People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

Governor Mitt Romney and Drugs

• People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

2003

• 12-21-2005; Healey kicks off student drug testing program in New Bedford
• 02-21-2003a; Governor Mitt Romney fights for prescription drug coverage for seniors

2005

• 12-20-2005; HEALEY EXPANDS SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR WOMEN
• 07-28-2005; HEALEY ENDORSES MANDATORY OVERDOSE REPORTING BILL

2006

• 06-30-2006; ROMNEY VETOES NEEDLES BILL; Says legislation will worsen heroin crisis by loosening drug paraphernalia laws
• 12-21-2005; HEALEY KICKS OFF STUDENT DRUG TESTING PROGRAM IN NEW BEDFORD

Also see Gangs

People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

Reasons to agree

1. I have to pass a drug test to work. I hate work. I wish I could get money for doing nothing. If I have to pass a drug test, to have the honor of working, people should have to pass a drug test, if they want free money.
2. Like a lot of folks in this state I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check????? Please pass this along if you agree or simply Delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country and soon!!!!! "

Gangs

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has been a victim of gang activity. I think gangs are a big threat to our country. From Norco-terrorist, to the good old fashioned street gangs. I think Mitt Romney has good executive experience working with the police in Massachusetts to stand up to Crime.

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney about gangs:

• "Gang violence destroys the fabric of our communities and offers nothing but a dead end street to young people drawn in by false hope," said Romney. "This program will encourage communities to develop and pursue promising new strategies that stop the mayhem and bloodshed that gangs inflict."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 12-22-2005 Press Release

• "Our criminal justice and public safety professionals now have a real tool to protect those who join with us to take a stand against crime and violence in our communities," Romney said during the ceremony at St. Peter's School, which specializes in youth programs that have shown great success in keeping students out of gangs and connecting them to their community. "Witnesses who have the courage to come forward and testify should not have to live in fear for cooperating with prosecutors to keep their communities safe."
• Governor Mitt Romney

• "Nothing troubles me more than watching a child's future shatter in a blast of violence. Our call for action will give law enforcement officials additional resources to protect the lives of our children and their families."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 10-01-2004 Press Release

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney about gangs:

2004

• 08-26-2004, LT. GOV HEALEY SIGNS BILL CRACKING DOWN ON SOMERVILLE GANGS
• 10-01-2004, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $1.5 MILLION TO COMBAT GANG ACTIVITY

2005

• 12-15-2005, HEALEY PUSHES TO GIVE PROSECUTORS TOOLS TO PROTECT CRUCIAL WITNESSES IN GANG CRIMES
• 12-22-2005, ROMNEY APPROVES $11 MILLION PLAN TO TARGET GANG VIOLENCE

2006

• 03-06-2006, HEALEY PUSHES FOR PASSAGE OF ANTI-GANG VIOLENCE BILL
• 03-30-2006, ROMNEY SIGNS BILL TO CRACK DOWN ON GANG VIOLENCE
• 05-17-2006, HEALEY AND MENINO ANNOUNCE $3 MILLION GANG-FIGHTING GRANT FOR BOSTON
• 05-18-2006, HEALEY AWARDS GANG-FIGHTING GRANTS TO 15 COMMUNITES

Raising the Bar on Education

Issues / Raising the Bar on Education

Governor Mitt Romney said everyone benefits when parents and kids can choose their schools.

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree; until then, here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

