing up in poor neighborhoods, like the one I did, to achieve their dreams. My desire to achieve that goal has not and will not waiver, no matter who leads the Department of Education.

Like me, Mrs. DeVos supports and respects the value of a public school education. But if a school is unsafe or unable to adequately prepare students, she believes that parents should have the ability to pick a better, safer school for their children; whether that school be public, private, or charter. Mrs. DeVos is a supporter of all schools.

Rest assured, I am fully aware of the gravity of this decision and I will not consider it lightly. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate begins the confirmation process.

Again, thank you for sharing your perspective with me; I hope that you will continue to do so in the future. If I can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of my staff.

For more information, please visit my website at www.scott.senate.gov and subscribe to my monthly e-newsletter. I also encourage you to follow me on Facebook: www.facebook.com/SenatorTimScott and Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenatorTimScott for daily updates.

Sincerely,

Tim Scott

United States Senator

I responded to my friend - and I would say the same thing directly to Sen. Scott, given the chance - “Perhaps you can remind Sen. Scott that being an advocate and passionate about something does not translate to being qualified. I have been an advocate of NASA and passionate about us doing more to get us back out there and doing interplanetary exploration. But that hardly makes me qualified to run NASA. Nor does it even make me qualified to be an astronaut at NASA.”

Just because a President nominates an individual for a cabinet position (or Supreme Court . . . or anything really), doesn't mean Congress HAS to confirm them. I mean, if I were President and I had to fill all these positions, I would look to those I know for both possible candidates for those positions and recommendations to fill them. Doesn't mean I KNOW the right person for the job.

That's where the confirmation process comes in. That's where you look at the person and say yes or no. That's when you LOOK at their qualifications.

Their qualification! Not what they are passionate about! Not what they have been advocates of or for!

And DEFINITELY NOT in response to how much money they have or have given to you. (The latter of which might look suspiciously like a bribe – just saying!)

As for DeVos herself? Here is a little bit about her qualifications . . . or lack thereof.

• She was chair of the Michigan Republican Committee. Not a qualification for Secretary of Education.
• She is married to the Heir of Amway. Not a qualification.
• She was the chair of American Federation for Children. Not a qualification and actually seems like conflict of interest type of thing.
• She is head of many philanthropic groups. Not a qualification. Means she's rich, not qualified.
• She has a Bachelor's degree in business administration and political science. A qualification, but not what one would say is a good one.

There are those that may point out the precedent set by previous Presidents where the Secretary of Education did not have a degree in Education. True.

She was George W Bush's Secretary of Education did not have one in Education. But that really didn't work out too well, if you recall. Margaret Spellings, one day after being confirmed, threatened PBS demanding they nit air an episode where an animated bunny learns about maple syrup from kids with lesbian parents (despite the fact that the episode only has the kids saying they have a mom and a stepmom, which can easily be assumed to mean dad got remarried . . . . but Spellings' mind went to the lesbian route and was offended by it). She advocated “No Child Left Behind”, and insulted Connecticut when it resisted by calling the state (not a person but the whole state) bigots. As for the student loan controversy, this followed her to University of North Carolina, where the decision to bring her in as President led to the resignation of the university's board chair.

“Spellings made over $330,000 working for the Apollo Group, the parent company of University of Phoenix, a for-profit online college that has been widely criticized for taking advantage of its students and delivering poor results. Although federal education funds account for nearly 90 percent of the company’s revenue, graduation rates were as low as 4 percent under Spellings’ tenure.” ~~ News Observer, November 2, 2015

And finally, as recently as 2016, Spellings Presidency at the University was marred by her lack of discretion, insulting the LGBT community. (Seems she really still has a problem with lesbians, like she did back in 2005.

So do we want someone like Spellings? Is it a good precedent to follow, having someone in the position to oversee the nation's education system, policies and all, without a degree in education? And honestly, coming from someone who is highly educated but holds no actual degrees, do you really want someone as Education Secretary to only hold a Bachelor's degree . . . and in political science?

I think not.

As much as I thought, way back 2011, that Tim Scott was an intelligent individual who wants only what is best for his constituents, I must now say things have changed. Scott has become a party tool. Instead of dispensing his duties for the benefit of South Carolinians, he seems to only hold what the party wants him to hold as important. His response is a political one. Not a response one gives to his constituents. (And its a form response, as others have gotten the same . . . exact . . . letter. Just the name is different.)

