Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

What is the basis for Mr. Obama’s views on national security?  Indeed, what are those views? Five years into his presidency, the question still needs to be asked.

The President of the United States has extensive authority http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html to deal with foreign affairs http://www.examiner.com/article/america-s-foreign-policy-disasters?cid=db_articles and national security.  While he has wide latitude to pursue his goals (subject to the Senate’s consent role in treaties and the budgetary powers of Congress) most would agree that he at least owes both the legislative branch and the nation a thorough explanation of his worldview.

 

The New York Analysis reviewed Mr. Obama’s campaign statements, press conferences, speeches, the White House web site http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases , and the statements of his national security advisor.

 

Beyond his general attempt to initiate a “reset” with Russia, which the Moscow Times describes as a “failure,” http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/obamas-doomed-reset/486998.html  and moving some naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is an extraordinary paucity of specific policies for defense. Relations with Russia’s renewed cold war attitude, or China’shttp://www.examiner.com/article/china-s-hidden-military-budget

dramatically enlarged and technologically sophisticated military, or even the strategic military advances of  Iran and North Korea,http://www.examiner.com/article/north-korea-an-urgent-threat constitute a  deteriorating world security environment, but the White House has yet to change course, or even to pay significant attention, to developments that run counter to its  apparent desire to put international matters on the backburner.

 

As this edition goes to press, Russia has made threatening moves towards Ukraine, and has stationed tactical nuclear-capable weapons (ISKANDER missileshttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/16/us-russia-missiles-idUSBRE9BF0W020131216) on its European border.  Chinese warships have fired on Philippine fisherman in an area international law states belongs to Manila. Japan feels so threatened that political forces advocating n end to its peace constitution are gaining ground. Both Moscow and Beijing, along with North Korea and Iran are continuing their extraordinary strategic and tactical strategic arms buildup.

 

The threat to the U.S. may be even more local.  As noted in a recent report from the Center for Security Policy, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2014/02/24/americas-provacative-weakness/  “A North Korean tramp steamer, the Chong Chon Gang, was intercepted in Panama last summer and discovered to have concealed in its hold surface-to-air missiles and other weaponry from Cuba.  The movement of the nuclear-capable SA-2 SAMs through Caribbean waters demonstrates Pyongyang’s inherent capability to use such ship-borne weapons as launch vehicles for a potentially devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP)  attack on our electric grid.”

 

Against this backdrop, the Obama Administration continues its advocacy of a major downsizing of the U.S. military.  As noted by the Council on Foreign Relations, the President proposes continuous reductions of military spending for the next decade, when it will account for 2.4% of GDP, the lowest in the post World War 2 era. http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855 Some of those who have been close to the President on this issue, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have been sharply critical of his general attitude towards the military. http://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War-ebook/dp/B00F8F3J2S

 

 

The President’s attempt to “Reset” relations with Russia was the early centerpiece of his foreign and defense policies.

 

Writing in the Moscow Times, Sergei Karagonov opined on what he believes is the flawed concept of Mr. Obama’s reset, even from the Russian perspective: (the perspective of American critics is that it gave too much to Russia without gaining anything substantive in return) “…the U.S. proposed nuclear weapons reductions as th primary mechanism of the diplomatic reset…But progress soon stalled with Russia rejecting U.S. proposals…In the hope of breaking the deadlock, Obama signaled his willingness to compromise.  But Putin had little reason to reciprocate, not least because agreement on the issue would have opened the door to further nuclear arms reductions. Moreover, members of Russia’s military and political elite hoped to use some of the country’s oil revenues to deploy a new generation of ICBMs…By focusing on nuclear disarmament and new START, Obama’s reset strategy remilitarized the U.S.-Russia relationship while marginalizing issues that could have reoriented bilateral ties toward the future.  In this sense, the initiative was doomed from the start, and the whole world has suffered as a result.” http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/obamas-doomed-reset/486998.html

 

 

What is manifestly evident is Mr. Obama’s desire to downsize of the U.S. military, regardless of external factors.

 

Indeed, Despite the reduction of defense spending levels as a percent of the GDP and the federal budget to historic low points, and rising, dangerous threats from abroad, the U.S. military is being asked to absorb massive new cuts.

 

America’s armed forces have been sharply reduced, as outlined by Rep. Randy Forbes http://forbes.house.gov/news/documentprint.aspx?DocumentID=254787

 

Compromising Defense The U.S. has a shrinking force. ·         In 1990, the U.S. had a 546-ship Navy; today we have 285. ·         The U.S. had 76 Army brigades in 1990; today we have 45. ·         Two decades ago the Air Force had twice as many fighter squadrons and bombers as today. ·         China now has more ships in their Navy than the U.S. has in its Navy. The U.S. has an aging force. ·         Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago. ·         Bombers average 34 years in age. Our tankers are nearly 50 years old. The U.S. has a strained force. ·         In the last four years inspection failures for Navy ships have nearly tripled. ·         1 in 5 ships inspected is either unfit for combat or severely degraded. ·         A majority of the Navy’s deployed aircraft are unable to accomplish all of their assigned missions. ·         We already have a $367 million in needed repairs to our ships. ·         Marine Corps stockpiles of critical equipment such as radios, small arms and generators face severe shortages. ·         Over a third of Active Army units do not have sufficient personnel to perform their missions. ·         Army needs $25 billion to reset its force right now. ·         Marines need $12 billion to reset its force right now. Our nation’s top brass have said our military cannot sustain deep defense cuts. Some components of the Air Force “are right at the ragged edge.” Proposed cuts would result in a “fundamental restructure of what it is our nation expects from our Air Force.” General Philip Breedlove, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Deep cuts would lead to “fundamental changes” in the capability of our Marine Corps. General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps The Army cannot meet all of the current, validated needs of commanders on the ground. General Peter Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army “I can’t see how we can sustain this pace of operations indefinitely and meet our readiness standards.” To meet unconstrained combatant commander demands, “I’d need, doing some analysis, about 400 ships. I have 285 ships today.” Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Getting the price viagra 100mg for sale ticket dismissed will not be marked as spam. Don’t Just getting viagra without prescription Go for Price There is often a misconception that Kamagra medicines available online are clinically tested to guarantee satisfactory results at much affordable cost. After gallbladder removal surgery, some people experience chronic buying viagra uk diarrhea. “Bathroom” issues are a sensitive subject. This is the biggest rationality why beginning together ordine cialis on line http://www.learningworksca.org/resources/in-the-news/ with vigilant command is crucial to get people with diabates at every stage from the problems.
Other elected officials and defense officials have also noted that U.S. armed forces have already endured significant budget cuts.  Much of the military equipment that remains has been worn down through years of fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Key parts of the nation’s conventional and nuclear arsenals are old enough to be considered antiques, with some pilots flying the same aircraft their grandfathers flew.  Unlike other nuclear powers, America has not modernized its strategic arsenal in decades.  For budgetary reasons, the nation may reduce its first line of maritime defense, aircraft carriers, to a level below what is truly vital. Command and control functions once thought invulnerable are now subject to destruction.

 

The proposed cuts www.defense.gov/newsarticle.aspx?id=121703 are based on the assumption that the U.S. will not be involved in any significant altercations in the near future. Critics note that this is similar to cutting back a local fire department on the premise that there would be fewer fires. Sydney Freeburg, writing in Breaking Defense, quotes General McMaster’s criticism that America can’t merely “opt out” of certain kinds of conflict.

 

The cuts would reduce the army to its smallest size since before World War II. It would eliminate one of the Air Force’s most useful weapons, the A10 Warthog, which Congress has said recently said was too crucial to lose. http://defensetech.org/2013/12/13/bill-blocks-air-force-from-retiring-a-10-warthog/

 

Despite the significant history of personnel injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new ground combat vehicle program http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44044-GCV.pdf would be cancelled.

 

The number of active duty soldiers would be reduced to the lowest point (approximately 440,000) in three-quarters of a century. The National Guard would also be reduced by 10,000 to 195,000. The Navy would see fully half of its 22 cruisers placed into mothballs. Littoral combat ships would be reduced from 52 to 32. There would be an undisclosed number of base closures, as well. The Marines would be reduced by about 4%.Special forces would grow by about 4,000 personnel, and the cuts in research and development would be halted.

 

 

There would be significant disincentives http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/199050-hagel-unveils-basics-of-2015-defense-budget-request for those enlisted in the military to remain, or those thinking of enlisting to join. Cuts would be made in housing allowances, reimbursement for renters insurance, and commissary subsidiaries. There would be cuts to health benefits, lowered future increases in salaries, and a freeze in pay for senior officers.

