Month: April 2019

“They call me the wanderer
Yeah, the wanderer
I roam around, around, around.”

This is the refrain from The Wanderer which was a 1968 hit song by Dion. His full name was Dion DiMucci, but he always just went by Dion. Back then if you said a song was by Dion DiMucci, there would have been a lot of “huh” or “whose he?” (For those of you not old enough to remember Dion, or perhaps too old to remember, his other hit songs were Runaround Sue and Teenager in Love.) Everyone recognized him only by his first name, Dion.
That first-name-by-itself recognition reminds me of a lot some of today’s Democratic politicians. For instance, Bernie. Everyone knows who that is, as his last name is no longer necessary, and in fact is often misspelled, Saunders. Beto! I have some difficulty recalling what his last name actually is. Kamala! Is there any one else named Kamala other than you-know-who?
However, those Democratic presidential candidates who are not well known solely by their first names, namely Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, are actually kinda singing. If you are quiet and listen you can almost hear them repeating a Dion-esque refrain:
“They call me the panderer
Yeah, the panderer
I roam around, around, around”

Sen Warren is pandering to the young college students on some days, promising them free college tuition or on other days, she is pandering to recent college graduates, promising them that she will figure out a way to forgive their college loan debts. Promises that she knows will not be kept.
Similarly Sen. Booker is pandering to African Americans, promising them some sort of reparations for slavery. Perhaps he is worried about the black vote because as a group, blacks have done quite well due to the policies of President Trump. These Booker slavery reparation promises are promises that will not be kept.
We are a long way from the Dems choosing their nominee, and I predict a lot more pandering as some of the potential candidates find themselves falling behind the pack. Things like increasing the nation’s minimum wage, expanding Social Security, or implementing some sort of jobs guarantee are fruits all ripe for pandering along the campaign trail.
Don’t be surprised when you hear these words, very much like those sung by Dion:
“I’m the type that likes to roam around
I’m never in one place, I roam from town to town.
Cause I’m the wanderer
Yeah, the panderer
I roam around, around, around”

A few months ago I was walking around a nearby park with my young granddaughter in her stroller and we ran into Helen. Helen is a very pleasant 80+ year old widow who relocated from Albuquerque many years ago. She was enthused because she and her son were soon going back to Albuquerque for some sort of balloon festival. However, she was dismayed that they would no longer be able to eat at their favorite restaurant, because that restaurant now allowed its patrons to carry guns inside the restaurant . . . and that would be too dangerous. My response to her was, “On the contrary, Helen, that restaurant will probably be safer now than ever. If I were a bad guy or a robber, I wouldn’t want to be causing trouble at a place where I knew that “good guys” would possibly be armed. ” She responded, “I never thought about it like that. You’re probably right. What is that old saying about an ounce of prevention?” (The Benjamin Franklin axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is as true today as it was when Franklin made the quote. Although many use the quote when referring to health, Franklin actually was addressing fire safety. Franklin wrote this (courtesy of ushistory.org) under an assumed name.) New Mexico does not have any specific laws allowing or generally disallowing open carry. Anyone 18 or older may openly carry a firearm, however, to carry in a vehicle on school or college/university property one must be 19 or older.

I thought about this exchange with Helen when I was reading that both Florida and Texas are on the verge of enacting major improvements to their laws that will increase the number of teachers with guns who undergo firearms training to protect their students against attackers as a last line of defense. Another example of “an ounce of prevention?”Currently, 20 states allow teachers and other school staff members to carry guns under a variety of rules on school property, so we don’t need to guess about how safe these schools are. Some states have had these rules for decades. Think about it. Is a crazed potential shooter going to attack a school when he knows that teachers in that school could be armed? Unlikely.

The recent mass shootings in the news have been at places of worship . . . a Baptist Church in Texas last year, a synagogue in Pittsburgh six months ago and a mosque in New Zealand last month.The headline in today’s newspaper: “One Dies, 3 Injured As Gunman Opens Fire at Poway Synagogue.” In the front page article it reads, “the shooter was arrested after fleeing the synagogue amid a hail of bullets from a security guard.” (Another report stated that an off-duty Border Patrol Agent was the one who fired at the armed perpetrator and drove him off.) Whoever it was, that armed person saved many lives and prevented a myriad of injuries. He is a true hero . . . an armed “good guy.”
As my wife said, “When you stop and think about it, places of worship are ideal for crazed shooters, as there is often just one main entrance/exit, and everybody is facing away from that entrance/exit.” Scary! She is right-on. She then continued, “Maybe we should be encouraging all law-enforcement personnel to carry their weapons to church every week.” After all an ounce of prevention . . .