As for the letter? It begins, very condescendingly, as though speaking to a child, when – in fact – he (or his staff) knew they were speaking to an educator with nearly two decades teaching. Very insulting. Then it goes on to sound like a press release praising DeVos . . . . not a good sign when this person is supposed to still be weighing the facts in a confirmation hearing.

There is the line about DeVos supporting public education. In actuality, her work has been more for the benefit of private institutions then for helping the public education system.

And then there is (especially in reference to the comment above about the DeVos support for the Scott campaign) the political donations. The DeVos family has been donating HUGE sums of money to Republican Party SuperPacs and individual campaigns (such as Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina) for decades. And do they do this out of the goodness of their hearts or because they believe in the party or the candidates (remember, she once called Trump an “interloper” and representative of the Republican Party)? In truth, in a 1997 Op-Ed in Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, DeVos wrote "[M]y family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party….I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now, I simply concede the point. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment; we expect a good and honest government. Furthermore, we expect the Republican party to use the money to promote these policies, and yes, to win elections."

This is a telling passage in this OpEd by DeVos. But the whole editorial is even more telling. She states that “[i]n politics, money is speech. You don't have free speech without it.” She seems to feel that those with money “know more” than the politicians, therefore, their money is important to a role in free speech of all Americans. She likens campaign finance reform to an assault on free speech, saying without the big money she and groups like labor unions spend during a given election year allows voters to be more informed when they vote. Yet in the same article she states how the labor advertising done by labor unions were “misleading, and in some cases, dishonest.”

DeVos finishes off this article with a dire extrapolation of the McCain-Feingold finance reform bill.

“For those who support attacks on free speech, such as those in the many versions fo the McCain-Feingold bill, perhaps they should be thinking through to its long conclusion. They must be willing to place limits on the number of news stories the media can run, the number of editorials they can print, the number of newspapers they can sell, and the number of news shows they can air. If we are going to restrict free speech, we need to do it for everybody.”

The ideals she expresses throughout this editorial equating money with free speech, the way she places on the same level news stories and paid for political advertisements, is so far afield of free anything, let alone free speech, that one has to wonder how her priorities in life got so skewed.

Is this a person we want shaping the educational system in this country?

For my money, which is nowhere near as much as the DeVos family fortune, I can't see how anyone, even someone who benefited from this huge resource of cash, can think she is right for this or any other political position.

Senators like Tim Scott should be appalled at the level of sanctimony and privilege DeVos displays in this article.

(Unfortunately, if you read Scott's letter, it sounds his mind has been made up, despite the opposition by his constituents. One has to wonder, if not for those he represents, then for whom does he act as cheerleader for DeVos.)

I include as much information and resources as I can in this editorial of my own. I let you, the reader take form it whatever information you can glean and make up your own mind. Because, as always, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day!

Charles

Author's Notes:

• The October 6, 1997 op-ed DeVos wrote for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call is not available online. The archives editor at the paper has sent me a copy of the piece and I include it here.
• An email to Senator Scott's office, specifically to his Communications Director Sean Smith, about claims whether DeVos contributed to his campaign have not been responded to as of yet. I guess you can take that as either a “no comment” or as “we don't care to respond to an American citizen's request for transparency. (Or maybe its just a “we're too busy to answer some nobody journalist's question” response.)

Harry Reid to destroy US Senate

Harry Reid has decieded, in his almighty status as head of the US Senate, to destroy a deliberative body that has stood for centuries as a means of legal jurisdiction and citizen representation.

In a move to protect his Democrat colleagues, he turned around a Senate rule that allowed for conversation, albeit often fraught with arumentative and fractious debate, into a pass for anyone having to make tough votes that may get them booted their next election cycle.

For this move alone, Reid and all his croney buddies should get the boot. Their should be recalls and citizen outrage.

But what will happen?

Nothing. Because the President, the Congress and so many rich loud mouth politico wannabes will squash any attempt to do so. They will do it with page 23 news of Reid's move, lashing out at anyone who makes an issue of it and burying any news article that attempts to inform the general public that it is being done.