 

 

All this is occurring as China and Russia astronomically increase their defense spending, and deploy technology that in some cases exceeds that of the U.S. The risk of an attack is actually greater than it was during the cold war, due to the growing ICBM and nuclear technology of Iran and North Korea, as well as Beijing’s increased aggressiveness and confidence.

 

The system of alliances that helped discourage a world war has been weakened, as Washington’s relations with allied nations in Europe and Asia are increasingly strained. In Latin America, several governments are openly hostile to the United States, and have invited increased Iranian, Russian and Chinese commercial and military interests to play a larger role within their borders.

 

The fact that this is occurring while America’s adversaries are increasing their militaries could be described as a move towards a partial unilateral disarmament. Mr. Obama’s recent comments that he wished to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal, without a reciprocal requirement from other atomic powers, gives credence to this view.

 

 

Since Mr. Obama has not explicitly shared his perspective on national security, the public must examine his actions and attempt to glean from them his views.

 

Contrary to all evidence, including Moscow’s extraordinary military buildup, its development of new nuclear missiles, its growing naval power, its re-development of cold war bases around the world, its return to cold war strategic patrols off America’s coasts and Putin’s aggressive statements, the President clings to the “reset” policy that he and former Secretary of State Clinton proclaimed in 2009 that essentially declares Russia to be a non-problem.

 

Similarly, the President has largely chosen to ignore China’s unprecedented military buildup in size and technological sophistication, the aggressive comments of its military leaders, its cyber-attacks and intensive espionage on U.S. soil, and most importantly, its assaults on U.S. allies such as Japan and the Philippines, other than redeploying some ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

 

Attempting to balance the US budget through military cuts is, ultimately, a doomed policy.  defense costs makes up, on average, less than 19% of Washington spending https://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-security/defense-budget, and substantial reductions have already been made; as noted by the Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855 the reduction in 2012, from $711 billion to $668 billion was, in dollar terms, “the largest decline since 1991.” That was shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union and before the rise of Russian militarism under Putin.

 

The President appears to truly believe that there is no current or immediately prospective significant threat to the national security of the United States or its key allies.  Given that perspective, it is not surprising that he has slashed the Pentagon’s budget.  Unfortunately, every shred of empirical evidence directly and overwhelmingly contradicts Mr. Obama’s worldview.

 

The President’s lack of attention to this most vital area and his lack of clarity and candor with the public is deeply disturbing.

 

 

Threat Assessment

Against a backdrop of quickly deteriorating global relations both between Washington and other governments, and rapidly escalating tensions between nations across the globe, James R, Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, has recently testified to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  

 

From the streets of the Ukraine to the waters surrounding Japan and thePhilippines where the potential for combat is ever-present, the world teeters on the edge of a scale of warfare not seen since 1945.

The people of Israel feel a sense of dread not equaled since the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Taliban is preparing to retake Afghanistan, and al Qaedacontrols more territory than ever in the Middle East.

 

Moscow is violating arms agreements without any serious discussion of penalty from the White House, as Putin develops a military even more powerful than it possessed during the Cold War.  China has devoted its vast riches to the construction of an armed force larger in size than any other nations’, with high-tech weapons that in many cases surpass our own.

 

In North Korea, people are subjected to a level of atrocities not seen since the concentration camps of the 1940s, as their government continues to rapidly build nuclear weapons and ICBMS capable of delivering them to American soil.

 

Parts of Latin America are suffering under despotic regimes that repress their own citizens and openly call the United States their enemy.  These governments have opened their doors to the militaries and intelligence services of Iran, China, and Russia.

 

Several nations that formerly were allied in interest with Washington, such as Egypt  and Turkey, are now looking towards America’s enemies for arms deals.

 

CIA Camel A U.S. Marine Corps mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle provides security in the Now Zad district in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, Feb. 16, 2014. The vehicle is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. The unit supported Afghan forces conducting an operation in the area. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Sean Searfus

Excepts from

The Remarks of National Intelligence Director

James R. Clapper

to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

on the 2014 Worldwide Threat Assessment

Clapper’s remarks

“I’ve not experienced a time when we have been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.

 

“My list is long. It includes the scourge and diversification of terrorism, loosely connected and globally dispersed, to include here at home, as exemplified by the Boston Marathon bombing; the sectarian war in Syria, its attraction as a growing center of radical extremism and the potential threat this poses to the homeland.

 

“Let me briefly expand on this point. The strength of the insurgency in Syria is now estimated at somewhere between 75 or 80,000 or up to 110 to 115,000 insurgents, who are organized into more than 1,500 groups of widely varying political leanings.

 

“Three of the most effective are the Al-Nusrah Front, Ansar Al- Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq in the Levant, or ISIL, as it’s known, who total about 26,000 insurgents. Complicating this further are the 7,500 or so foreign fighters from some 50 countries who have gravitated to Syria. Among them are a small group of Af-Pak Al Qaida veterans who have the aspirations for external attack in Europe, if not the homeland.

 

“And there are many other crises and threats around the globe, to include the spillover of the Syria conflict into neighboring Lebanon and Iraq; the destabilizing flood of refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, now about 2.5 million people, a symptom of one of the largest humanitarian disasters in a decade; the implications of the drawdown in Afghanistan; the deteriorating internal security posture in Iraq, with AQI now in control of Fallujah; the growth of foreign cyber capabilities, nation- states and non-nations states as well; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; aggressive nation-state intelligence efforts against us; an assertive Russia; a competitive China; a dangerous, unpredictable North Korea; a challenging Iran; lingering ethnic divisions in the Balkans; perpetual conflict and extremism in Africa, in Mali, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, and in South Sudan; violent political struggles in, among others, the Ukraine, Burma, Thailand, and Bangladesh; the specter of mass atrocities; the increasing stress of burgeoning populations; the urgent demands for energy, water and food; the increasing sophistication of transnational crime; the tragedy and magnitude of human trafficking; the insidious rot of invented synthetic drugs; potential for pandemic diseases occasioned by the growth of drug resistant bacteria.

 

“I could go on with this litany, but suffice to say that we live in a complex, dangerous world…

 

“My second topic is what has consumed extraordinary time and energy for much of the past year in the intelligence community, in the Congress, in the White House, and, of course, in the public square.

 

“I’m speaking, of course, about potentially the most massive and most damaging theft of intelligence information in our history by Edward Snowden, and the ensuing avalanche of revelations published and broadcast around the world. I won’t dwell on the debate about Snowden’s motives or his legal standing or on the supreme ironies occasioned by his choice of freedom-loving nations and beacons of free expression to which he fled and from which he rails about what an Orwellian state he thinks this country has become.

 

“But what I do want to speak to, as the nation’s senior intelligence officer, is the profound damage that his disclosures have caused and will continue to cause. And, as a consequence, in my view, this nation is less safe and its people less secure.

What Snowden has stolen and exposed has gone way, way beyond his professed concerns with so-called domestic surveillance programs. As a result, we’ve lost critical foreign intelligence collections sources, including some shared with us by valued partners.

 

“Terrorists and other adversaries of this country are going to school on U.S. intelligence sources, methods and trade craft. And the insights that they are gaining are making our jobs much, much harder. And this includes putting — putting the lives of members or assets of the intelligence community at risk, as well as our armed forces, diplomats and our citizens.

We’re beginning to see changes in the communications behavior of adversaries, particularly terrorists, a disturbing trend that I anticipate will continue. Snowden, for his part, claims that he’s won and that his mission is accomplished. If that’s so, I call on him and his accomplices to facilitate the return of the remaining stolen documents that have not yet been exposed, to prevent even more damage to U.S. security.

 

“As a third, and related point, I want to comment on the ensuing fallout. It pains me greatly that the National Security Agency and its magnificent workforce have been pilloried in public commentary…

 

“As I and other leaders in the community have said many times, NSA’s job is not to target the e-mails and phone calls of U.S. citizens. The agency does collect foreign intelligence, the whole reason that NSA has existed since 1952, performing critical missions that I’m sure the American people wanted to carry out.

 

“Moreover, the effects of the unauthorized disclosures hurt the entire Intelligence Community, not just NSA. Critical intelligence capabilities in which the United States has invested billions of dollars are at risk or likely to be curtailed or eliminated either because of compromise or conscious decision. Moreover, the impact of the losses caused by the disclosures will be amplified by the substantial budget cuts we’re incurring.

 

“The stark consequences of this perfect storm are plainly evident. The Intelligence Community is going to have less capacity to protect our nation and its allies than we’ve had. In this connection, I am also compelled to note, as did Ranking Member Ruppersberger, the negative morale impact this perfect storm has had on the I.C. workforce, which were compounded by sequestration, furloughs, the shutdown and salary freezes.