1. It is best to trust individuals to make decisions for their own lives.
2. Choice is good.
3. School choice is good.
5. Parental Rights and Practicality: While school choice might not be feasible for every family, it honors parents' rights to choose the best educational path for their children, whether Catholic, public, or any other type of school.
6. Informed Decisions: With the freedom to choose, media outlets could offer evaluations and comparisons of schools, fostering a culture where education is a priority, akin to everyday consumer choices. This increased scrutiny and interest could lead to better-informed decisions about children’s education.
7. Choice and Access: Just as bookstores and libraries coexist, providing choice doesn't necessarily harm public schools. The focus should be on ensuring access to education through public, private, or homeschooling options.
8. Use of Tax Money: Questioning the use of tax money for private or homeschooling overlooks the fundamental right of parents to decide the best educational setting for their children.
9. Educational Outcomes: Evidence suggests Catholic and other non-public schools often outperform public schools, hinting at the benefits of competitive educational environments.
10. Competition Drives Quality: Introducing competition among schools, including charter and homeschooling options, raises the quality of public education and aligns with the broader American value of competition improving services.
11. Economic Incentives: While many teachers are motivated by altruism, economic incentives in a competitive educational system could drive improvements across all schools.
12. Government Efficiency: Drawing a parallel with government services like the DMV, the argument posits that government-controlled entities often lack the motivation to excel and improve, a situation that school choice aims to remedy.
13. Critique of Opposition Arguments:
1. Affordability and Equity: Critics argue school choice might not be universally accessible, but this perspective overlooks the direct and indirect benefits to the majority, as well as the potential for a more dynamic educational environment.
2. Historical Misuse of Private Schools: While some argue private schools contributed to segregation in the past, today's school choice mechanisms, like vouchers, aim to democratize access to quality education, potentially reducing educational inequality.
3. Community Impact: Though some believe school choice might erode community cohesion, supporters argue that educational quality and parental empowerment should take precedence, with the belief that better education contributes to stronger communities in the long run.

What are the best objective criteria for measuring the strength of this belief?

1. Academic Outcomes

• Improvement in Student Performance: Measure the academic progress of students who switch to schools of choice compared to those who remain in failing schools. Metrics can include standardized test scores, graduation rates, and college admission rates.

2. Equity and Accessibility

• Demographic Representation: Analyze whether school choice options are equally accessible to students of all socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and abilities. This includes assessing the distribution of resources and opportunities.
• Impact on Segregation: Study the effect of school choice on racial and socioeconomic segregation within and across schools.

3. Systemic Effects

• Impact on Public Schools: Evaluate how the introduction of school choice affects the funding, resources, and student body composition of remaining public schools.
• Overall System Performance: Compare the performance and health of the educational system as a whole in regions with robust school choice options versus those without.

4. Parental and Student Satisfaction

• Satisfaction Surveys: Collect data on satisfaction levels from parents and students involved in school choice programs to gauge perceived benefits or drawbacks.
• Enrollment Trends: Track enrollment patterns over time as an indirect measure of satisfaction and demand for school choice options.

5. Economic Efficiency

• Cost-Benefit Analysis: Assess the financial efficiency of school choice programs by comparing the costs of these programs to their academic and social outcomes.
• Resource Allocation: Examine how resources are allocated among public schools and schools of choice, including per-pupil spending and investment in infrastructure.

6. Long-term Outcomes

• Post-Secondary Success: Monitor the long-term success of students participating in school choice, including higher education attainment and career outcomes.
• Social Mobility: Investigate the impact of school choice on students' social mobility, especially for those from historically underserved communities.

---

Reasons to agree

1. When parents and kids are free to choose their school everyone benefits. +17
2. School choice is good. +13
3. Choice is good. +8
4. It is best to trust individuals to make decisions for their own lives. +3 
5. Its not fair that poor kids have no option but to go to failing schools.
6. Its not good for our future to have segments of our population stuck in failing schools.
7. Kids should have access to the resources and opportunities they need to succeed.

Score: +7 (reasons to agree), + 41/2 [20] (reasons to agree with reasons to agree) = 27

---

Movies that agree:

1. Waiting for "Superman" (2010): This documentary critiques the American public education system by following several students as they attempt to be accepted into a charter school. 

Movies that disagree:

1. The Public (2018): Though not directly about school choice, this movie highlights the broader societal issues contributing to the failure of public institutions, suggesting the need for systemic reform rather than alternatives like school choice. 

---

Interest of those who agree

1. Parents and Students seeking better educational opportunities.
2. Advocates for Market-Based Solutions who believe competition can improve school quality.
3. Charter and Private School Administrators who stand to gain enrollment and funding.

