Author: Sara Hilbert

Educational inequity is our nation’s greatest injustice. The National Assessment of educational Progress in 2005 found that fourth graders growing up in low-income communities are already three grade levels behind their peers in high-income communities. Even though we all have the same potential to achieve, there are extra challenges these children face, in addition to the growing polarization of social classes. Most of all the schools lack sufficient capacity to meet these extra needs; especially lacking in teachers and leaders who deeply believe their students can achieve at high levels.

Last month Hilary Clinton sponsored the “National Principal Recruitment Act”. This will recruit, train, and support principals for high-need schools who are effective in improving student academic achievement. Clinton’s act aims to create and maintain data-driven, professional learning communities within the new principal’s school. This program will engage the community, involve parents, and leverage addition resources to improve student academic achievement. These schools will have three focuses: teaching and learning, school culture, and management and operations. The real difference that sets this aside is the matching requirement. To receive a grant there has to be an eligible grantee shall contribute to the activities assisted under such grant matching funds in an amount equal to not less than 100 percent of the amount of the grant.

This strategic move will challenge principals to become solid leaders. It also sets them up to have the resources and support to create a successful school environment and focus on outstanding performance from their students. This plan recognizes there are factors greater than the teacher data and student test results that effect performance. This plan will research and analyze both internal and external factors in the particular school and then find solutions to offer the very best way to serve these children.

With nearly 40% of our nation’s principles nearing retirement, our cities are in need of well-prepared and highly motivated principals to lead our schools where every student can thrive and succeed. Education is, unarguably, the key to opportunity. This bill would fulfill our most fundamental obligation, we all have a role we can play to ensure every child has an equal chance.

Author: Sara Hilbert

Feminism has always been belief in women’s rights; actively standing up for the rights of all women to have political, social, and economic equality with men. Over the last few years, the perception has moved from the very limited, very negative viewpoint that included women’s rights to abortion rights only.

This year New Hampshire has become the first state Senate to have a female majority, with 13 female members out of 24. Other lead positions held by women in the state: Sylvia Larson, Senate president; Maggie Hassan, president pro-tem; and Martha Fuller Clark, majority leader.  New Hampshire holds to be the only state to have two female officers. Extraordinary. The state’s legislature totals 424 members, which makes it the largest legislature in the United States and forth-largest (English-speaking) governing body in the world. More importantly, these senators receive no compensation. These are innovative leaders breaking the boundaries and becoming examples to follow.

Both women in this past presidential election have worked to push the cultural limitation and have fought for feminism. Yes, that means I am including a Senator from New York and the Governor from Alaska in the same sentence. Though the definition of feminism remains the same, it is greater depth and dimension created by each of these women that constructs a strong view of the female. Hilary Clinton has pushed the norms to the extreme (finally giving our male-dominated presidency a challenge). Sarah Palin has received harsh criticism for being “under qualified” from both GOP women and along with her Democratic counterparts. Cleta Mitchell, conservative activist and lawyer, gave the best commentary in this matter. “Even if Sarah Palin is as ‘unqualified’ as the left would have us believe, …then former Congresswoman Bella Abzug’s lifelong goal has been achieved. She used to say that she was ‘working for the day when a mediocre woman could get as far as a mediocre man.’”

It is refreshing to see a break in culturally constructed barriers that provide strength and opportunity for women everywhere. These replace the objectivity of empty shadows that have been previous positions for women to fill. The time is almost over where gender will not matter at all when people vote for their leaders. 

Author: Jared Fallon

How absurd confused can a nation be? To allow a person who, when reflecting upon their very first major foreign policy experience, lied through their teeth in an attempt to have a worthwhile story to tell voters, become the Secretary of State.The very essence of the decision should be enough to make one nauseous, and yet whenever one brings up the occasional “misunderstandings” on the part of Hilary Clinton listeners tend to shrug their shoulders and cavalierly say, “It’s just politics” or, “she is a bright lady and did what needed to be done.” If Obama really wants the change he touted for 21 months – if the American public truly wants reform, why in the world would we put up with such a foolish decision?

In a biographical sense, there is no doubt that Hilary is known for having her chief energies focused on domestic issues. The amount of candidates with far less political strings attached that would have been much more qualified for the position are off the charts – and yet Obama (?) decides to put his former opponent in charge of international affairs at one of the most pivotal times in US history. We are at a time that demands widespread, foundational change. We haven’t even begun to see the ramifications from a heavily criticized war for which the current US president says he was “unprepared” for entering. We are about to deal with a new wave of financial problems with a breadth and depth never experienced before – as some of our largest trading partners are beginning to turn their policies towards a more regional, free trade agreement focus. More Americans should be asking, “Why Hilary?” Why someone who is the exact opposite of the “change” that was promised to so many Americans…and the world.

If you are disagreeing with this “rant”, with this commentary – I apologize. I am simply taking a stand that too few Americans do for fear of sounding too strong, or due to being concerned about politically correct speech. But what is obvious (and not to strong to state) is if the former First Lady’s most significant foreign policy experience was surrounded and infused by lies, and then after serving in the New York Senate has been put in charge of the nation’s international affairs, there are serious questions that are begging to be asked.