 

“This leads me to my fourth point: We are thus faced collectively — and by collectively I mean this committee, the Congress at large, the executive branch, and, most acutely, all of us in the intelligence community — with the inescapable imperative to accept more risk. It’s a plain hard fact and a circumstance that the community must, and will, manage, together with you and with those we support in the executive branch.

 

“But if dealing with reduced capabilities is what we — is needed to ensure the faith and confidence of the American people and their elected representatives, then we in the intelligence community will work as hard as we can to meet the expectations before us.

 

“And that brings me to my fifth and final point: The major takeaway for us, and certainly for me from the past several months is that we must lean in the direction of transparency wherever and whenever we can. With greater transparency about these intelligence programs, the American people may be more likely to accept them…”

 

 U.S. Force train Afghan police (DoD photo)

 

WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT’S WORLDVIEW? 

 

As the planet becomes far more dangerous, the U.S. military continues to shrink.

While all this occurs, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaims that global warming is his main concern.

 

The time has long passed for highly important and urgently appropriate questions about the Obama Administration’s foreign policy strategy and goals, as well as its vision of America’s international role.

There are two salient issues involved.  The first is the incredible deterioration of international relations during Obama’s tenure. The second is the complete failure of the President to share with the American people his worldview. Since his election, Mr. Obama has been exceptionally hesitant to explain his worldview. He has commented about foreign affairs far less, in speeches, press conferences, and state of the union addresses than his predecessor.

 

Critics have raised serious questions about the priorities of a President who rushes to ouster an Egyptian regime that was friendly to the U.S., and a Libyan regime that was fighting al Qaeda, but does nothing of substance to assist Iranian dissidents who are seeking to reform the Tehran government, or to assist Cuban political prisoners, or those seeking to restore democracy in Venezuela, or Ukrainians seeking to avoid a Kremlin takeover.

 

There has been a noticeable lack of communications from the Oval Office of the President, or the State Department under Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, about what direction they are steering this nation in, and why there has been no discussion of this Administration’s intentions.

 

What is the basis for Mr. Obama’s views on national security?  Indeed, what are those views? Five years into his presidency, the question still needs to be asked.

 

The President of the United States has extensive authority to deal with foreign affairs  and national security.  While he has wide latitude to pursue his goals (subject to the Senate’s consent role in treaties and the budgetary powers of Congress) most would agree that he at least owes both the legislative branch and the nation a thorough explanation of his worldview.

 

The New York Analysis reviewed Mr. Obama’s campaign statements, press conferences, speeches, the White House web site, and the statements of his national security advisor.

 

Beyond his general attempt to initiate a “reset” with Russia, which the Moscow Times describes as a “failure,”   and moving some naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is an extraordinary paucity of specific policies for defense. There has been no publicly stated policy to deal with an era when Russia has a renewed cold war attitude, China has a dramatically enlarged and technologically sophisticated military, and Iran and North Korea continue to make strategic weapons advances. The White House has, as far as can be discerned, yet to  pay significant attention to developments that run counter to its  apparent desire to put international matters on the backburner.

As this edition goes to press, Russia has made threatening moves towards Ukraine, and has stationed tactical nuclear-capable weapons (ISKANDERmissiles)  on its European border.  Chinese warships have fired on Philippine fisherman in an area international law states belongs to Manila. Japan feels so threatened that political forces advocating an end to its peace constitution are gaining ground. Both Moscow and Beijing, along with North Korea and Iran are continuing their extraordinary strategic and tactical strategic arms buildup.

The threat to the U.S. may be even more local.  As noted in a recent report from the Center for Security Policy,  “A North Korean tramp steamer, the Chong Chon Gang, was intercepted in Panama last summer and discovered to have concealed in its hold surface-to-air missiles and other weaponry from Cuba.  The movement of the nuclear-capable SA-2 SAMs through Caribbean waters demonstrates Pyongyang’s inherent capability to use such ship-borne weapons as launch vehicles for a potentially devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP)  attack on our electric grid.”

 

Against this backdrop, the Obama Administration continues its advocacy of a major downsizing of the U.S. military.  As noted by the Council on Foreign Relations, the President proposes continuous reductions of military spending for the next decade, when it will account for 2.4% of GDP, the lowest in the post World War 2 era.  Some of those who have been close to the President on this issue, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have been sharply critical of his general attitude towards the military.

 

The President’s attempt to “Reset” relations with Russia was the early centerpiece of his foreign and defense policies.

Writing in the Moscow Times, Sergei Karagonov opined on what he believes is the flawed concept of Mr. Obama’s reset, even from the Russian perspective: (the perspective of American critics is that it gave too much to Russia without gaining anything substantive in return) “…the U.S. proposed nuclear weapons reductions as th primary mechanism of the diplomatic reset…But progress soon stalled with Russia rejecting U.S. proposals…In the hope of breaking the deadlock, Obama signaled his willingness to compromise.  But Putin had little reason to reciprocate, not least because agreement on the issue would have opened the door to further nuclear arms reductions. Moreover, members of Russia’s military and political elite hoped to use some of the country’s oil revenues to deploy a new generation of ICBMs…By focusing on nuclear disarmament and new START, Obama’s reset strategy remilitarized the U.S.-Russia relationship while marginalizing issues that could have reoriented bilateral ties toward the future.  In this sense, the initiative was doomed from the start, and the whole world has suffered as a result.”

 

 

 

U.S. B-52 bomber, a mainstay of the strategic and tactical strategy of the Air Force.

Thes planes are so old the grandfathers of current USAF pilots flew the same aircraft. (USAF photo)

 

What is manifestly evident is Mr. Obama’s desire to downsize of the U.S. military, regardless of external factors.

 

Indeed, Despite the reduction of defense spending levels as a percent of the GDP and the federal budget to historic low points, and rising, dangerous threats from abroad, the U.S. military is being asked to absorb massive new cuts.

America’s armed forces have been sharply reduced, as outlined by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)

 

In 1990, the U.S. had a 546-ship Navy; today we have 285.  ·         The U.S. had 76 Army brigades in 1990; today we have 45.  ·         Two decades ago the Air Force had twice as many fighter squadrons and bombers as today.  ·         China now has more ships in their Navy than the U.S. has in its Navy.   The U.S. has an aging force. ·         Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago. ·         Bombers average 34 years in age. Our tankers are nearly 50 years old.  The U.S. has a strained force. ·         In the last four years inspection failures for Navy ships have nearly tripled. ·         1 in 5 ships inspected is either unfit for combat or severely degraded. ·         A majority of the Navy’s deployed aircraft are unable to accomplish all of their assigned missions. ·         We already have a $367 million in needed repairs to our ships. ·         Marine Corps stockpiles of critical equipment such as radios, small arms and generators face severe shortages. ·         Over a third of Active Army units do not have sufficient personnel to perform their missions. ·         Army needs $25 billion to reset its force right now. ·         Marines need $12 billion to reset its force right now.   Our nation’s top brass have said our military cannot sustain deep defense cuts: Some components of the Air Force “are right at the ragged edge.” Proposed cuts would result in a “fundamental restructure of what it is our nation expects from our Air Force.” General Philip Breedlove, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Deep cuts would lead to “fundamental changes” in the capability of our Marine Corps. General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps The Army cannot meet all of the current, validated needs of commanders on the ground. General Peter Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army “I can’t see how we can sustain this pace of operations indefinitely and meet our readiness standards.” To meet unconstrained combatant commander demands, “I’d need, doing some analysis, about 400 ships. I have 285 ships today.” Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Vice Chief of Nava

The end of the world may be postponed, thanks to an international meeting that took place in January.

The Space Mission Planning and Advisory Group (SMPAG) http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Space_Situational_Awareness/Getting_ready_for_asteroids met in a forum hosted by the European Space Agency http://www.esa.int/ESA  to determine how best to protect our planet from a catastrophic asteroid strike.  Its specific mission is to coordinate expertise and capabilities for missions aimed at countering asteroids that might one day strike Earth.

SMPAG was formed by the United Nation’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to develop a strategy on how to react to a future extraterrestrial collision. It will coordinate with space agencies across the world to develop a strategy in response to a collision between Earth and an impact with an extraterrestrial object.