Interest of those who disagree

1. Public School Advocates and Educators concerned about the diversion of funds from public schools.
2. Critics of Segregation and Inequality who argue that school choice can exacerbate educational disparities.
3. Supporters of Community-Based Solutions who favor improving schools through increased funding and community involvement rather than offering alternatives that might only benefit a few. 

---

Books that agree

1. The School Choice Roadmap: 7 Steps to Finding the Right School for Your Child" by Andrew Campanella: Offers a practical guide for parents navigating school choice.
2. "Education Myths: What Special Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools--And Why It Isn't So" by Jay P. Greene: Debunks common misconceptions about public education and argues for the benefits of school choice.

Books that agree

1.  "Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools" by Diane Ravitch: Critiques the movement toward privatizing public education, including arguments against school choice.
2. "Slaying Goliath: The Passionate Resistance to Privatization and the Fight to Save America's Public Schools" by Diane Ravitch: Focuses on the efforts to resist educational privatization and supports public education reform.

---

Web pages that agree

1.   Organizations like The Heritage Foundation or The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice often publish articles and policy papers in favor of school choice, presenting it as a solution to failing schools.

Web pages that disagree

1. The National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) frequently outline the downsides of school choice on their platforms, focusing on its impact on public education funding and equity. 

We should build and repair transportation infrastructure.

Reasons to agree

1. We should invest in infrastructure projects critical to the national economy and its flow of goods and people, instead of funding home-district pork.

Issues / Strengthening Latin American Allies and Confronting Tyrants

We should weaken the threat of the Castro regime.

