Showing posts with label Antonio Villaraigosa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Antonio Villaraigosa. Show all posts
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Monday, January 12, 2015
California: The $1B Senate Race?
Cameron Joseph, Jan. 8, 2015, The Hill
That could also yield some surprises. A pair of Democrats could advance to the fall election if no Republicans mount a serious bid, scrambling campaign strategy; a primary race to the left could quickly flip to a focus on independents for both candidates.
In addition to Harris, Newsom and Steyer former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D) may be in the mix, along with California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D). And Golden State Democrats say L.A. County supervisor Hilda Solis (D) and Reps. John Garamendi, Loretta Sanchez, Raul Ruiz, Adam Schiff and Jackie Speier have all hinted they may look at a statewide bid.
Read more: www.thehill.com
That could also yield some surprises. A pair of Democrats could advance to the fall election if no Republicans mount a serious bid, scrambling campaign strategy; a primary race to the left could quickly flip to a focus on independents for both candidates.
In addition to Harris, Newsom and Steyer former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D) may be in the mix, along with California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D). And Golden State Democrats say L.A. County supervisor Hilda Solis (D) and Reps. John Garamendi, Loretta Sanchez, Raul Ruiz, Adam Schiff and Jackie Speier have all hinted they may look at a statewide bid.
Read more: www.thehill.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Ex-L.A. Mayor: 'Why Are Teachers Unions So Opposed To Change?'
 |
| Antonio Villaraigosa |
VOICES-President John F. Kennedy said, "Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." This message has apparently been lost on some people in our teachers unions who used their recent national conventions in Los Angeles and Denver to argue against desperately needed changes in our public schools.
At a time when only one in 10 low-income children is earning a four-year college degree and two out of three jobs of the future will require one, change is needed. At a time when more than half of young people attending community college need to retake high-school classes because the education they received was not rigorous enough, change is needed. At a time when American 15-year-olds trail their counterparts in 30 countries in math, 23 in science and 20 in reading, change is needed.
For some time now, teachers, elected officials, community, business and nonprofit organizations have advanced bold changes in education. America is raising standards, investing in teachers, rewriting curriculum, bringing technology into the classroom and exploring new learning models like public charter schools that are getting results in higher graduation and college-enrollment rates.
Read the full story: www.citywatchla.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Thursday, April 17, 2014
What is the voting impact of “comprehensive immigration reform”? How would it change the political landscape?
Eliseo Medina retired in October as executive director of the SEIU, at 2 million strong, the fastest growing labor union in North America. In a speech after the 2008 election, Medina said more immigrant citizens mean more “progressive” voters: “We reform the immigration laws -- it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have even the same ratio, two out of three? If we get 8 million new voters that care about our issues and will be voting, we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."
In December 2005, the House passed the so-called “harsh anti-immigration” bill. In Los Angeles, some 500,000 protestors gathered in a downtown park. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa addressed the crowd in Spanish and, bullhorn in hand, shouted, "There are no illegal people here today!"
Just days ago, Vice President Joe Biden said, “Eleven million people living in the shadows I believed, are already American citizens. … These people are just waiting, waiting for a chance to be able to contribute fully, and by that standard 11 million undocumented aliens are already Americans in my view.”
Democrats support the restoration of voting rights for felons. Would they do so if the felon vote would go Republican?
Democrats support D.C. statehood. Would they do so if statehood would likely produce two new Republican senators?
Democrats support “comprehensive immigration reform.” Would they if those on the path to citizenship were also on the path to vote Republican?
The fact is that immigrants, whether illegal or legal, support Democrats. Washington Examiner’s Bryon York examined a new study from the Center for Immigration Studies.
York writes: “A 2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born, naturalized immigrants cited in the report showed that about 62 percent identified themselves as Democrats, while 25 percent identified as Republicans, and 13 percent identified as independents. At this moment, according to the report, there are an estimated 8.7 million immigrants in the U.S. who are eligible for naturalization. Not all will become voting citizens, but somewhere between 50 percent and 60 percent will. And it's a sure bet that a majority will identify themselves as Democrats.”Why do immigrants support the Democratic Party?
The study’s author, Professor James Gimpel of University of Maryland, offers several reasons: "[I]mmigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians, have policy preferences when it comes to the size and scope of government that are more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives." In other words, the tea party mantra of “taxed enough already” is, well, foreign to them.
Many immigrants are unskilled and therefore live or will live in low-income areas. The poorer the area, the more support for an activist government. Gimpel writes, “"It is from areas of higher income inequality that we find the most support for a robust government with an expansive regulatory and redistributive role in the economy, among all citizens, not just immigrants."
Does the political impact of new immigrant voters vary from state to state? No. York said Gimpel’s findings show, “If immigrants arrive in large numbers, areas that are already Democratic become more so, while areas that are Republican become more Democratic. That applies to Texas and other red-state strongholds as much as anywhere else.”