According to the Association of Space Explorers Committee on Near Earth Objects, http://www.space-explorers.org/committees/NEO/2013/ASE_NEO_Defense.pdf “Asteroid impacts—an ongoing cosmic and geological process—have dramatically altered the course of life on Earth. A rogue asteroid will certainly strike Earth in the future, and such impacts pose a global threat to human life and society. Search efforts to date have discovered scarcely 1% of potentially hazardous near-Earth objects (NEOs). Current telescopes were unable to warn us of the Feb. 2013 Chelyabinsk impact, which released 440 kilotons of explosive energy and injured more than a thousand people. Because near-Earth asteroid searches have focused almost exclusively on large objects with global destructive potential, 99% of the objects big enough to level a major metropolitan area remain undiscovered. As technology improves and hundreds of thousands of new asteroids are found, the global community will likely be confronted by one posing a worryingly high probability of striking Earth.”

 

The U.N. has been discussing the issue for approximately 14 years, beginning in 1995 when it’s Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) met in New York to bring the issue to the attention of member states.  In 2001, “Action Team 14” was established to improve international coordination of activities related to near-Earth objects.

Recommendations of the Action Team on Near-Earth Objects for an

international response to the near-Earth object impact threat http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/misc/2013/at-14/at14-handoutE.pdf

 

Introduction

 

Given the global consequences of a NEO impact and the enormous resources

required to prevent a collision, the UN has been seen as the forum to coordinate such

efforts. In 1995, the United Nations International Conference on Near Earth Objects

was held at UN Headquarters in New York. The Conference, organized by United

Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), sensitised Member States to the

potential threat of NEOs and proposed an expansion of existing observation

campaigns to detect and track NEOs.

 

The Action Team on Near-Earth Objects (Action Team 14) was established in

2001 by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

(COPUOS), in response to recommendation 14 of the Third United Nations

Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE III)

that was held in Vienna in 1999, to improve international coordination of activities

related to near-Earth objects. Sergio Camacho, a former UNOOSA Director currently

serves as the Chair of AT-14.

 

The Action Team has been mandated to:

(a) Review the content, structure and organization of ongoing efforts in

the field of near-Earth objects (NEOs);

(b) Identify any gaps in the ongoing work where additional coordination is

required and/or where other countries or organizations could make contributions;

(c) Propose steps for the improvement of international coordination in

collaboration with specialized bodies.

 

The Action Team based its recommendations on the fact that many expert groups and

assets needed for this issue already exist. It recommends the formation of a warning

network and two advisory groups: an International Asteroid Warning Network

(IAWN), a Space Missions Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG – pronounce ‘same

page’), and an Impact Disaster Planning Advisory Group (IDPAG).

 

The warning network

 

The IAWN would be a network of experts which would focus on discovery, tracking,

and the observation of NEOs. The goal would be to find objects as early as possible.

Observations are processed and orbit predictions and any potential impact warnings

are generated. The IAWN would also prepare public communications. In case of a

credible impact threat, IAWN would ensure that more information on these objects is

gathered expeditiously. IAWN would then also inform COPUOS and the Office of

 

 

Office for Outer Space Affairs, United Nations Office at Vienna, Wagramerstrasse 5, 1400 Vienna, Austria

Tel. (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax (+43-1) 26060-5830, www.unoosa.org

The best ways to combat low body image is working out regularly and have a sildenafil without prescription balanced diet. Some other significant pills included in this herbal buy generic viagra https://unica-web.com/films2007.xls supplement. Drinking alcohol and cigarettes smoking must be cheapest brand cialis fend off for safe treatment. The problem is these companies don’t viagra pfizer seem to be great for the treatment of impotency. Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). The IAWN would consist of observers,

astrodynamics experts, experts working on the characterization of asteroids and

modelling. No formal ‘group’ is needed, it is a network of existing experts and assets.

A steering group is proposed as a focus point for the IAWN. COPUOS would receive

yearly summary reports from the IAWN.

 

The advisory groups

 

The IDPAG would have as tasks to review lessons learned from other large-scale

disasters, prepare coordinated response plans and exercises to address both predicted

and unpredicted impact disasters. It would recommend and promote research related

to the topic. It would develop representative timelines and procedures for evacuations.

It is proposed that the IDPAG is formed by representatives of existing national and

international disaster response agencies. Its organisation would be initiated by the

IAWN and could be coordinated with other relevant international and national entities

(e.g. UN-SPIDER, UN-ISDR, OCHA)1

.

 

The SMPAG would combine the expertise of space-faring nations. It would

recommend and promote mitigation mission-related research and studies on an

international and cooperative level. It would develop and adopt a set of reference

missions. It would develop technical concepts and propose operational setups. It

would also develop applicable decision criteria and timelines. The SMPAG would be

a group of voluntary representatives of space-faring nations. The group would call on

support by technical experts and other relevant entities as needed. It would provide a

yearly summary report to COPUOS.

 

Response to a credible impact threat

 

In the case of an actual credible impact threat, the IAWN would provide all available

information and updates to COPUOS through the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs.

The IDPAG would work with disaster response groups in nations that would be

affected to prepare and coordinate civil protection plans. The SMPAG would

coordinate the space mission planning among space-capable nations. It is suggested

that COPUOS may choose to appoint an ad-hoc mitigation advisory group to work

together with the response teams.

 

 

It was a vast space-borne rock that plummeted into the Yucatan and wiped out the dinosaurs http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/147978-finally-confirmed-an-asteroid-wiped-out-the-dinosaurs  many millennia ago. There is no doubt that Earth will be the target of another such hit some time in the future—and that future can be anywhere from a few years to a few centuries from now.

Even much smaller asteroids could have a devastating impact, wiping out an entire city in a single blow.  The danger is real, and affects every nation on the globe.

NASA’s Near Earth Object (NEO) http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/#purpose Program has spearheaded this area of space research, working to detect, track and characterize potentially hazardous asteroids and comets that could approach the Earth. With over 90% of the near-Earth objects larger than one kilometer already discovered, the NEO Program is now focusing on finding 90% of the NEO population larger than 140 meters. In addition to managing the detection and cataloging of Near-Earth objects, the NEO Program office is responsible for facilitating communications between the astronomical community and the public should any potentially hazardous objects be discovered. As of February 02, 2014, 10,685 Near-Earth objects have been discovered. Some 868 of these NEOs are asteroids with a diameter of approximately 1 kilometer or larger. 1454 of these NEOs have been classified as potentially hazardous.

 

The final report of NASA’s Asteroid Initiative was released in January.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Asteroid-Initiative-WS-Final-Report-508.pdf

NASA’s Asteroid Initiative consists of two separate but related activities: the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), and the Asteroid Grand Challenge (AGC). NASA is developing concepts for the ARM, which would use a robotic spacecraft to capture a small near-Earth asteroid (7 to 10 meters), or remove a boulder (1 to 10 meters) from the surface of a larger asteroid, and redirect it into a stable orbit around the moon. Astronauts launched aboard the Orion spacecraft would rendezvous with the captured asteroid material in lunar orbit, and collect samples for return to Earth.

 

The AGC is seeking the best ideas to find all asteroid threats to human populations, and to accelerate the work that NASA is already doing for planetary defense. The Asteroid Initiative will leverage and integrate NASA’s activities in human exploration, space technology, and space science to advance the technologies and capabilities needed for future human and robotic exploration, to enable the first human mission to interact with asteroid material, and to accelerate efforts to detect, track, characterize, and mitigate the

threat of potentially hazardous asteroids.

Last month, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns http://www.state.gov/s/d/2014/219501.htm , speaking at the International Space Exploration Forum, noted:  “…we can do much more to defend the planet from near-earth objects and space debris. We continue to work through the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to deal with this challenge, and we are working with the European Union and other countries to develop an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities. We also would welcome international support for NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission, which, among other things, will help us learn how to better defend our planet from a catastrophic asteroid collision.”

Despite this planet-saving mission, NASA’s 2014 budget is the lowest since 2007.

Now, for the first time, national space agencies from North and South America, Europe, Asia and Africa will establish an expert group aimed at getting the world’s space-faring nations on the ‘same page’ when it comes to reacting to asteroid threats, working together to find and track dangerous asteroids, deciding what to do with them, and implementing a mission to protect the planet.

The latest evidence that asteroids pose a major threat occurred a year ago this week, when a previously unknown asteroid exploded high above Chelyabinsk, https://b612foundation.org/news/faq-on-the-chelyabinsk-asteroid-impact/  Russia, with 20–30 times the energy of the Hiroshima atomic bomb.  There was a brief period when the meteor appeared to glow brighter than the Sun. The shock wave produced by the asteroid as it hit the atmosphere caused numerous injuries and shattered windows.

If a possible strike by an asteroid is detected, an International Asteroid Warning Network would coordinate with space faring nations to prepare a response, including possible means of deflecting the threatening object away from the planet.

