July 10, 2015

"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life."

--Abraham Lincoln

Chairman's Note: Universal child care is, and has always been, a conservative priority

Next week the Senate will vote on legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the legislation governing our federal K-12 education policy. But if Senate Democrats have their way, it will soon become the legislation that empowers the federal government to take over the nation’s preschool and childcare programs, subjecting children to the enervating incompetence of government institutions during their most formative years.
 
This is not conjecture or hyperbole. Included in the bill, which received bipartisan support in committee, are provisions that would allow K-12 funds to be diverted to preschool programs. And the Democrats plan to push an amendment calling for $30 billion of new spending on pre-K programs over five years, on top of the $20 billion we already spend every year on early childhood education and care.
 
This is by design. Earlier this week The Washington Post reported that “universal child care is fast becoming a top priority of progressives and Democrats.”
 
To which conservatives should reply, “It’s about time!”
 
Universal child care is, and has always been, a conservative priority. That’s why we promote public policies that strengthen and support parents, families, neighborhoods, civic and charitable institutions, religious organizations, free markets, and a targeted, responsive, locally administered safety net to help the neediest in our communities.

"Universal child care is, and has always been, a conservative priority. That’s why we promote public policies that strengthen and support parents, families, neighborhoods, civic and charitable institutions, religious associations, free markets, and a targeted, responsive, locally administered safety net to help the neediest in our communities."

But of course that’s not what progressives mean when they talk about “universal child care.” For the Left, “universal” means “run by bureaucrats and funded by taxpayers,” a formula that survives on its aspirations and promises, not its results.
 
Nowhere has this top-down, centrally planned model failed more emphatically than in the area of early childhood education. The epitome of federal preschool programs is Head Start, which has consistently failed to improve the lives and educational achievements of the children it ostensibly serves.
 
But because bureaucracies invariably measure success in terms of inputs, instead of outcomes, Head Start and its $8 billion annual budget is the model for Democrats as they seek to expand federal control over pre-K and childcare programs in communities all across the country.
 
This would be a disaster for American children and families. They deserve better. And the good news is that we have the means to do better. The private sector and state and local governments are already providing childcare and preschool services to most families.
 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 90 percent of working moms have a regular childcare arrangement for their kids under five years old. The existing programs may not be perfect, but putting the federal government in charge is not the way to improve them.
 
After making sure the ESEA reauthorization isn’t used to expand Washington’s control over early childhood education and care, conservatives must advance reforms that empower parents – with flexibility and choice – to do what’s in the best interest of their children.

"Senator Mike Lee and Representative Mia Love Discuss Education Reform "

To watch the full video CLICK HERE

Issue In Focus: Removing Uncertainty and Instability from Transportation Funding

For much of the next several weeks – and perhaps the next several months – Congress will debate and discuss short-term financing solutions to the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund and long-term policy solutions to the structural problems plaguing our nation’s transportation system.
 
The immediate context of this debate is that at the end of July our federal highway programs are scheduled to expire, and shortly thereafter the Highway Trust Fund, the chief financing instrument for these programs, is set to run out of money.
 
But more fundamental than these two deadlines, we will have this debate because everyone knows the status quo is broken.
 
The core of the problem is a pervasive uncertainty and instability within our federal highway system.
 
Just ask any construction contractor what it’s like to try to manage a payroll, plan an equipment schedule, and pay a supply chain for a multi-year highway improvement project when one of their main revenue streams – the Highway Trust Fund – is constantly threatened by interference from politicians in Washington.
 
Or ask a truck driver trying to make an on-time delivery how much it costs – in lost time and lost fuel – to sit in hours of gridlock traffic on roads that were built for a mid-twentieth century economy.
 
Or ask any employee within a state department of transportation how counterproductive and costly it is to be forced by their betters in the federal bureaucracy to spend a certain portion of their limited transportation dollars building walking paths when what their state really needs is an extra lane on the freeway.
 
In pursuit of a way to restore stability and certainty to the system, many are looking to the past successes of our federal highway program. And for good reason.
 
The federal highway program that President Eisenhower created in the 1950s spurred one of America’s greatest domestic achievements of the 20th century: the construction of a sprawling interstate highway system without which the country could not have become the economic and military force that we are today.
 
But the source of the federal highway program’s success – and the Highway Trust Fund’s stability – was the national consensus that America needed an interstate highway system. By the time the interstate system was nearing completion – more than two decades ago – this consensus slowly began breaking down, as the country’s transportation needs shifted from national to local in scope.
 
To fix our federal highway system today, we don’t need to imitate the past, we need to emulate it, by creating a diverse, flexible, open-source transportation network that empowers state and local officials to meet the unique, 21st-century needs of their communities.