The take-away is simple. Republicans face strong headwinds going forward even if “comprehensive immigration reform” fails to get through Congress.
York writes: “Even if no changes are made to increase immigration, Republicans face a daunting, long-term task of trying to win the loyalty of immigrant voters. With about 30 million who have arrived here legally in the last three decades, plus about 12 million who are here illegally now but could well become voters someday, plus their natural-born citizen children on the way in the future -- it's a hugely important assignment for the GOP. But it's also reasonable for Republicans not to support policies that could worsen their electoral prospects, if not doom their party to decades of defeat. After all, Democrats are certainly acting in what they perceive to be their party's best political interests.”
However one feels about immigration, more immigrant voters mean more Democrats.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Guy walks into a restaurant. Says
to the waitress, "I'd like some scrambled eggs and some kind words."
She brings the eggs. The guy smiles, "Now how about the kind words?"
Waitress whispers, "Don't eat the eggs."
This brings us to the fact that
urban public school teachers are about two times more likely than non-teachers
to send their own children to private schools. In other words, many public
school teachers whisper to parents, "Don't eat the eggs."
About 11 percent of all parents --
nationwide, rural and urban -- send their children to private schools. The
numbers are much higher in urban areas. One study found that in Philadelphia a
staggering 44 percent of public school teachers send their own kids to private schools.
In Cincinnati and Chicago, 41 and 39 percent of public school teachers,
respectively, pay for a private school education for their children. In
Rochester, New York, it's 38 percent. In Baltimore it's 35 percent, San
Francisco is 34 percent and New York-Northeastern New Jersey is 33 percent. In
Los Angeles nearly 25 percent of public school teachers send their kids to
private school versus 16 percent of Angelenos who do so.
The study, conducted in 2004 by the
Fordham Institute, said: "These findings ... are apt to be embarrassing
for teacher unions, considering those organizations' political animus toward
assisting families to select among schools. But these results do not surprise
most practicing teachers to whom we speak. ... The data have shown the same
basic pattern since we first happened upon them two decades ago: Urban public
school teachers are more apt to send their own children to private schools than
is the general public. One might say this shows how conservative teachers are.
They continue doing what they've always done. Or it might indicate that they
have long been discerning connoisseurs of education. ...
"The middle class will
tolerate a lot -- disorder, decay, and dismay, an unwholesome environment,
petty crime, potholes, chicanery and rudeness. One thing, however, that middle
class parents will not tolerate is bad schools for their children. To escape
them, they will pay out-of-pocket or vote with their feet. That is what
discerning teachers do."
What about members of Congress?
Where do they send their own children?
A 2007 Heritage Foundation study
found that 37 percent of representatives and 45 percent of senators with
school-age children sent their own kids to private school. Of the members of
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus with school-age children, 38 percent sent
them to private school. Of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus with
school-age children, 52 percent sent them to private school.
The ex-mayor of Los Angeles,
Antonio Villaraigosa, was asked why he did not have his own kids in public
school despite his strong advocacy of public education. Villaraigosa, whose
wife was a public school teacher, said, "I'm doing like every parent does.
I'm going to put my kids in the best school I can. My kids were in a neighborhood
public school until just this year. We've decided to put them in a Catholic
school. We've done that because we want our kids to have the best education
they can. If I can get that education in a public school, I'll do it, but I
won't (SET ITAL)sacrifice(END ITAL) (emphasis added) my children any more than
I could ask you to do the same."
When he got elected president,
Barack Obama and his wife made a big display of looking into D.C. public
schools for his two daughters to attend. But the Obamas chose Sidwell Friends,
the elite private school whose alums include Chelsea Clinton. Obama's own
mother sent the then-10-year-old to live with her parents -- so he could attend
Punahou Academy, the most exclusive prep school on the island. In fact, from
Punahou to Occidental (a private college in Los Angeles) to Columbia (where he
completed college) to Harvard Law, Obama is a product of private education.
So how does this square with
Obama's opposition to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program that offered a
voucher for the children of participating parents? It doesn't.
Here's what Obama's Office of
Management and Budget said about the program: "Rigorous evaluation over
several years demonstrates that the D.C. program has not yielded improved
student achievement by its scholarship recipients compared to other students in
D.C."
Tell that to the
educator/consultant the Department of Education hired to evaluate the program.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Patrick Wolf, a
University of Arkansas education policy professor who spent more than 10 years
evaluating school choice programs in D.C., Milwaukee, New York and Dayton,
Ohio, said, "In my opinion, by ... boosting high school graduation rates
and generating a wealth of evidence suggesting that students also benefited in
reading achievement, the D.C. OSP has accomplished what few educational
interventions can claim: It markedly improved important education outcomes for
low-income inner-city students."
President Barack Obama calls
education "the civil rights issue of our time." Yet, his opposition
to K-12 education vouchers guarantees that many of America's kids will sit in
back of the bus.
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook
