Almost everyone agrees that schools need to do a better job of preparing students for the workplace. So the “school-to-work” programs up and running in 37 states should be uncontroversial. Keeping employer needs in mind and preparing students to meet them, as these programs intend, seem sensible things for schools to do.
       But many parents are angry about these efforts and the $2.3 billion Federal plan that helps support them. Instead of focusing on students in vocational education, these parents point out, STW programs by law, include all students. And in practice, the programs assume unwarranted authority over children’s lives.
      A central thesis of STW plans, for example, is that eighth graders should choose a career. To help them along, schools administer interest and personality assessments that direct students toward specific occupations, often ones that have little to do with their ambitions.
      Kristine Jensen, a Nevada mother, told me that her daughter, an honor student who wants to work for NASA, had been advised to consider a career in sanitation or interior design. Eunice Evans, a parental-rights advocate in PA, described a boy in her neighborhood who wanted to be a doctor but was told it would be more appropriate for him to be a gas station attendant or a truck driver.
      STW programs don’t just direct job choices. They also seek to inculcate attitudes. The Federal School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, which prescribes much of what is going on in the states, requires that young women be encouraged to consider “nontraditional employment.”
      In conformance with this mandate, a publication of the Texas Education Agency recommends that students be repeatedly tested to see whether they think some jobs are more suitable for one sex than the other. Thus, it advises, teachers can determine “if growth occurs in the student’s views of nontraditional occupations” or “if there is a need for early intervention.”
      A non-profit group called the National Center for Education and the Economy

STW opponents face an uphill battle, largely because STW legislation sounds so appealing.

(NCEE) has been a force behind both Federal STW legislation and the efforts in many states. Hillary Rodham Clinton served on the center’s board and, before she became First Lady, promoted STW ideas. Ira Magaziner was another active board member, and the sweeping scope of STW, as well as its faith in central planning, calls to mind the health care proposal advanced by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Magaziner four years ago. In 1993, the concept was regional alliances to survey health-care plans and decide what ones people should choose; now the idea is workforce boards to consider future market needs and decide which career choices schools should encourage.
      Redirecting schools to prepare students for jobs that central planners recommend does not guarantee the economic well-being of those students, and can even be a hinderance. A student whose high school career focuses on specific jobs in one field may discover in college that another area is more interesting and therefore more likely to inspire high achievement. But early specialization leaves such a student unprepared to take the courses that his or her more mature aspirations require.
      STW materials frequently insist that all courses, even those in elementary school, relate to the world of work. In Salido, CO, the entire curriculum from kindergarten through fifth gradereading, writing, arithmetic and social studies includedrecently focused for a year on careers in health care. According to a STW publication from the Education and Labor Departments, individuals learn best “by relating what they learn in school to their experience as workers.” But that claim is not based on research and reflects an excessively narrow view of education.
      Schools prepare citizens as well as workers, and they do so best when students are encouraged to read literature and history not merely for what they tell about the workplace, but for their insights into the human condition. The liberal arts, shoved aside by the STW system, were so named because they foster the habits of mind necessary for freedom.
      STW opponents face an uphill battle, largely because STW legislation sounds so appealing. Their task in the next session of Congress and beyond is to explain forcefully why further STW programs, worthy though they may sound, are a terrible idea for our schools.