This is what is wrong with this country. Not the TEA party movements, not the talking heads of media circus shows, not the legitimate disagreement between people who have a differing view of things. It will not be done by business, it will not even be done by unions (although they are quite often behind the squashing of real dialogue and all about disinformation). It will be by the power mad leaders of this country who care more about their position, their jobs, their public image than they do about America and Americans.

Just as Nancy Pelosi did in the opening of the Democratic majority House in 2008 by making sure no Republicans could offer bills or amendments, Harry Reid has decided that no Republicans can offer amendments or force a vote that will make his Democratic buddies look bad.

Shame on you harry Reid for abandoning the ideals and principles that made this country and the august body of Congress great! Nail another coffin in the future of America that you have so diligently worked so hard to destroy in your selfish and self absorbed bid to stay in power. Shame on you and anybody who blindly follows you into creating a hell WE all have t live in!

And don't think I don't believe for a second if the shoes were reversed that the entrenched Washington machine of the Republican Party would not chomp at the bit to do the same thing.

All these politicians are just as guilty of destroying this country and losing focus on what it truly means to be American, to work for a better America - one where there is a future as proud as its past.

(Before you naysayers and America bashers start enumerating the foibles of America's past and their faults, I do not overlook them - I just choose to see the big picture that DESPITE the missteps of America's history, it is STILL the greatest nation in comparison to the rest of the world.)

AGree with me or disagree with me, I don't care. Just open your eyes, stop letting others do your thinking and realize the damage being done by those in power who have forgotten their duty. But hey, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

You have yourself a great day.

Charles

Reid pushes social agenda disguised as Defense Bill

The Defense Bill that failed Cloture vote today is just another attempt by Reid and the Democrats to not only push social agendas but to curry favor with Hispanic and illegal immigrants in his bid for re-election.

Not only is there a number of ill-concieved wasteful spending measures in the bill itslef, three social agenda provisions / amendments are also included. And reid wanted to limit both debate and Republican amendments to the bill. This is not only shameful on the part of the Senate majority Leader, it is close to criminal. It is a misuse of office. Reid and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for using a military spending bill for their personal benefits.

On the issue of the "don't ask, don't tell" repel language in the bill, I personally have no opinion. While I was in the navy, the world was a different place as far as gays in the military were concerned. Hell, women were just being assigned non-combat duties on Navy vessels at the time. And that was controversial enough. The idea of serving next to and depending on a gay man in the Navy was scary. Today, our young men and women in the military are more accepting of this lifestyle and as long as they are not susceptible to blackmail by terrorists, I hold no concerns.

But on the issue of the language regarding abortions at military facilites, I hold a person distaste for what would essentially turn our military bases into abortion clinics. This may seem a harsh condemnation of this but to me a life is precious and should be protected from the moent of conception. Allowing for women to have abortions funded by the people and performed by dedicated men and women who are normally in the business of saving precious lives, this is an aberration. They would be "ordered" to perform these abortions. And this is unconscionable. For this reason alone it should not be part of any bill on defense spending and should be taken up separately.

The last part of the social agenda of the Democrats and Reid is the inclusion of their DREAM ACT, which is an fancy way of giving a green light to illegal immigration and has no business being tacked onto a Defense Spending bill. This issue is both a hotly contested one in the America today and should not be treated lightly or as a way for Reid to cull the favor of ANY potential voter.

Immigration is a separate issue with many facets to it. It deserves debate by serious people looking for real solutions, not as some political trickery. Reid (and Pelosi on the House side of the bill) are both charlatans masquerading as leaders. They have no business being in charge of such important legislation. By denying debate and attempting to shove yet another social agenda bill in the gusie of real legislation, Reid has shown himself a smarmy politician only concerned with keeping his cushy job in DC.

I am proud of our Republican leaders and the 2 Democrats who stepped up in the Senate to say NO to this travesty. With unemployment so high, I think it would be a refreshing change to fire people like Pelosi and Reid come this November and give the job to people who are serious about the business of America. And fixing the real problems we have.

Now, as always, you can agree with my view of thsi disgustingly political bill or you can disagree with my assessment that Reid and company do a great diservice to this country with their abominable actions on this vote. It really amkes no difference to me. Just so long as I get you top think for yourself and not listen to all the namby pamby left wing media who are just cowering to the White House for some sound bite time. But hey, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.