July 26, 2006
The Problem with Howard RichIn recent posts I've pointed out how Howard Rich and Grover Norquist and a very small group of their friends have created a massive network of astroturf organizations through which millions of dollars are being moved to several states in support of TABOR, term limits, and eminent domain initiatives. The response from the right has been typical: what is wrong with people working together to fund political efforts? It is done all the time.
Yes, people do work together to fund political efforts all the time. And nothing is wrong with that. The question is, when a very small number of people use heavy-handed methods to push their own extreme agenda on local communities, preventing local activists from addressing legitimate local issues, and they do it through a smokescreen of fake groups intended to hide their identity and create the appearance that the effort is local, they have crossed the line. Let's take a closer look.
Heavy Handed TacticsHoward Rich's heavy-handedness has been getting him into trouble since his Libertarian days back in 1982. He left the party, but not his ideology. And now some conservatives are complaining that Rich's heavy-handed tactics, particularly with regards to term limits, are hurting their efforts. Things really came to a head in 1997 and 1998. Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican who disagreed with US Term Limits only on the number of terms, was told, "If you get in our way, we'll mow you down." Don Hodel, president of the Christian Coalition and long-time supporter of term limits, told Rich the Christian Coalition would "openly reject" Rich's irresponsible, ineffective, and irrational approach to term limits.
In one case, a California Republican term limits supporter was actively opposed by US Term Limits and Americans for Limited Terms (both Howard Rich groups), who spent $250,000 in support of the Democrat in the race who was also a term limits opponent. The reason? Tom Bordonaro, who had promised to vote for any term limits bill that crossed his desk, refused to sign a pledge to self-limit his terms to no more than three two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms in the Senate. His aging Democrat opponent, who opposed term limits, could readily sign the pledge because she knew she wouldn't live long enough to break it. A similar attack on a conservative in Illinois also resulted in that candidate's loss.
According to one conservative in Washington, Rich and his group "treat those who disagree with them on tactical matters as apostates." Another says, "They're absolutely inflexible. No good deed goes unpunished." Arne Owens of the Christian Coalition said, "We no longer consider U.S. Term Limits a part of the conservative movement. Nor do most conservative organizations." In fact, it was a disgruntled conservative activist, expressing the same view as Owens, who first brought the Howard Rich story to my attention.
Since 1998, Rich seems to have realized that his tactics will not work with elected representatives, so he is taking his all-or-nothing approach directly to the voters instead.
Creating the Appearance of GrassrootsWhen you hear "Oregonians in Action" you automatically think "this is a group of Oregonians who have banded together to get something done." Fortunately, in Oregon, that is true, though even this solid group has been taking money from Rich and friends of late. Oregon is probably not the only state with a citizen group that pre-existed the Rich influence only to succumb to it in recent years. But in many other states where Rich-written and Rich-funded ballot initiatives are being put before the voters, the groups were created specifically for this effort and are anything but grassroots.
Several of Rich's groups have clever acronyms. In Arizona, Rich's group is Arizona HOPE (the Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort). In Nevada, Rich's eminent domain effort is called PISTOL (the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land). And his Nevada TABOR group is called TASC (Tax and Spending Control for Nevada). In Nebraska, it's SOS Nebraska (Stop Over Spending Nebraska) and in Michigan it's SOS Michigan (Stop Over Spending Michigan).
Other groups have pulled their names from existing groups. In Idaho, it's Idahoans for Tax Reform. In Oklahoma, the group is called Oklahomans In Action. In Montana, it's Montanans in Action. He also has the Western Nebraska Taxpayers Association. In Missouri, it's Missourians in Charge (even though it's really Rich in charge).
Others just plain sound local. In California, Rich is working with Citizens to Save California. In Maine, it's the Main Freedom Committee. In South Carolina it's South Carolinians for Responsible Government. In Ohio it's Citizens for Tax Repeal. Florida has Hands Off Florida, Minnesota has Let Minnesota Vote!, and Nebraska has Nebraskans for Human Care Committee (a Terry Schiavo inspired initiative).
All of these initiatives are being put forward and funded by non-local Howard Rich. Signatures were all collected by non-local petitioners. The language of the measures was written by non-local Rich-paid individuals (such as Dave Hunnicut, who wrote a number of eminent domain/Measure 37 style initiatives for various states).
Is it any wonder that Rich has also created and funded an astroturf group called "Citizens in Charge" that is designed to get ALL states to adopt initiative and referendum laws? It is the one means available to this extremist, heavy-handed libertarian movement to force its agenda on the country. Elected Representatives work together to fine-tune legislation and ensure it works for the good of all their constituents. Voters, on the other hand, can only give a measure an up or down vote. If you support term limits, you must accept the precise version offered or have no term limits at all. If you want to end eminent domain abuse, you must also accept Measure 37 compensation or forfeit the eminent domain protections. If you want a rainy day fund or some limitations on state spending, you must also accept Rich's extremely strict limits which will eventually cut the budget in half.
