Thanks for proving my point, rjung. As your cite says, the NCLB Act is “Kennedy’s signature reform bill.” Sure, he thinks more money should be spent on federal education initiatives, but during the Bush administration federal funding for education has gone up dramatically. Furthermore, the bill was not “underfunded,” since the bill contained no promise of any funding. Authorized funding levels (which the bill contains) is not the same as promised funding levels. Kennedy is just blowing smoke to try and steer more money towards useless federal educatio programs.
elucidator, Bush is simply appointing conservative judges to offset the liberal ones appointed during the Clinton administration :).
Kennedy was trying to steer mo’ money into NCLB, a “useless federal eucation program”? The self same stellar example of Bush’s bipartisan leadership, NCLB? The same “useless federal education program” that he brags about to anyone who will listen? (Feel kind of like I’m Kirk arguing with the Voyager 'bot…)
And, just for the recored, “underfunded” doesn’t have anything to do with “authorized” spending levels or any such thing. It means “not enough money”. Period. Full stop.
Do you see me defending NCLB? I think it’s a bad law. However, it’s a law that is a prime example of Bush’s bipartisanship. Ted Kennedy had as much, if not more, to do with the NCLB Act that we see today as Bush did.
No, for the record, when Ted Kennedy talks about “underfunding” he is referring to the authorized funding levels in the bill. Kennedy says that the bill “promised” certain funding levels that the President has not delivered. That is not the case. The bill authorized certain funding levels, but authorized levels are not any indication of “promises” made on funding. Authorized levels are simply the amount of money up to which Congress can allocate for the Act.
What does Kennedy’s statement have to do with any of this? Kennedy said, “When the president of the United States looks you in the eye and says the resources will be there, I believe it.” That indicates to me that they had a conversation about funding levels and that Kennedy believes the President made a committment he is not honoring. Nothing about funding levels in a bill, authorized or otherwise.
President Bush (and you) are trumping a bi-paritsan action that one side no longer believes was bi-partisan (at least to extent of funding levels).
Bush is not now, and never has been, an honestly bi-partisan president, and anything you say to the contrary is obfuscation or deliberate misstatement.
It remains to be seen to what extent he’ll try to be bi-partisan now that the Democrats hold the purse strings.
No, it is all about authorized funding levels, if you have been following the NCLB debate. Funding levels are not set in conversations with the President. A bill authorizes a funding level which allows Congress to appropriate money for an act.
Look at what the Democrats say about this. They say that the Bush Administration has “underfunded” the Act by $40 billion over the last five years. They get that number from the authorized funding levels in the bill. However, they are being completely dishonest. Authorized funding levels are rarely, if ever, met by appropriators. These are the upper limits of what Congress can appropriate for a program, not the promised level of funding. Kennedy is just blowing smoke.
No, one side sees a political advantage in distancing itself from an unpopular law, so it now says that it is “underfunded” and that is why it is failing. Of course, there was no promise of any level of funding made and federal education spending has gone up dramatically under Bush, but that’s beside the point, I guess.
Again, saying this is simply ignoring the bipartsian actions Bush has taken. I’m not saying he’s a model of bipartisanship, but I am saying that anyone who says he hasn’t done anything bipartisan in the past is wrong.
Have you been following the debate? I thought it was about the fact that Bush’s initial budget recommendations (you know, the start of the budget process) have been lower than what Kennedy thought he committed to. Congress has generally (I think FY04 was the exception) appropriated even more to NCLB than Bush asked for, both values still being below the authorized funding level. I agree that Bush’s responsbility for what Congress eventually passes is limited (although he doesn’t get a free pass when it was a Republican Congress), but his responsbility for his budget request is absolute.
Sure, but the crux of the debate is what this “commitment” was. The Democrats are referring to authorized funding levles, not some amorphous promise of more funding by Bush.