This past week Bernie, “I am the original far leftist & will always attempt to be more left than any other presidential candidate,” Sanders proclaimed that he thinks that felons should be allowed to vote while in prison. “The right to vote is inherent to our democracy — yes, even for terrible people,” Sanders said. “Once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Oh, that person did that, not going to let that person vote.’ You’re running down a slippery slope.” Thus far there does not appear to be much general support for Bernie’s proposal, although Sen. Kamala Harris did a poor job of skirting this issue while trying to say nothing of consequence. When asked about imprisoned felons voting she replied, “I think we should have that conversation.” 

As we are all probably aware Bernie is from Vermont, and this is of interest because Vermont is one of the two states that allow imprisoned felons to vote. (Did the votes of the Vermont felons assure Bernie of getting elected multiple times in Vermont?) The other state that allows imprisoned felons to vote (unrestricted voting rights) is Maine. Both states allow the person to vote during incarceration, via  absentee ballot, and then after terms of conviction end. There is a wide variety of different approaches in the other 50 states as far as imprisoned felons and voting. The following summary is from Wikipedia:

-In 14 states and the District of Columbia, disenfranchisement (not being allowed to vote) ends after incarceration is complete. 

– Six states have laws that relate disenfranchisement to the detail of the crime. These laws restore voting rights to some offenders on the completion of incarceration, parole, and probation. Other offenders must make an individual petition that could be denied.

-Twenty states require not only that incarceration/parole if any be complete but also that any probation sentence (which is often an alternative to incarceration) be complete.

– In four states, disenfranchisement (not able to vote) ends after incarceration and parole (if any) is complete – California, Colorado, Connecticut, and New York.

-Four states require an individual to petition to the court for restoration of voting after all offenses – Iowa, Kentucky, Virginia, and Wyoming.

The rest of the Democratic presidential candidates are all over the place on this issue, and it is going to be very difficult to have an opinion that is to left of Bernie’s. However, I have faith that one of these candidates will figure out something, so that he/she can be the furthest left of the left on this issue. Come on Beto; come on Mayor; come on Pocahontas; come on Cory; etc. “Go left!”

I never was into fishing. Because my dad could neither eat, smell, or look at a fish, he never went fishing and consequently I never really got interested in fishing. In the distant recesses of my mind, I vaguely recall having a bamboo pole and sitting on the banks of the Columbus Park lagoon with some of my young buddies . . .  fishing, or perhaps I should say, throwing my hook into the water, expectantly wishing and hoping for a bite. On the other hand one of my long-time friends loves fishing, or perhaps I could better say that he loves his yearly Canadian fishing trips. He marvels about the solitude, the scenery, and the camaraderie. I don’t recall his regaling me with stories detailing the many hours spent sitting in the boat with his fishing line limply hanging in the water . . . wishin’ and a hopin’. Last week took our young granddaughters for a stroll at Santee Lakes. As usual there were a few guys sitting in lawn-chairs with their fishing poles propped up and their fishing lines stretched out into the water. In the past whenever  I have queried them about what they were catching, I almost always got a shrug of the shoulders in reply. When my three year old granddaughter asked me what these men were doing, I responded, “a wishin’ and a hopin’!”

Why this discourse on fishing, or perhaps better said, this discourse on the sport of “wishin’ and hopin’? The segue is that it occurred to me that fishing now appears to be a sport of the Democrats in Congress . . . throw a hook into the water and hope that you catch something. 

“What specifically do you hope to catch?” 

“Oh, it doesn’t matter, if we wait long enough, we’ll get some sort of a bite, just like with the Mueller probe, and Paul Manafort and General Kelly. Of course our hooks were not baited for them, but oh well!”