Reasons to agree

1. Castro has political prisoners. We should not sit down for coffee with dictators when they put their citizens in jail for what they think.
2. Castro helped the Soviet Union sneak nuclear weapons into Cuba. JFK had to stand up to Khrushchev in order to get them out.
3. Castro was the leader of his country for 49 years. No one should have power that long.
4. Cuba only has one party. One party government is bad.
5. Governments should not be allowed to control the media. Castro controls the media, including the internet.
6. Cubans are rarely permitted to travel abroad. This country is a cage.
7. Cubans are never permitted to create political organizations
8. At best Castro has maintained Cuba's pre-1959 level of development, but at an "extraordinary" cost to the overall welfare of Cubans.
9. When castro was in school he apparently collaborated in an attempt on a rival's life: Masferrer. (Thomas, Hugh : Cuba the Pursuit of Freedom p.523-524)
10. Castro is a liar. In 1957, Castro signed the Manifesto of the Sierra Maestra in which he agreed to call elections under the Electoral Code of 1943 within the first 18 months of his time in power and to restore all of the provisions of the Constitution of 1940 that had been suspended under Batista. Of course, he did not do this. All dictators promise to limit their power once they no longer need it, but they never do. President Bush has expanded the power of the president, but luckily, because of two term limit, he will never benefit permanently from the expanded power. Also there is the possibility that his political opponents will benefit from this expanded power, which would make him think twice about expanding them too much. I personally think Bush's expanded powers are warranted. I think that it was stupid that a warrant to wire-tap did not apply to cell phones, but I am glad that they can be checked by the balance of powers. I am glad that we have congress and the courts to challenge him.
11. Castro almost destroyed the whole planet. No joke. Millions, or perhaps billions of people almost died. Well maybe it wasn't all Castro's fault, but why would somone choose the soviet union over the united states? Anyways Castro chose the Soviet Union, and let them move nuclear weapons onto Cuba, and let them build missile launching sites... So it was the Soviet Union's fault more than Casto's, but gosh, it was close... we are talking about Billions of lives, and he rose to power, and helped cause all these problems.. over throwing the government, and holding onto power, and not following the constitution that he said he would, and then helping the soviets point nuclear weapons at America... we were the good guys, how could he have done that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis. Castro urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States if Cuba were invaded. (Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeyevich (1962-10-27). Letter to Castro (PDF). The George Washington University. Retrieved on 2006-05-11)
12. It has been claimed by the Carthage Foundation-funded Center for a Free Cuba that an estimated 14,000 Cubans were killed in Cuban military actions abroad. Castro would send people overseas to fight in support of Marxist.
13. Just because people got along with Hitler, and Mussolini doesn't make them good people.
14. Thousands of political opponents to the Castro regime have been killed, primarily during the first decade of his leadership.138139 Some Cubans labeled "counterrevolutionaries", "fascists", or "CIA operatives" were also imprisoned in poor conditions without trial.140141 Military Units to Aid Production, or UMAPs, were labor camps established in 1965 to confine "social deviants" including homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses to work "counter-revolutionary" influences out of certain segments of the population.142 The camps were closed in 1967 in response to international outcries.143 Professor Marifeli Pérez Stable, a Cuban immigrant and former Castro supporter has said that "There were thousands of executions, forty, fifty thousand political prisoners. The treatment of political prisoners, with what we today know about human rights and the international norms governing human rights ... it is legitimate to raise questions about possible crimes against humanity in Cuba."144
15. Castro acknowledges that Cuba holds political prisoners, but argues that Cuba is justified because these prisoners are not jailed because of their political beliefs, but have been convicted of "counter-revolutionary" crimes, including bombings. Castro portrays opposition to the Cuban government as illegitimate, and the result of an ongoing conspiracy fostered by Cuban exiles with ties to the United States or the CIA.145
16. Until 1992 Castro banned Catholics from membership in the Cuban Communist Party which was the only way to get a job and provide for your family. We cannot allow a world like this where you get jobs based on what you believe politically or religiously.
17. Until 1998 Cubans were not allowed to celebrate Christmas. Why do liberals love this guy so much? Liberals are fascist that want to control every aspect of society, just like their hero, Castro.
18. Castro promotes a cult of personality.
19. A lot of Nazis were smart. Just because Castro is smart doesn't mean he didn't almost contribute to millions of American's deaths by asking the soviet union to conduct a first strike on American cities, if things went bad in the Cuban Missel Crisis. All Castro cares about is power. He would rather have Millions of Americans die, than to have been removed from power. Castro and others say Americans are evil, but our presidents aren't willing to kill millions of people just to stay in power... they go out of power after 8 years.
20. Billboards with his picture are very common in the island.162. Castro was accused by American anarchist Sam Dolgoff of "basking in the adulation and servility of his subordinates" and "creating a regime built around the cult of the personality functions" encouraging "the illusion that only he and his select group of revolutionaries have earned the right to wield unlimited power over the people of Cuba."163 Castro has also been described as an example of the rise of a distinct "charismatic leader"164 common to developing nations, and of encouraging the "personality political regime". This theory contends that Castro has maintained power largely through highly visible, charismatic leadership and popular appeals to the Cuban people, though the administration is successful only as long as the leader's charisma lasts. Kind of like Mike Huckabee with all his appeal to the common folks, and hatred of successful people.
21. America hasn't always done well with Cuba, or South America. We have learned from our mistakes. We now want the same things that they want. We want to fight drugs. We want to fight terrorist. We want freedom of speech, we want freedom of press, we want good things on this planet. Just because we were bad in the past doesn't mean that the solution for these countries that don't like us, is to repress their people, and take away freedoms.

Reasons to disagree

1. If Canada and Europe can get along with Cuba, why can't we?
2. Castro gives longs speeches. He must be smart.

More info:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
2. http://www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/14776.htm

Combating Nuclear Terrorism

• We must not allow a nuclear-9-11.
• We must not allow a nuclear Pearl Harbor.
• We should take Ahmadinejad at his word.
• We should tighten economic sanctions against Iran.
• We should isolate Iran diplomatically.
• We need to communicate to the Iranian people the dangers of being nuclear capable.
• Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
• Iran's nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.
• We should not assume that Iran will act responsibly when they have the bomb.

We are faced today with the horrific proposition that those who speak of genocide are developing the capability to carry it out. It's time to face the reality of the Iranian threat, take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word and act accordingly. We must tighten economic sanctions against Iran, isolate Iran diplomatically, and make it clear to the Iranian people that while nuclear capabilities may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril.