It is far too easy for an unscrupulous man with deep pockets and an unpopular extremist agenda to push aside more moderate proposals by preventing those proposals from obtaining adequate funding to compete for a spot on the ballot (this actually occurs), to create astroturf groups that generate the false appearance that local people are responding to a local crisis, and to then convince voters to make an extreme choice that may not be in their best interests. That is what is wrong with the tactics being used by Howard Rich.
READ MORE at.........
http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/07/the_problem_wit_1.htmlHowie Friedman and "School Choice" goes back to Milton Friedman School of Econimics that brought us Reagan Revolution and "Libertarian Politics for ALL" that led to the Economic Implision of '1998 and and 2008!"
MORE about HOWARD RICH:School-Choice Strategy June 16, 2007
By Howard S. Rich
Wall Street Journal
The flattened borders of the 21st century have made networking faster, global trade freer and competition more rigorous -- meaning the premium we place on educating future generations is higher than ever before. Yet the nation's monopolistic approach to education remains a millstone around our children's necks, with America consistently lagging behind its industrialized peers in academic achievement.
The late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman understood the central role school choice must play in revitalizing American education. "Empowering parents would generate a competitive education market, which would lead to a burst of innovation and improvement, as competition has done in so many other areas," he said in December 2005. "There's nothing that would do so much to ensure a skilled and educated work force."
By any objective measure, Friedman was right. The success of school choice as a method of empowering parents, raising student achievement and improving public education systems in those markets where it has been implemented is indisputable. The question now becomes how to achieve meaningful school choice for the benefit of all parents, not just a select few?
After this year's compelling school-choice victory in Utah, the methodology for successfully advancing parental options against the well-funded phalanxes of institutional opposition is crystallizing. Specifically, Utah's success has proven the efficacy of advocating universal choice initiatives as opposed to limited, means-tested pilot programs.
Beyond the obvious quantitative benefits universal plans provide (i.e., more choices for a larger number of parents), consider the following lessons from experience:
• Scaling back choice plans does nothing to diminish institutional opposition. Too often, supporters of school choice assume that watering down legislation in their states will result in acquiescence from teachers unions and the education-industrial complex. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether it is choice for one child or one million children, the education establishment will fight it tooth and nail. If anything, the rhetorical salvos launched against scaled-back proposals are even more incendiary, with bureaucratic apologists falsely accusing school choice supporters of "sneak attacks" and "end-arounds" in addition to the predictable "anti-public education" harangues.
Moreover, the introduction of "softer" choice bills is often perceived as a political retreat, emboldening opponents and unnecessarily muddying the clear policy and philosophical merits school choice enjoys. Anti-choice forces do not make distinctions nor will they ever stop attacking that freedom once it has been achieved. Even after Utah's decisive school choice victory, supporters of the status quo are already seeking to derail the legislation by using the state's public referendum process -- all this despite the fact that Utah's public schools received more than half a billion dollars in new funding this year.
• Broader choice plans equal broader support. You don't have to take Grassroots 101 to know that successful coalitions are based on addition, not subtraction. Yet in many instances school choice supporters have been conditioned to believe that confining the parameters of parental choice will lead to a broader base of public support. The opposite is true. As employee stock options and personal savings accounts have shown, nothing motivates individuals quite like becoming personally invested in an issue.
Supporters of school choice cannot afford to leave a single ally on the sidelines -- for Christian school parents, home school parents, parents with special-needs children or parents who for whatever reason aren't satisfied with the public school they are zoned for, universal choice plans offer a much broader base of grassroots support than more narrowly-drawn proposals.
• Universal school choice plans can ultimately forge winnable political coalitions. Utah adopted the nation's first universal school choice bill this year in spite of a staggering amount of political capital devoted to defeating the legislation and demonizing those who rallied behind it. House Speaker Greg Curtis, who was targeted for defeat by teachers unions last year and came close to losing his seat, is emblematic of courage under fire. Instead of being awed by the onslaught, Mr. Curtis pushed choice aggressively, and was a central figure in the school choice victory.
Like citizens, elected officials are much more inclined to support legislation when they are given a direct stake in it. All politicians respond to pressure in their own backyards, yet absent such pressure, they will invariably bend to the inflexible will of the education establishment.
In spite of enormous resistance, Utah's victory is proof positive that a universal approach -- consistently advanced over time and leveraging every available grassroots and political coalition -- can succeed in securing the educational choices our nation needs to compete in the new millennium. The sooner we apply these lessons to other states, the sooner America can inherit its 21st century
Manifest Destiny.Read More at.............
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/newsroom/ShowNewsItem.do?id=80080
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