As fate would have it, this morning I was reading an op-ed about the present focus of some Democrats in Congress on President Trump’s tax returns. The author of the op-ed, a CPA from Atlanta, went through the history of making tax returns public, dating back to the 1924 Revenue Act, which was most frequently utilized by women in divorce settlement proceedings and by fiancés wanting to know the income of their prospective husbands . . . both wishin’ and hopin’. This initial attempt at publicity was repealed in 1926, but the story doesn’t end there as most recently in 1976, Congress passed a law making tax returns confidential, but with a caveat – “except in limited situations when an agency’s need for information exceeded the citizen’s right to privacy.” So in my mind, does a fishing expedition or the wishin’ and hopin’ of some Democrats in Congress exceed the citizen’s right to privacy, i.e. Donald Trump’s right to privacy. Needless to say the scope of a congressional committee’s wishin’ and hopin’ has never been litigated. 

Oftentimes I just do not understand the thought process of some of these Democrats. The country finally got the results of the fruitless two year “wishin’ and hopin’ investigation” into Trump’s possible Russian collusion. The nation was bored and close to exhaustion  . . . about this big nothing-burger. Why do they think the the people want them to go fishing with another expensive “wishin’ and a hopin’ boondoggle? My advice, as I am wishin’ and hopin’ to get Trump again in 2020: “Go for it, Dems!”, as it will come back to bite them in the butt before the next election!

When my wife was ready to go to college many years ago her father had some very sage advice. Actually it was more than just advice, as it was his sine qua non requirement. “Your major must insure that you can get a job when you graduate.” Unlike today, back then there were very very few college graduates living in their parents basements, and his wise advice would be even more apropos now. The unemployment rate for recent college grads, defined as grads ages 22 to 27, is 3.8%,  according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s latest report on the labor market for recent college graduates. So even in today’s awesome job market, some college graduates cannot find a job.

But what’s worse than having no job prospects in your field of study upon graduation, is having no job or a poorly paying job and having a lot of student loan debt. Ouch!! (FYI: The average student debt is $33,310 according to the U.S Department of Education as of Sept., 2018 with 42.9 million student loan borrowers as of Feb, 2019.) In some situations this sort of ominous situation could have been predicted because of the P.C. major chosen in college. However the colleges are also to blame as many, many colleges offer courses that are similar to that tempting aroma just outside a coffee shop that lures the unsuspecting inside.
Since 1995, Young America’s Foundation has released “Comedy and Tragedy” to document the intellectual abuse and flat-out indoctrination happening by way of the appalling curriculum at our country’s most (so-called) prestigious institutions of higher education.
The following is a very small at-random selection from that list of colleges and some of the “unusual” courses that they offer, which to my perspective cannot ever lead to anything but a future in their parent’s basements for the for the naive students who take any of them:
Vanderbilt UniversityAADS 2294—Insider/Outsider: The Genealogy of Black LGBTQ PeoplesInterdisciplinary engagement with the history, culture and politics of Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) communities during the 20th and 21st centuries.

Mississippi State University SO 4403—Sociology of Gender & SexualityChanging character of gender and sexuality and significance in various social institutions. Intersection between gender, sexuality, and other forms of inequality.

Auburn UniversityPHIL 1120—Introduction to Environmental EthicsEthical inquiry into environmental issues such as non-human animal welfare, environmental justice, global climate change, resource use, and conservationism versus preservationism.

Pomona CollegeAFRI144A—Black Women Feminism(s) and Social ChangeIntroduction to the theoretical and practical contributions of African American feminists who maintain that issues of race, gender, sexuality and social class are central, rather than peripheral, to any history analysis, assessment or strategy for bringing about change in the United States.

Purdue UniversityANTH 48200—Sexual Diversity In Global PerspectivesThis course focuses on anthropological and interdisciplinary research in the study of sexuality with particular attention to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender identities. It explores historical, theoretical and ethnographic work on sexualities and genders in the US and globally.

Ohio State University WGSST 3101—Food & GenderIf you are what you eat, then food is a means for understanding gender, sexuality, culture, society, race, and socioeconomic class. This class explores feminist studies of food. By thinking through good, we explore such topics as vegetarianism, diets, pleasure, farming, hunger, fat studies, boycotts, eating disorders, waste, and culinary heritage. This class is literally food for thought.

University of NebraskaWMNS 288—Exploring Love, Sexuality and Femininity in the History of Arabic CultureConcepts of love, sexuality and femininity as studied in their historical, religious and sociological contexts.

Keep in mind that the courses listed above are but only microcosm of what is out there, and do not seem to fulfill the sine qua non of: “Your major must insure that you can get a job when you graduate.” 

BTW, just as an aside, the best college major is Actuarial Science . . . so if you smell this aroma and like it, go into that coffee shop!