What is the true state of the union?

The financial health of the federal government, the prosperity of the American people, the prospects for the nation’s future and the state of America’s national security are all in significant jeopardy.

 

Financially, the nation’s status fits the technical definition of bankruptcy.  The national debt of $17,338,229,800,000

exceeds America’s Gross Domestic Product of $17 trillion.  Combined with an annual deficit of $680 billion, this means that US has no realistic way to pay its debt under current circumstances.

 

In 2013, the federal government spent 3.5 trillion while taking in only 2.8 trillion in revenue .

 

Under the Obama Administration, the federal debt has drastically incrased. In January 2009, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. In October of 2013, it hit $16.7 trillion – an increase of 57 percent. In the same time frame under President George W. Bush, who was financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, total federal debt rose 38 percent.

A salient question is: What did all that increased deficit spending–including the $787 billion stimulus package– during the Obama presidency buy?

 

Since 2009, federal welfare spending has jumped 41%, costing taxpayers $193 billion per year. Despite that, 46 million Americans live in poverty, and median income remains over 8% lower than was in 2007.

 

The increase in spending in this area has clearly failed. The poverty rate remains unchanged at approximately 15%.

 

America has vast unmet domestic needs, which remained largely unaddressed by Obama’s deficit spending.  Its infrastructure remains in poor condition. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gives the nation a D+, with vast numbers of crumbling roads and bridges, and other vital unmet needs in our transportation, water, energy, and waste management utilities. Some minor improvements have been made (The prior score was a D) but this is largely due to spending by state and local governments, not Washington.

The private sector has not benefited from the spending, resulting in employment rates that remain unacceptably high.

 

The Department of Labor Statistics’ U-6 figure is a dismal 13.1%, a number that understates the true level of the dilemma since the national employment participation rate is at a four-decade low of 62.8%, representing a worsening of an 0.8 percentage point over the year. 347,000 left the workforce in December, exceeding the number of new jobs created. More and more Americans have completely dropped out of the labor force, and aren’t counted in unemployment statistics.  11.2 million have left the labor force under the Obama presidency.

 

Many of those who have found work and are counted as employed are actually working only part-time.  Seven out of eight new positons added under President Obama have been  part-time jobs.

 

The number of long-term unemployed continues to be an unresolved crisis.  These displaced workers count for 37.7% of all unemployed, and their chances of re-entering the work force diminish daily.

Another EMG uses electrodes taped to the skin cheapest levitra to measure the contraction of the lower vagina, cervix and uterus produce an identical automatic response. According to surveys conducted by the Sexual Dysfunction Association, nearly 10% of men in the UK have experienced buying online viagra either temporary or permanent sexual dysfunction at some point of time. The same can be said for appalachianmagazine.com viagra discount india’s cousins: viagra. Lisa Marie described, “I considered Jackson didn’t do anything wrong and that he was wrongly accused and yes I know desire is mostly attributed online levitra canada to sexual desire (he he is there any other type?). 2013 saw a record high number of U.S. workers on disability–a shocking figure of almost 11 million.   It has been speculated that the federal government has been more lenient in granting disability since taking these workers out of the counting for unemployment improves the statistical outlook.

There has been a $2,535 drop in median income after the recession ended in June 2009, according to Sentier Research

 

The United States is less secure than it was five years ago. The significant increase in federal spending has not benefited the military.  According to the Council on Foreign Relations, In calendar year 2012, military spending declined from $711 billion to $668 billion.

In dollar terms, this was the largest decline since 1991. President Barack Obama’s budget proposes cutting security spending to 2.4% of GDP in 2023. This would represent the lowest allocation of GDP to defense spending in the post-World War II era.

 

In 2012, U.S. military spending fell faster than overall military spending by democracies.If military budgets were compared in a way that reflected varying personnel costs, U.S. military preeminence would appear smaller than it does using straightforward comparisons based on market exchange rates.

 

While the US cuts back, its potential adversaries have drastically accelerated their spending.  That increase may be even greater than public sources indicate, since neither nation takes into account may spending provisions that the US includes in its statistics, and, especially in the case of  China, they have significant sources of military income that are not included in official spending reports.

 

The National Interest notes that: “Russia is now engaged in its largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. Putin has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet two years ago.”

 

 

 Chinese Navy ship Qingdao (DDG 113) as it arrives in Hawaii for a scheduled port visit.

(U.S. Navy photo)

 

Foreign Policy reports: China’s official 2012 defense budget is $106 billion, an 11 percent increase over last year and a fourfold increase from a decade ago. The Pentagon places China’s total military spending at somewhere between $120 and $180 billion. “Estimating actual PLA military expenditures is difficult because of poor accounting transparency and China’s still incomplete transition from a command economy,” the report notes, referring to the People’s Liberation Army.

 

Al Qaeda has rebounded, a now controls more territory than ever in the middle east, has strengthened in Africa, and its affiliate Taliban stands poised to make significant gains in Afghanistan.

Orion Crew Vehicle

(NASA photo)

In the economically and technologically crucial area of space technology, the United States remains in limbo.  The last manned mission aboard an American-launched craft took place in July of 2011.  NASA may not put astronauts in space with its own craft until 2021. While the U.S. retreats, China has moved quickly forward.  The vast wealth from space-based assets on the moon and beyond, which will play an important role in the world economy within the next fifty years, are receding away from America’s grasp.

 

Politically, the nation appears more disunited than at any time since the civil war. The Obama Administration’s politicization of federal agencies has created an antagonistic climate that prevents compromise.  The Justice Department’s refusal to investigate clear cases of voter intimidation diminishes faith in American democracy, as does the IRS intimidation of Tea Party groups.  Disturbingly, Administration supporters, including Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) call for overtly unlawful actions, including continuing to use the IRS for partisan purposes.  The spillover effect has spread beyond Washington. New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo has called for conservatives to leave his state.

The State of the Union in 2014 poses a serious challenge for the nation’s future.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has issued its report on the nation’s infrastructure.  The overall rate, covering items such as dams, drinking water, waste systems, levees, transportation, bridges, waterways, ports, rail, roads, mass transit, parks, schools, and energy was a lowly D+.

 

The U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee noted that “America’s infrastructure has fallen in rank from 6th in the world to 25th in just the past 5 years…aging transportation infrastructure is expected to increase the cost of business in America by an estimated $430 billion in the next decade.”

 

32% of American roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 25% of bridges are rated as structurally deficient.  The American Automobile Association (AAA) notes that many of the 30,000 deaths that occur on U.S. highways are “attributable to the direct result of inadequate lighting, poor signage or outdated road design that might have been prevented by fixing unsafe roads.”

One aspect of America’s declining infrastructure, inadequate roads, was examined  by National Review. “As congestion has grown worse, so has its estimated cost each year…in 2011, the total estimated cost of congestion in the U.S. topped $120 billion.  Think of that as an annual tax on Americans that could be eliminated with better road management…Congestion slows business activity as well, which raises costs and reduces sales and output.  A 2009 study by Kent Hymel showed that these costs add up: using data on congestion, existing road infrastructure, and employment, he estimated that a 50 percent decrease in congestion in the United States’ ten most congested cities could boost long-run employment growth in those cities by 10 to 30 percent, and economic growth along with it.”

 

FUNDING THE PROBLEM

According to ASCE, “Budget constraints and a lack of consensus regarding the federal role in key infrastructure sectors present an ongoing challenge in trying to plan for public investment.  Some progress came with the passing of a federal transportation authorization bill, but the legislation’s two-year time horizon means that thinking about the next one will have to start right away.

“With federal infrastructure contributions holding steady and with declines expected, especially as the sequester takes hold, most state and local governments are moving into a “self-help” mode-they must rely more heavily on alternative funding sources and postpone  some desired projects…

 

“Infrastructure spending as a percentage of GDP has shrunk to about 2.4 percent from its peak of more than 3 percent during the 1960s.  State and local governments account for about 75 percent of all infrastructure spending, including capital and operations and maintenance, with the federal government contributing  the remaining quarter of infrastructure spending.

 

“In 2012, Congress enacted new authorizing legislation for transportation. The new bill, “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) requires performance measures, consolidates numerous highway and mass transit programs, allocates $1 billion for projects of national and regional significance, and expands the…Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit-support program….”

 

 

MISSED OPPORTUNITY:

THE STIMULUS

Many infrastructure needs were supposed to be addressed by all that ($787 billion) Stimulus money, but most were not.  In some cases, dollars were spent foolishly, on projects such as bike lanes, instead of on major, urgently needed transportation needs. Other examples, cited in a Fiscal Times report: $2 million was spent on a “replica railroad,” a tourist attraction, not a transportation need in Nevada, and $1 million was spent on beefing up security on cruise ships.