       At last somebody in government has stepped out from the crowd and said what Americans have been waiting to hear, namely, that he has a plan to cut and simplify our oppressive tax burden and let us spend our own money any way we want to spend it. That’s what Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO) did when he announced the way to spell reform is R-E-D-U-C-E.
      All the recent talk about taxes that we’ve been hearing out of Washington, D.C. has missed the mark. The debate about a flat tax vs. a national sales tax is, to use an overworked metaphor, just rearranging the deck chairs on you know what. The transition to a completely new system would be agonizing, and there’s no assurance that total taxes would be lower that they are today. “Abolish the IRS” is a cheap applause line in any politician’s speech, but it’s an empty promise. Federal taxes are not going to be abolished, so what difference does it make what is the name of the agency?
      Bill Clinton’s tax-cut proposals are all “targeted.” That’s the liberals’ code word for saying, “We’ll give you a slight reduction on your federal tax bill just so long as you spend the difference the way the government tells you to spend it.” Clinton’s much-bally-hooed day-care initiative is a case in point. “Targeted tax cuts” require spending them on hired day care, but no tax cut is available to those who spend their money on mother care.
      We’re surfeited with talking heads on television speculating on how the politicians are going to spend the alleged budget surplus. It’s not theirs to spend, thank you; we’d like to spend the money ourselves. The big question is, as Ashcroft pointed out, why are Americans now “paying higher taxes than virtually any time in history?” Why is our non-defense federal spending 17% of our gross domestic product compared to only 10% in the 1960s?
      We are not at war, no enemy is clamoring at our gates and the economy is booming. So why are we continuing to support the Washington politicians in the rich style in which they’ve become accustomed (while they posture about compassion of the “middle class”)? The American people are fed up with carrying this enormous tax burden on our backs. The two-earner median-income American family will pay a shocking 32.8% of its income to the government in 1998.
      For starters, Ashcroft’s proposal would allow taxpayers to deduct the Social Security and Medicare taxes they pay (known as the payroll or FICA tax). This simple change would put more money in the pockets of working Americans than any other proposal. It’s also a matter of simple fairness because half of the payroll tax is paid by employers, who can fully deduct those payments as a business expense. It’s only fair to allow employees to deduct the half they pay, too.

Initial cost estimates suggest Ashcroft's plan would cut the tax bill of a married couple with two children 55% if their income is $40,000, and 86% if their income is $30,000. The naysayers are already complaining that the Ashcroft proposal would "cost too much." But we must not allow the liberals and the spenders to control the language of the tax debate.

      This proposal is especially advantageous because its benefits would go to middle-class taxpaying workers, not to people who live on interest, dividends, loopholes or welfare or tax credits. It would relieve the burden of high payroll taxes without taking a dime out of the trust funds that pay Social Security and Medicare benefits.
      Ashcroft’s plan would help senior citizens by eliminating the income tax on Social Security benefits and by eliminating the earnings test for Social Security. The 10-point Ashcroft proposal has something in it for all Americans and offers a complete answer to most of the arguments that the Democrats make against Republican tax-cut ideas.
      Ashcroft’s tax overhaul is designed for tax relief, simpler tax returns, correcting inequities in the tax code and enhancing core American values. His plan would reduce the number of tax brackets from five to four and substantially reduce the rates for most Americans. Ashcroft’s plan calls for doubling the IRA contribution level to $4000 and for eliminating the marriage penalty in a way that would protect families and be fair to both two-earner and single-earner couples. By contrast, other Republican plans being floated would discriminate against full-time homemakers.
      Initial cost estimates suggest Ashcroft’s plan would cut the tax bill of a married couple with two children 55% if their income is $40,000, and 86% if their income is $30,000. The naysayers are already complaining that the Ashcroft proposal would “cost too much.” But we must not allow the liberals and the spenders to control the language of the tax debate. Criticizing the “timid, anemic tax package” passed by the Republican Congress last year, Ashcroft points out that federal spending is projected to increase by $1.5 trillion over the next five years. The Ashcroft tax cut looks very reasonable by comparison: $985 billion over five years.
      Mr. Ashcroft warns that “we simply don’t have time to wait.” We have to cut taxes “before the President and the governmentalists in the GOP use the budget surplus on new entitlements.” The Ashcrodft plan is a winner. Is the Republican Congress listening?