There was a story in my local newspaper the other day about an “undocumented worker,” Victor Coba Alvarez, who along with 31 of his coworkers, was caught up in a February ICE federal search warrant at his place of employment, Zion Market, in San Diego. The article attempted to portray Mr. Alvarez as an unfortunate victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and although some of that may be true, he is not merely an innocent bystander. He is an illegal.

Although it did not say for how many years Mr. Alvarez had been an “undocumented worker,” we do know that he had worked at Zion Market for 12 years. The management at Zion Market claims that it did not know that the 32 workers were “undocumented,” because they all had the required two forms of government issued I.D.s. So here we have somewhat of a quandary. Either the management at Zion Market is lying and they knew that Mr. Alvarez and his 31 coworkers were illegal, or Mr. Alvarez and most, if not all, of his coworkers went out of their way to obtain two false government issued IDs each. My suspicion is that both are true . . . Mr. Alvarez probably did have two fraudulent “government issued IDs”, and Zion Market realized that the IDs were fraudulent, but hired them anyway. Either way Mr. Alvarez is illegal.

The article went on to say that the family of Mr Alvarez is also suffering in that the breadwinner for the family no longer has a job. One daughter, age 19, had to cut back on going to school, and the younger daughter, age 17, is in therapy. Mr. Alvarez did say  that the ones most impacted are the children. He is correct, but who is responsible for putting them in that position? Of course, the answer is that Mr. Alvarez, himself, is the one to blame. 

As a matter of fact, I do have some compassion for Mr. Alvarez because if I were in a similar situation, I may well have done the same thing as he did many years ago. Furthermore he has been a productive member of society for many years, and has not broken any laws after his illegal entry into the U.S. The problem with the viewpoints of both President Trump and the Democrats is that they both treat all illegal immigrants the same, when that is far from reality. I do not view him the same way that I view illegals who are breaking laws, abusing spouses, joining gangs, driving drunk, dealing in drugs, etc. Likewise I do not view him the same way as I view those illegals who are here to take advantage of the many social benefits that our state and our country offer. As I have stated, I do not hold any malice toward Mr. Alvarez, as he is not the prototypical gang-banger or lowlife that is here only to take advantage of “freebies.” 

If all illegals are not the same, how should we divide or separate them. What should we do about “the Victors?” Here is my idea. I am proposing that illegals be separated into three separate categories:

1. Those like Victor who are productive and law-abiding. Neither Victor nor his family should ever be allowed to vote, and they would not be qualified to receive any social benefits in the future. They are not citizens, and should not be considered as such in the future.

2. Those who are lawbreakers should be arrested, jailed, and/or deported immediately.

3. Those who are receiving any social benefits (e.g. food stamps, disability, etc.) would have a one year”probation” period, during which time they either become productive or are deported.

I realize that I will again receive heat from all sides, but to me my proposal is fair with a modicum of empathy.

Do both public charter schools and traditional public schools in major metropolitan areas receive equitable per-pupil funding? 

The University of Arkansas has looked at this question for several years, and looked at the comparable funding in 15 cities. The Public Charter School Funding Study is a series of analyses comparing the funding levels between public charter schools and traditional public schools across the country. 

They defined a public charter school as any school that (1) operates based on a formal charter in place of direct school district management and (2) reports its finances independently from the school district. We define all other public schools as traditional public schools (TPS).

The latest study, “Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the City,” examines all sources of revenue including federal, state, local and nonpublic dollars during the 2015-16 school year in 15 cities across the nation that have a high concentration of enrollment in charter schools. The 15 urban areas that are included in the study include Atlanta, Boston, Camden, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, New York City, Oakland, San Antonio, Tulsa, and Washington.

The results generally show that among schools that serve a similar population of students, public charter schools are funded at lower levels than traditional public schools. Charter schools in all 15 cities received on average 27 percent less total revenue than traditional public schools (an average $5,721 per pupil). Differences in the rates of enrolling students with special educational needs only explain the charter school funding gap in the cities of Atlanta and Boston.

In general it is accepted that the students that attend most charter schools do better. For example in 2019 in NYC, black and Hispanic middle school students at the Success Academy Charter Schools network were accepted to the elite NYC high schools at double the rate of their black and Hispanic cohorts citywide. Not a surprise as the same thing happened in 2018. Keep in mind that Success Academy chooses their students by lottery, and the acceptance, or not, to the select high schools is based on a single highly competitive entrance test. 