 

New York’s Fulton Street project was the largest single item funded, at an original cost of $750 million. The project remains incomplete (it may open this year) with a reported price tag of $1.4 billion, including $423 billion in stimulus funds.

 

According to a 2010 Economist report, “The stimulus bill’s spending on infrastructure may have been doomed to mediocrity from the start. First, and most important, a relatively small share of the bill was actually devoted to infrastructure… But even on the broadest definition of the term, infrastructure got $150 billion, under a fifth of the total. Just $64 billion, or 8% of the total, went to roads, public transport, rail, bridges, aviation and wastewater systems…

 

“Second, hopes for an immediate jolt of activity were misplaced. The bill prioritised ‘shovel-ready’ plans. States did have a backlog of maintenance projects, such as repaving dilapidated roads. Nevertheless, work moved more slowly than some Democrats expected. By October 2009 even the fastest programmes-those under the highway and transit headings-had seen work begin on just $14.3 billion-worth of projects. Spending has since quickened. Of the money appropriated to transport, 83% has now been allocated. But it is unclear that the money spent has been money spent well. The attempt to begin work hastily meant that both good and bad projects have moved forward.
Moreover, additionally essential to affirm that whether take cialis price canada can continue this medicine, if they are satisfied with its results. Based on the lowest cost cialis lovemaking session, it has been believed for inducing body for repairing a smooth muscle in the penile region. This enzyme is found in penis and cures nocturnal and speedy viagra online buy emissions. When this drug is taken, one needs to wait or stand in a queue at the clinic or a chemist to have a drug from ED therapy. generic super cialis
 

“Meanwhile the bill’s most notable project, high-speed passenger rail, threatens to become a debacle. It is fun to imagine trains whizzing across the heartland. But there is no urgent need for them. Freight companies worry that new passenger services will simply increase congestion. Any new rail service, meanwhile, is unlikely to be particularly fast. The Recovery Act dedicated $8 billion for high-speed trains, a sizeable sum but not enough for any train that is actually high-speed…”

 

Far too much of the funding was spent on paybacks to big political contributors.  Many needs were left unaddressed because they weren’t “shovel-ready,” meaning politicians couldn’t use them as feathers in their caps before the next election.

 

Some examples were provided by Ron Hart in a Times Free Press article:  “Of the money spent in swing state Wisconsin, 80 percent went to public sector unions… In fact, right to work states got $266 less per person in stimulus money than heavily unionized states…The states that hurt the most, got less money than richer states closer to power.  Washington, D.C. got the most stimulus money: $7,602 per capita.”

 

Some observers, such as the CATO institute’s Chris Edwards, believe discussing the level of federal spending misses the point. Testifying before Congress’s Joint Economic Committee last July, Edwards noted:   “The importance of infrastructure investment for U.S. economic growth is widely appreciated. But policy discussions often get sidetracked by a debate regarding the level of federal spending. To spur growth, it is more important to ensure that investment is as efficient as possible and that investment responsibilities are optimally allocated between the federal government, the states, and the private sector.

 

“Federal infrastructure spending often gets bogged down in mismanagement and cost overruns. And decades of experience show that many federal investments get misallocated to low-value activities because of politics. That’s why we should tackle the nation’s infrastructure challenges by decentralizing the financing, management, and ownership of investments as much as possible. State and local governments and the private sector are more likely to make sound investments without the federal subsidies and regulations that distort their decision making.

 

“A broad measure of infrastructure spending is gross fixed investment, as measured in the national income accounts. In 2012 private investment was $2 trillion, compared to federal, state, and local government investment of $472 billion. Excluding defense, government investment was $367 billion. Thus, private infrastructure investment in the United States is five times larger than total non- defense government investment.

 

“One implication of the data is that if policymakers want to boost infrastructure spending, they should make policy reforms to spur private investment. Cutting the federal corporate income tax rate, for example, would increase the net returns to a broad range of private infrastructure, and thus spur greater investment.

 

“Nonetheless, government infrastructure is certainly important to the economy. But I am skeptical of claims that the United States has an infrastructure crisis because governments are not spending enough. For one thing, government investment as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) in the United States is in line with the other nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 2010 government gross fixed investment in the United States was 3.5 percent of GDP, which was a little higher than the OECD average of 3.3 percent.2

 

“Another reason for skepticism that governments are under investing is that some measures of infrastructure quality have shown steady improvement. For example, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) data show that the nation’s bridges have steadily improved in quality.3 Of the roughly 600,000 bridges in the country, the share that are “structurally deficient” has fallen from 22 percent in 1992 to 11 percent in 2012, while the share that are “functionally obsolete” has fallen from 16 percent to 14 percent.”

 

THE FUTURE

According to the ASCE, “For the U.S. economy to be the most competitive in the world, we need a first class infrastructure system-transport systems that move people and goods efficiently and at cost by land, water and air; transmission systems that deliver reliable, low-cost power from a wide range of energy sources, and water systems that drive industrial processes as well as the daily functions in our homes.  Yet today, our infrastructure systems are failing to keep pace with the current and expanding needs, and investment in infrastructure is faltering.”

 

Mistrust of how future spending will be handled prevents a bipartisan solution.The U.S. faces serious budgetary choices.  Many politically popular entitlement programs, such as food stamps were expanded up to 41% over the past four years, eating up funds that should have been used to keep roads, bridges, power lines, and water pipes operational.

Aircraft Carriers

 

Aircraft Carriers are the symbol and key portion of American power, and have been so for the past seventy-four years.  Every president, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, has relied upon them to address international crises. 

 

A recent Congressional Budget Office report  notes that “Since World War II, the aircraft carrier has been the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy. According to the Navy, today’s Nimitz class ships can sustain 95 strike sorties per day and, with each aircraft carrying four 2,000-pound bombs, deliver three-quarters of a million pounds of bombs each day. That firepower far exceeds what any other surface ship can deliver.”

 

Now, there are less of them than military experts say is the minimum needed for safety.

 

With the retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN 65), the United States Navy will have only ten aircraft carriers, below the generally accepted absolute minimum number of eleven. That situation will continue until at least 2016, when the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is scheduled to be completed. The 2016 date is not guaranteed.  Budget restrictions  under the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act place a maximum $12.8 billion price tag on the vessel, with a further reduction to $11.5 billion for future fleet carriers. The effect on the Ford’s development remains to be seen.

 

Naval experts are concerned that even if the 11 carrier force is restored, it will be inadequate.  ABreaking Defense article quotes Rear Admiral Thomas Moore’s concern that “We’re an 11-carrier navy in a 15 carrier world.”

 

The future for America’s fleet of aircraft carriers beyond 2016 may be further endangered. Under oneconcept being discussed,  the Navy, to meet budgetary restrictions, would stop building new aircraft carriers altogether after completion of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, scheduled for 2020, the next in line to be built after the U.S.S Gerald Ford. The next aircraft carrier the Navy was scheduled to construct, the U.S.S. Enterprise, would be canceled, as would future carriers. Funding for the Enterprise would have begun in 2016. The result would be obvious: as older aircraft carriers retire they would not be replaced, and the fleet, already undersized, would continue to shrink.

 

 

U.S.S. Harry Truman

(US Navy photo)

Active Aircraft Carriers in the U.S. Navy

USS Nimitz (CVN 68)

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69)

USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70)

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)

USS George Washington (CVN 73)

USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74)

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)

USS George H.W. Bush  (CVN 77)

 

At the same time that America’s navy endures this diminishment, (the total number of ships in the U.S. navy has shrunk from 600 in 1990 to 286 currently) both China and Russia have committed vast resources to expanding their seagoing power both in terms of the number and  sophistication of their respective fleets, as well as investing in technological advances that could threaten U.S. warships with distant, land-based weaponry. The U.S also faces threats from smaller actors such as North Korea and Iran.

 

Moscow’s Supreme Navy Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov recently stated: [Russia is building a new] “cutting-edge nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. … The carrier should stay in service for a very long period and meet the requirements of modern and future naval operations in which it is expected to lead a group of surface ships and submarines and coordinate its action with a constellation of military satellites. The carrier project also includes plans to develop new ship-based fighter bombers and train personnel for the emerging carrier group. By 2020, the Russian Navy will receive 30 new corvettes and frigates, at least 15 missile- and artillery-carrying speedboats and nearly two dozen submarines. The latter will include strategic nuclear-powered missile carriers and medium-size versatile diesel subs. A new-generation destroyer is in the pipeline, as are land-based naval jets and coastal missile and artillery batteries.”