CHALLENGE : We are faced today with the horrific proposition that those who speak of genocide are developing the capability to carry it out. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made statements that Israel will be wiped off the map. It's time to face the reality of the Iranian threat, take Ahmadinejad at his word and act accordingly. Iran's ambition to develop nuclear weaponry cannot be clearer: they have a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, they have refused offers to supply nuclear fuel for their power. Obviously, their nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Some people, of course, think that it's possible to live with a nuclear Iran. That thinking is based on the theory that Iran, once it's granted the privilege of becoming a member of the nuclear club, that it will be a responsible actor. Neither their words nor their actions justify that kind of thinking." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At Yeshiva University, 4/26/2007)

CHALLENGE: The 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was meant to prevent countries from acquiring dangerous nuclear technologies and fissile materials such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU).

However, effective enforcement of this obligation is often lacking. Consequently, countries can ignore their obligations under the NPT with little fear of sanction or penalty. Given the unstable political and economic situation in many of these counties, there is the real possibility that these nuclear technologies, fissile materials, or even fully assembled nuclear weapons, could find their way to terrorists.

Moreover, the September 11th Commission reported that al-Qaeda had been trying to acquire or build nuclear weapons for well over a decade. Former CIA Director George Tenet said that Osama bin Laden sees the acquisition of WMD as a "religious obligation."

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. And that threat would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power. And just think of the signal a nuclear Iran would send to other rogue regimes with nuclear ambitions - this could be the tipping point in the development and proliferation of nuclear regimes." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference, 1/23/2007)

The Romney Plan:

Governor Romney Believes We Must Expand And Accelerate Efforts To Combat Nuclear Terrorism By Taking The Following Actions.

1. Tighten Economic Sanctions Against Iran. Governor Romney has called for strategic divestment from companies that support the Iranian regime's dangerous actions, using efforts similar to the actions taken against Apartheid South Africa.
2. Isolate Iran Diplomatically. Their leaders should be made to feel like those of Apartheid South Africa. Until there are indications that high level engagement would do anything other than reward bad behavior, the United States should not engage Iran in direct, bilateral negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. Finally, Iran's President Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the terms of the Genocide Convention for incitement to genocide.
3. Have Arab States Join This Effort To Prevent A Nuclear Iran. These states should support Iraq's government; turn down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict; stop the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hezbollah; and tell the Palestinians to drop their terror campaign and recognize Israel's right to exist.
4. Make It Clear To The Iranian People That While Nuclear Capabilities May Be A Source Of Pride, It Can Also Be A Source Of Peril. If nuclear material from their nation falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the civilized world. The military option remains on the table.
5. Expanding And Accelerating Actions To Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which was launched last year, was a good start. Yet our efforts need to be greatly accelerated and expanded. Combating the threat of nuclear terrorism needs to be a top Presidential priority.
6. Empowering A Senior Ambassador To Lead Efforts To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism. We should appoint a new Ambassador-at-Large to prevent nuclear terror. He or she would have the authority and resources needed to work across government agencies and departments to ensure that our strategies both here and abroad are coordinated.

Iran’s nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.

Issues / Combating Nuclear Terrorism

Reasons to agree:

1. Iran has a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, but yet the French and Russians are building nuclear reactors for them. I wonder why?
2. Iran has refused offers from us to supply nuclear fuel for their power. I wonder why?
3. A country, like Iran, that says that Israil should be wipped off the face of the planet should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
4. We have no problems with Iran getting their power from Nuclear Weapons. We even said we would help them. But they want to use it for weapons, and the argument doesn't work that America has them and so everyone should be able to have them, because in the 50s everyone got together and agreed their was a balance of power between Russia and America, but if Iran gets them, then Saudia Arabia has to get them, and if they get them, Egypt has to get them, and if Egypt gets them their enemies get have to get them, and so everyone signed an agreement that no one else would get them. But Iran complains that Israil has them. Yes, but Israil does not talk about killing it neighbors. Israil did not start any war.

Reasons to disagree:

1. For the same reason that the US encouraged and supported Iran's nuclear program in the first place - because Iran needs to export oil and gas rather than use it at home (Gas is used mostly to repressurize the oil fields, btw)
2. Because Iran has every right to use its own resources for its own benefit and doesn't need to become reliant on foreign energy suppliers.