Many years ago one of my neighbors told me that Dr. X was his doctor because Dr. X charged more for an office visit than anybody else in town, and therefore, he must have been the best. “You get what you pay for,” he told me. Likewise, people who shop at Nordstrom’s know that they while they are paying more for something, they are getting something of higher quality, and that’s okay because, “You get what you pay for!”

So far, so good, but it is here that I get puzzled because the economic adage, “you get what you pay for” does not seem to apply when it comes to educating children. Most charter schools do a better job at educating children than the local TPS, but yet in the comparative study noted above, the charters do so with an average 27% less revenue.

In New York City the revenue discrepancy between charters and TPS is $5,008 per student. Imagine how many of the 50,000-plus New York City school children on charter-school wait list could be accommodated if the total amount of money in that revenue discrepancy could be reallocated to fund more charters in NYC . . . and as a bonus, NYC would actually get what it was paying for, namely better educated children!

“Using human beings-including children-for perceived political gain is reprehensible,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D,CA) wrote on Twitter. This statement by one of the many potential Democratic candidates for the presidency was in response to the reported possibility of transporting illegal immigrants to sanctuary states and cities. Of course, even those who are big Kamala Harris fans know that her statement is purely reactionary and political. Since usually it’s the Democrats that criticize the President for using Twitter, perhaps this is another example of the pot calling the kettle . . . err, err, never mind! I would like to ask Ms. Harris if she has actually thought this through! She might well answer, “Obviously not!”

Perhaps the following logic will help her better think this through, as I am proposing that we look at the situation from the perspective of the brand new immigrant. I suspect that looking the situation from the non-political perspective of the immigrant is probably an alien concept to Ms. Harris. Has she thought about this from the perspective of an new immigrant ? Obviously not. 
To help Ms. Harris learn about what these new immigrants need and want, one of my Spanish speaking friends spoke with Jose, who had recently crossed the Rio Grande with his wife and their two children. The following is an encapsulated summary of Jose’s feelings on this matter:

“I am an immigrant from Central America and I have just come across the border into southern Texas. Do I want to stay in south Texas? Obviously not, as my first priority is getting to someplace away from the border where I can hope to try to start a new life. That is going to involve figuring out a plan and a route through and out of Texas. How am I going to accomplish that ? In what direction should I go ? I wish that someone could help me find a place where I will feel safe. Do I want to be looking over my shoulder every time I do something or go somewhere ? Obviously not. Perhaps there is some place where I would not have to worry about getting grabbed by the INS in the future ? Somewhere safe and secure . . . is there anyplace safer and more secure than what they call “a sanctuary city or state? “ Obviously not, but where is such a place? I speak no English. That can be a big problem if I end up going someplace where everyone speaks only English. How would I find any work in such a place ? And just as bad, my wife and my kids only speak Spanish. How would my wife find friends ? Where would we go to church ? Where would my kids go to school ? We need to settle somewhere where others speak Spanish, where the schools are bilingual, and where the church services are in Spanish. Is there such a place ? How do I find such a place ?Will I be able to find such a place on my own ? Obviously not.

I have heard that the Democrats are sympathetic to us newcomers. Perhaps they will be able to direct me and my family to a place where I will feel safe, a place where a lot of people already speak Spanish. Perhaps they can figure out a way to help me get to a sanctuary state like California, Colorado, or Illinois, or even better yet a city like San Francisco or Chicago. Is it possible that perhaps one of the Democratic candidates vying for presidency can help me.?”
After reading Sen Harris’ Twitter comment on transporting new immigrants to sanctuary cities and states, I must conclude that her answer to Jose’s last question is, “Obviously, not me!”

Who is Pete Buttigieg? My initial answer is, “Does anybody care?” But wait; let’s be more tolerant, as this 37 year old is one of the latest to put his name in the 2020 Democratic hopper, hoping to be chosen as their nominee for president.

First of all, he is a very smart guy who is the son of two Notre Dame professors. He was his high school’s valedictorian, and subsequently went to Harvard where he graduated magna cum laude in 2004. Subsequently he was a Rhodes Scholar in 2007. Like I said, “Pete is a very smart guy.”