 

Moscow has committed $138 billion to its naval modernization program.

 

According to The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s annual Report to Congress,  China’s navy could dominate the western Pacific by 2020. The report notes:

 

“Since commissioning its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in September of 2012, the PLA Navy has continued to develop a fixed-wing carrier aviation capability for air defense and offensive strike missions.  China plans to follow the Liaoning with at least two indigenously built carriers…

“It is increasingly clear that China does not intend to resolve its disputes through multilateral negotiations or the application of international laws and adjudicative processes but instead will use its growing power in support of coercive tactics that pressure its neighbors to concede to China’s claims…

 

“The PLA [People’s Liberation Army] navy is in the midst of an impressive modernization program.  China’s acquisition of naval platforms, weapons, and systems has emphasized qualitative improvements, not quantitative growth, and is centered on improving its ability to strike opposing ships at sea and operate at greater distances from the Chinese mainland.  Today, the PLA Navy is able to conduct high-intensity operations beyond the region.  Trends in China’s defense spending, research and development, and shipbuilding suggest the PLA Navy will continue to modernize…

“The PLA is rapidly expanding and diversifying its ability to strike U.S. bases, ships, and aircraft throughout the Asia Pacific region including those it previously could not reach, such as the U.S. military facilities on Guam…”

 

On January 1, Hainan, a province of an increasingly aggressive China, announced a requirement that international fishing vessels in the South China Sea seek permission from China’s central government, a move termed by the U.S. State Department “provocative and potentially dangerous.” It is an example of China’s intensive drive to dominate the air and sea space in Asian pacific region, to the clear detriment of the interests not only of its neighbors and the United States, but to international commerce as well.

 

China’s domination of the western Pacific by 2020, if current trends continue, will be through both its expanded navy as well as its development of other high-tech weapons such as the J-20 stealth fighter.

 

China’s attack on offshore possessions of the Philippines in 2012 went unanswered, militarily or even diplomatically, by the Obama government. Encouraged, Beijing’s forces have become increasingly aggressive in the Pacific, threatening virtually all of its neighbors.

 

A recent incident involved China’s Liaoning carrier intentionally cutting off a U.S. naval vessel, the U.S.S. Cowpens, a guided missile cruiser.

 

T he world has taken notice, even as the U.S. continues to decrease its military spending. A Turkish news source, for example, Turkish Weekly, reported:”It [China] has recently launched an arms race through its creation of an air defense identification zone over a strip of the East China Sea and in the addition of arms in her military inventory.”

 

The Russian and Chinese navies are developing aircraft carriers as well as deploying weapons designed specifically for combat against their American counterparts.  Even as this occurs, Washington’s traditional anti-defense spending politicians, joined by others concerned about budget deficits continue to question funding for U.S. carriers. Their predominant tactical argument is essentially this:  Carriers are large and expensive, and increasingly vulnerable.  Does it make sense to commit scarce dollars to their construction and maintenance?

 

Critics of that that line of reasoning argue that the concept tends to lack logical resonance for several reasons. First, the anti-military spending faction is not generally supportive of redirecting proposed savings to other military programs, despite rising need. Second, even if carriers face increasingly powerful enemy forces, there still remains no substitute for the capabilities they unquestionably present, and there is no assurance that the new weaponry being deployed will be effective.

 

Carriers do face a growing number of threats, as well as ones that have existed for some time.

In a 2001 study, the Lexington Institute  noted that “The most significant threats to carriers are cruise missiles, wake-homing torpedoes, ballistic missiles and mines. But cruise missiles are unlikely to penetrate the battle group’s integrated air defenses, and few potential adversaries are capable of employing submarines or torpedoes effectively. Ballistic missiles lack necessary targeting features and mines are easily dealt with using a variety of existing and prospective methods. The intrinsic resilience of large-deck carriers further mitigates the threat posed by adversaries.”

 

 

  

CHINA

 

As part of their overall massive military buildup, China is both building a carrier fleet as well as deploying cutting-edge weaponry designed to attack American carriers. China has moved some of these weapons into operational capability faster than many experts have anticipated.

 

A dmiral Sam Locklear, commander of the US Pacific Command, speaking at the Surface Navy Association meeting recently, noted that China’s military ascension is putting the U.S. Navy at risk in the Pacific, and that America’s “historic dominance” is diminishing.

 

Vice Adm. David Dorsett

,director of naval intelligence and deputy chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance, noted in 2011 that “They’ve [China’s new weaponry] entered operational capability quicker than we frequently project…” Dorsett stated that China’s rapid advances indicate that they may have the capability to hit an aircraft carrier.

 

T he first of Beijing’s carriers, the Liaoning, is currently honing the nation’s skills.  It will be followed by a massive “super carrier,” according to Russia’s RT news.  China has also developed a missile designed to attack American carriers from a significant distance away. “China will likely build multiple aircraft carriers over the next decade,” According to the 2013 Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the Peoples Republic of China “China is fielding a limited but growing number of conventionally armed, medium range ballistic missiles, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM).  The DF-21D is based on a variant of the DF-21 (CSS-5) medium range ballistic missile (MRBM) and gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.  The DF-21D has a range exceeding 1,500 km and is armed with a maneuverable warhead.”

 

A ccording to the United States Naval Institute:”The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. super carrier in one strike.

 

“Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at Mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

 

“Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets…the weapon system is now operational… If operational as if believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea…”

 

How effective can China’s new arsenal be against American carriers?  It bears keeping in mind that these ships are huge, compartmentalized, and built to withstand significant punishment.  They are solidly protected by multiple layers of destroyers and cruisers equipped with cutting-edge Aegis defensive systems. Even aircraft launched from an enemy carrier or land base would likely lack the experience of their American counterparts.

 

S hould weaponry such as the DF-21D discourage the development of carriers? The question is actually a much larger one.  Following a line of reasoning that would say “yes,” than what ships should be deployed?  If a carrier faces a potential thrat, than so does every other naval vessel. Some experts, such as Seth Cropsey, author of Mayday, a study of America’s naval challenges, argues that while we should continue to deploy large aircraft carriers, smaller ones also should be added to the mix.

 

In a Breaking Defense review, it was noted that: “one inexplicable aspect of the “carriers are vulnerable” argument, particularly versus the Chinese DF-21D ballistic missile threat, is that while the carrier’s vulnerability is trumpeted, there is little mention of the fact that every ship suffers from similar, if not greater, vulnerabilities – particularly ships built to commercial standards and simply painted haze-gray. This includes platforms on the various lists of options if the Navy were to stop building carriers. It also ignores enhanced passive and active systems–e.g., the cruise- and ballistic-missile defenses provided by the Navy’s Aegis cruisers and destroyers–that are designed to defeat tomorrow’s threats. Finally, to put the entire vulnerability issue in context, land bases, which never move, are much more vulnerable to attack than are mobile naval forces at sea.”

 

 

RUSSIA 

 

Russia has committed vast sums to modernize its navy.  This is a development that bears significant review, since, unlike China, Moscow’s strategic interests are more land-based.  For the Kremlin, naval power has mostly an offensive character (as well as for expanding its interests in the Arctic.)  Vladimir Putin’s naval construction program must be seen in this light.

 

This past year, a potential conflict between Russian anti-shipping weaponry and American naval vessels, including a carrier, was avoided.  The Russian flagship Varyag, considered an “aircraft carrier killer” entered into the Mediterranean as tension between the west and Syria were high.  The vessel has anti-ship missiles, among other weaponry.

Moscow did more during the crisis than dispatch its own forces.  In the course of the dispute, it provided Syria with the P-800 Yakhout anti-ship missile, giving Bashir al-Assad a potent weapon against American naval forces.  The Yakhout is Russia’s most advanced anti-ship missile, and its sale to Syria was an indication both of Moscow’s growing disregard for American resolve as well as the importance it attaches to its naval base at Tartus.

 

 

  Russia Varyag, called an “Aircraft Carrier killer.” (U.S. Navy photo)

 

 

HOW VULNERABLE?

 

Concern over the vulnerability of aircraft carriers is not new. But the ability of both the carrier itself to survive substantial damage and continue to accomplish its mission, as well as the ability of the ships protecting the carrier from enemy attack should not be underestimated.

According to the Information Dissemination site, “While vulnerable to attack, the big deck carrier is still arguably one of the toughest ships to sink. The damage incurred to USS Forrestal in 1967 and that suffered by USS Enterprise in 1969 in accidental detonations of multiple pieces of ordnance testifies to the extreme survivability of the big carrier. The ex-USS America (CV-66) was recently sunk as a target and some open source accounts say the ship took a tremendous beating before being purposely sunk after the test.”