       The Texas Healthy Kids Corp. (THKC) was established by the legislature in 1997, claiming a crisis of 1.3 million uninsured children. The majority of Texas legislators altruistically voted for the deceptive label “children’s health”, disregarding the fact that government programs often weaken families. Only 25 House members and six Senators bravely voted against THKC (see below for list) and this BIG GOVERNMENT scheme.
       The Texas Eagle Forum opposed the THKC because it allows the State to usurp the responsibility as well as the authority of parents for their children. In addition, it also mandates health insurance coverage for children which not only disrupts the free market, but can cause employers to drop coverage for children from their employee benefit packages. After all, why include children in the benefit package if the government will pick up the tab?
       In reality, there was (and is) no such crisis. Most children do not lack health care, although some children are without health insurance for various reasons. (For example, when a parent changes jobs, there is a temporary lack of insurance coverage.) For those children without health insurance, there are government programs already in place, i.e. Medicaid. So why the “crisis” of uninsured children?
       We know that the THKC is the first step of President and Hillary Clinton’s alternative plan to incrementally implement the failed socialized medicine scheme, dubbed “Hillarycare.” That fact was made clear in the documents secured as a result of a lawsuit filed against the Clinton Administration by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). It was disclosed that Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner held illegal closed-door meetings to plot the overthrow of one-seventh of America’s economy, our private medical system. Recently, Mr. Magaziner was fined for his part in the cover-up, while Ms. Clinton continues to elude the law.
       After their one-step takeover failed, President Clinton told the Service Employees International Union that, “What I tried to do before won’t work. Maybe we can do it another way. That’s what we’ve tried to do, a step at a time until eventually we finish this…. We’ve got to do it right so we can go on to the next step and the next step and the next step.” Union members cheered as Mr. Clinton told them he wanted to accomplish this before the end of his second term in 2001.
       During debate in the Texas legislature, we cautioned legislators that the THKC could be a conduit for funds from a proposed federal program called, “Kids First.” Last fall, Congress enacted Title XXI of the Social Security Act (Kids First) under the Balanced Budget Act, which authorizes states to implement a “Children’s Health Insurance Program” (CHIP). Now, Democrats and Republicans alike are grappling for $423 million a year from the federal CHIP/Kids First program. They argue that it’s our money and they are doing us a favor by establishing new bureaucracies. Where are the politicians who promised us smaller government?
       According to the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, CHIP/Kids First will cost $1,401 per child if all eligible children are enrolled. Since the Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 40% of the eligible children would have been covered by private insurance if Congress hadn’t acted, this means the program will spend about $2,340 per year for each newly covered childor an unnecessary $15.9 billion over five years. By comparison, a typical private health insurance policy covering only a child costs $792 a year. In order to “qualify” for the federal CHIP/Kids First program, Texas must “contribute” $151 million in matching funds and set up a new bureaucracy according to the

After their one-step takeover failed, President Clinton told the Service Employees International Union that, "What I tried to do before won't work. Maybe we can do it another way. That's what we've tried to do, a step at a time until eventually we finish this…. We've got to do it right so we can go on to the next step and the next step and the next step."

federal guidelines. The much-publicized tobacco settlement totaling $15.3 billion arrived just in time to pick up the $151 million tab. After the tobacco money is used up, it is probable that the taxpayers will pay the bill.
       The 1999 Texas legislature must determine which entity will become the conduit for the federal CHIP/Kids First AND the tobacco settlement monies. A “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) signed on February 3, 1998, by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rob Junell, D-San Angelo, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bill Ratliff, R-Mt. Pleasant, and Attorney General Dan Morales maps out how the tobacco settlement will be distributed. Rep. Junell and Senator Ratliff have also agreed to introduce an appropriations bill and any necessary enabling legislation to direct the funds in accordance with the MOU after it has been deposited into the general revenue fund. They agreed to work together to assure that the funds would be “utilized exclusively for the benefit of children and public health.” They also plan to establish a permanent fund in the state treasury that would provide a perpetual source of funding for children’s programs and public health services.
       Goals of the THKC and the CHIP/Kids First programs are identical, so it is logical that the federal funds would go to THKC, even though the legislature designed it to be a public/private entity to be privitized after 5 years. That may have simply put the nose of the camel under the tent. Nevertheless, “the establishment of a permanent fund in the state treasury that would provide a perpetual source of funding for children’s programs and public health services,” is suggestive of another entitlement program.
       Some are working to use a different entity than the THKC for the funds, the “Texas State Child Health Plan,” which would regionally administer the money through managed care organizations. Funds would go to eight public hospital districts (Bexar, Dallas, Ector, El Paso, Harris, Lubbock, Nueces and Tarrant), as well as the UT Medical Branch and the city of Austin who would either deliver the care or arrange for it using contracts or alliances with local provider systems. This plan seems to rob patients of their choices of doctors and professional health care alternatives.
       Another federally controlled bureaucracy is bad, but even worse is the real possibility of the bureaucratic funds being used for school-based/school-linked comprehensive health services, condom distribution programs, bleach and needle kits for drug abusers, homosexual advocacy programs, or countless other liberal schemes. Regretfully, most of these programs are administered without parental knowledge or consent.
       As you can see, government officials are busy planning the new federal and state bureaucracies, then making them a priority during the 1999 legislative session. Will anyone call the President’s and Congress’ hand on this “carrot and stick” approach that snares Texans into another BIG GOVERNMENT trap?