In November 2011, he was elected Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He took office in January 2012 at age 29, becoming the youngest mayor of a U.S. city with at least 100,000 residents. He was re-elected in 2015 to a second term. So far, so good, but there are no more successful chapters in his book. 

His experience in state politics is a goose-egg, as he was the Democratic Party nominee for State Treasurer of Indiana in 2010, and was defeated by Republican incumbent Richard Mourdock, garnering only 37.5% of the vote. Ouch!  On the national level his experience is another zippo.  He ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2017, and withdrew from the race on the day of the election. Ouch!
As he has already stated that he is not going to seek a third term as Mayor of South Bend, what is this 37 year old going to do with his future free time? Well the answer should be intuitively obvious . . . to snowflakes. He should run for President of the U.S.A.!! It is amazing to me that someone who has never had a state, much less a national office, has the hutzpah to run for President! (At least Beto had been elected to the House, and at least Obama had been a Senator . . . albeit for one term. Trump was a uber successful businessman.)

Pete is a far leftist, and in my opinion, those far left Democrats should be encouraged as they are not electable. He supports abortions into the third trimester out of a belief in “freedom from government.” And he won’t rule out tax hikes. “If the only way I can get all of us paid parental leave, universal health care, dramatically improved child care, better education, good infrastructure and, therefore, longer life expectancy and a healthier economy is to raise revenue, then we should be honest about that,” he said. Go, Pete, go!

But it gets better. Since launching his exploratory committee to run for president on Jan. 23, he has already raised $7 million for his campaign. (Somebody must care!) Now, think about that for a second. Who would donate money to a nobody’s presidential campaign ? Who are the 7 million snowflakes that make up this blizzard?  My view – do not discourage this tomfoolery. Encourage donations to Pete’s campaign. The more money these nincompoops donate to Buttigieg now, the less money they will have in the future to donate when there is a substantial challenger to Trump.

A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 4 percent of Democrats would vote for him — the same number that supports Elizabeth Warren, who has been a U.S. senator for six years. Again an amazing statistic. 4%!! Who make up these 4%? I can’t put a finger on a word that means the combination of a “snowflake” and a “nincompoop,” but that neologism would fit here. And finally he has already had a “Hillary deplorable moment” when on “Meet the Press” this past weekend, Pete accused evangelicals of being “hypocrites” for accepting, rather than rejecting Trump. Guess who all of the “hypocrites” will not be voting for?
So now that you are familiar with Pete Buttigieg . . . “Does anybody care?”

Dear Senators Harris and Feinstein,
I know that the Democratic Party has always stood up for the downtrodden and the less fortunate in our society, and with that in mind, I am confident that you will be voting for the Education Freedom Scholarship (EFS) bill, being proposed by Sen. Cruz (R,Tx) and Rep. Byrne (R, AL). If you are not familiar with EFS, let me bring you up to date. 

The following is from the U.S. Department of Education’s website:

“The policy will make a historic investment in America’s students, injecting up to $5 billion yearly into locally controlled scholarship programs that empower students to choose the learning environment and style that best meets their unique needs. The policy would not rely on any funds currently allocated to public education, nor would it create a new federal education program. Participation would be voluntary for students, schools, and states.”

Obviously the State of California has had its disagreements with the Trump administration, but here is a chance for California to take advantage of a new program which will benefit mainly those minority students that are presently trapped in failing inner city schools.

Again from the website: “EFS will be funded through taxpayers’ voluntary contributions to state-identified Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). Those taxpayers will then receive a non-refundable, dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit. EFS will not create a new federal education program but instead will allow states to decide whether to participate and how to select eligible students, education providers, and allowable education expenses.”

To no one’s surprise, EFS has the backing of the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos who said, “I believe every student in America deserves the opportunity to pursue the education that best meets his or her needs. No student should feel stuck in a school that just isn’t working for them, or feel hopeless because they live on the ‘wrong’ side of town. Education Freedom Scholarships will finally give students the opportunity to learn in places and grow in ways that have too often been denied to them.”

 I realize that for the last two years the Democrats in the U.S. Senate have for the most part opposed just about anything that has had the backing of the Senate Republicans, but I am confident that you will agree with the Secretary of Education and will recognize the benefits of EFS for those children who have been denied a chance at a good education because of partisan past political bickering.

I want to extend my thanks to you both in anticipation of your future presumed enthusiastic commitment to the education of the unfortunate children who are presently denied access to quality education, especially in your home state.

Sincerely,