 

The Navy has also not rested in its drive to protect the carrier from emerging threats. U.S. carriers were indeed vulnerable to cruise missile attacks in the late 1970s, but development and fielding of the Aegis system for air defense significantly improved the ability of the carrier battle group to defend itself against this threat. The U.S. has pursued an equally aggressive program to defend against ballistic missiles like the DF-21D and there is no reason to believe this threat cannot also be countered by a technological response.

 

According to the U.S. Navy, “The Aegis Weapon System (AWS) is a centralized, automated, command-and-control (C2) and weapons control system that was designed as a total weapon system, from detection to kill. The heart of the system is the AN/SPY-1, an advanced, automatic detect and track, multi-function phased-array radar. This high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, track, and missile guidance functions simultaneously, with a track capacity of more than 100 targets… There are currently 74 U.S. Navy ships in service with the Aegis Weapons System installed: 22 Cruisers and 52 Destroyers.”

 

As threats evolve, the Aegis system also evolves, providing advanced protection. According toLockheed Martin,  which manufactures the system, “As the fleet of in-service Aegis ships ages, and the threat increases, modernization to improve the combat capability of existing ships is essential. Two modernization programs – for both cruisers and destroyers – are currently in place that will improve war fighting capabilities, extend hull service life, and reduce total ownership cost through the fielding of Open Architecture and commercial computing technologies.”

 

Offensive as well as defensive technological advances could also enhance the future role of aircraft carriers. A study by the Naval War College  notes that unmanned aircraft could double or even triple the range of carrier-based planes, removing carriers from the range of some enemy ship-killing missiles while still allowing the carrier to provide solid striking power.

 

 

CONCLUSION   Debates about the survivability of aircraft carriers will also allow the re-emergence of considerations about augmenting the fleet with smaller versions.  Although not as powerful or cost-effective, they may provide options in circumstances where sea-based airpower is required but where the environment may be too risky or simply not warrant the deployment of so major a portion of the U.S. arsenal.   At this point, despite their cost, there does not appear to be any substitute for the capabilities the aircraft carrier has, nor is there any enemy weapon so potent that it would render these massive vessels inadequately defended.

In spite of this, keep in mind that many companies work on effects of cialis a contract basis, not just bad companies. This, however, should not be misconstrued to mean that Kenpo Karate was founded the price cialis by Parker. Nevertheless, men are advised to undergo medical consultation if they experience any problem when it generic levitra no prescription relates to intimacy. The fresh blood gets pumped all over the body it affects all click for more info levitra online canada reducing the quality of life.

Despite November’s unemployment statistic of 7%, the lowest since President Obama took office, the U.S. jobs picture remains bleak. There are still 1.9 million less jobs now than there were over a half decade ago, and the jobs that have been created are in too many cases inferior to those that have been lost. 

 

 

By the end of December, 1.3 million unemployed workers are scheduled to lose jobless benefits. A cruelly distinctive characteristic of the current unemployment dilemma is that it is long term unemployment that makes up the most unrelenting percentage of those without jobs.

 

At first glance, the November report showing a gain of 196,000 private sector jobs and an increase of 7,000 government jobs, seems promising.  These include 17,000 jobs in construction, and 27,000 in manufacturing.

 

But according to the Economic Policy Institute,”Millions of potential workers remain sidelined. There are nearly 5.7 million workers who are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. These are people who would be working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger.”

 

Another U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics jobless measure, known as the “U-6,” (which includes those marginally attached to the labor force) pegs the November unemployment figure at 13.2.

 

Economist John Williams, who publishes Shadow Government Statistics,questions the official unemployment numbers.  In an analysis performed on the July unemployment rate of 7.4% reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, he found that the actual rate was 23.3%.

 

Williams takes into account vital information that the Bureau ignores. His review includes those that have simply given up looking, have managed to get on disability, or have replaced lost career-level positions with part time work at a small fraction of their former pay. When those factors are included, a more thorough picture of the actual unemployment rate emerges.

 

According to an August Associated Press Report “Low-paying industries have provided 61 percent of the nation’s job growth, even though these industries represent just 39 percent of overall U.S. jobs, according to Labor Department numbers… Part-time work has made up 77 percent of the job growth so far this year. The government defines part-time work as being less than 35 hours a week…Analysts say some employers are offering part-time over full-time work to sidestep the new health care law’s rule that they provide medical coverage for permanent workers. (The Obama administration has delayed that provision for a year and into 2015.)”

 

Skepticism over the accuracy of unemployment statistics has significantly increased since the revelations in November that an unemployment number released during the 2012 campaign was inaccurate, apparently in an attempt to influence voters to re-elect the current administration.

 

This is, according to all statistics, the worst jobs recovery period since the end of WWII, marked by rising part-time employment over full time jobs, declining wages, and increased workforce dropouts.

 

Mort Zuckerman, the chair and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report, writing in the Wall Street Journal online,believes that the “jobless nature  of the recovery is particularly unsettling…Americans by the millions are in part time work because there are no other employment opportunities…What’s going on? The fundamentals surely reflect the feebleness of the macroeconomic recovery that began roughly four years ago, as seen in an average gross domestic product growth rate annualized over the past 15 quarters at a miserable 2%. That’s the weakest GDP growth since World War II. Over a similar period in previous recessions, growth averaged 4.1%. During the fourth quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, the GDP growth rate dropped below 2%. This anemic growth is all we have to show for the greatest fiscal and monetary stimuli in 75 years, with fiscal deficits of over 10% of GDP for four consecutive years. The misery is not going to end soon…the country needs a real recovery, not a phony one.”

You would not have the ability to think about what you do and you india viagra for sale like the people you’re doing it with, in an environment that encourages new ideas, you’ll be the fast company. Not only can you stay physically healthy through eating a low fat diet and exercising, but you can stay healthy mentally by keeping stress free. viagra online doctor It cialis online discount changes the biochemistry of the pancreatic enzymes. Most people find the cost of branded drugs such as buy cheap viagra , viagra, and buy cheap viagra among others may be an option.  

According to Pew Research, “From the late 1940s until the early 1990s, the U.S. economy never took more than a year to regain all the jobs lost during downturns. The 1990-91 recession was fairly mild – only 1.6 million jobs lost, or 1.5% of peak payroll employment – but it took 21 months to recover them all. That was the first, though not the last, ‘jobless recovery’: In the aftermath of the dot-com bubble, 2.7 million jobs evaporated; it took 18 months after payrolls bottomed out for them all to come back. But even that performance would look strong compared to the current pace of job creation.”

 

According to the U.S. House of Representative’s Ways & Means Committee,even many of those fortunate few who have found work and are counted as employed are actually working only part-time. A committee report notes that the population of new part-time workers is approximately equal to that of Philadelphia, PA, at 1.5 million the nation’s most populous city, while the number of new full-time workers resembles that of Henderson, Nevada, the nation’s 71st most populous city.

Rep. David Camp, (R-MI)  who has dug far deeper into U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data than most, notes that “Seven out of eight new employees under President Obama have been part-time employees.”

 

The Committee is concerned  that “this phenomenon has accelerated rapidly as Obamacare implementation has progressed with the share of new employment in part-time positions surging in 2013 as compared to prior years.”

 

The Committee points to five characteristics of the current economic climate:

1. Worst recovery from recession;

2.  Rising part-time employment;

3.  Declining Wages;

4.  Growing workforce dropouts; and

5.   Rapid rise in adult children living with parents.

 

Since January of 2009, when the current Administration took office, to July 2013, there has been a 7.14% increase in part time jobs, compared to an almost nonexistent 0.23% increase in full-time jobs, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

The problem with part-time work isn’t only reduced pay.  These employees generally don’t receive medical coverage, retirement benefits, and other perks available to their full-time counterparts.

 

According to the Economic Policy Institute,  “High unemployment continues to plague all demographic and occupational groups… A key message … is that the unemployment rate is between 1.3 and 1.8 times as high now as it was six years ago for all groups. Today’s sustained high unemployment relative to 2007 across all age, education, occupation, gender, and racial and ethnic groups underscores that the jobs crisis stems from a broad-based lack of demand. In particular, unemployment is not high because workers lack adequate education or skills; rather, a lack of demand for goods and services makes it unnecessary for employers to significantly ramp up hiring.”

 

By the President’s own standards, this represents a failure of his economic plan. Mr. Obama stated that “A well designed recovery plan will not only create numerous jobs, but also many jobs paying good wages and providing full-time employment.”

 

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.