Where is accountability in our system? On a lesser note, how could someone with such a great capability to lie with no apparent remorse be continually allowed to represent our people? To represent our nation on the world stage?

Yes, Hilary is an amazingly bright lady. She was one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the US and earned more money than her husband ever did until his presidency – before she even stepped into the political spotlight. Yet, since when has intelligence and cunningness ever excused one from even the most primitive form of accountability? What happened to the days when Americans cared about the honesty and integrity of those that are chosen to represent us?

If you do not recall, Hilary initially stated she had no intentions of running for president. After her opponent won the position she had “surprisingly” so desperately desired, she said her talents were needed in the Senate to help back the democrats in Washington and that’s were intentions laid. The next thing you know she is offered one of the most intrinsic positions in one of the most significant areas of policy at one of the most direly important time periods in US history. Am I not the only one to point to these oddities?

America, it is time to start demanding honest leaders. It is time to stop rewarding those that use words and influence for no greater benefit other than themselves. The ideals of servitude seem to no longer create any echo of integrity down Congress’ hall. Apparently, the candidate most of the world has supported does not have strong reservations about the bullet-dodging, Bosnia-saving, and fearless Hilary Clinton – is this the change we voted for?

To the stark contrary, substantial evidence may exist proving that Hilary may have actually been under sniper fire during her 1996 trip:

Author: Crystal Fontaine

President-elect Barack Obama announced Monday his selections for top officials that will lead him throughout his presidency, revealing a group of very experienced hands. Rounding out his top officials will be Robert M. Gates, who will remain as Defense Secretary, General James L. Jones as the new National Security Advisor, and after weeks of deliberation and speculation, Senator Hillary Clinton was officially announced as Secretary of State. As pointed out by many critics, Obama’s team characterizes a more veteran circle rather than the change that Obama has pledged throughout his entire campaign trail. Obama’s response is simple. He is trying to unite a more experienced group with fresh thinking, maintaining that change will come from him.

As a New York Senator, Clinton was not an idle woman. Mrs. Clinton served on the several Senate Committees, including the Senate Committee for Environment and Public works, Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee, and Senate Special Committee on Aging. She is a big advocate for socialist-styled children programs and education as well as more affordable, quality health care. As Senator Clinton has focused on domestic issues, she has not ignored the international sphere. She has sponsored such bills as the S.RES. 92, which had called for an immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah and Hamas. She also sponsored legislation to establish a commission on the conflict between Russia and Georgia, addressed the humanitarian crisis and potential security breakdown as a result of Iraqi refugees fleeing to neighboring nations, as well as many others. In addition, Mrs. Clinton has voted in favor of legislation such as H.R. 7081, which supports the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy.

According to Senator John W. Warner, “The triumvirate of Gates, Clinton, and Jones to lead Obama’s national security team instills great confidence at home and abroad and further strengthens the growing respect for the President-elect’s courage and ability to exercise sound judgment in selecting the best and the brightest to implement our nation’s security policies”. However, there are questions of how the Clintons will deal with potential conflicts of interests while Hillary serves her term as Secretary of State.

In the past few weeks, former President Bill Clinton has begun paving the way for smoother sailing for his wife. He has agreed to allow the State Department and White House counsel to vet his speaking schedule and to disclose the names of contributors to the Clinton Foundation. He is to step away from the day to day running of the foundation during his wife’s tenure as well as refuse any donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative. He also has agreed to abstain from holding any meetings abroad.  Although he is paving the way for his wife’s new position, some believe former President Clinton should be given a more formal role in foreign policy, such as special U.S envoy on Kashmir. Perhaps the position would keep him busy and out of trouble?

Needless to say, Obama has chosen an interesting and experienced team, especially his choice of Secretary of State. Are his choices wise? Only time will tell.  

Author: Jared Fallon

Hilary Clinton, the heavily rumored Secretary of State-to-be, is often criticized for pursuing government contracts based on apparent self interests often shared with former President Clinton. The criticism often aimed at the Clinton family can commonly be mirrored in the Republican Party with major oil and defense contracts in Iraq for companies such as Cheney’s Halliburton. Despite the fact that in my opinion Hilary Clinton is one of the most self-serving and troubling legislators around, she seems to be making strides to reduce the overall amount of the lack of accountability the Federal contracting process typically brings around.

Senator Clinton’s S.3139 is a comprehensive plan currently being debated that aims reform the private contracting affairs of the Federal government. Despite the fact that many find Clinton one of the least likely candidates to pursue more government transparency in such a process, the former First Lady truly is a smart women and hit on many key points that lack accountability within the system. S.3139 is broken into three distinct sections: Accountability for Contractors, Competition and Transparency, and Building a Better Federal Government Workforce.

Accountability for Contractors

Clinton aims to lay provisions to prohibit allocating government contracts to any corporations “purposefully organized in an offshore secrecy jurisdiction” in order to avoid Federal taxes obligations. Despite the fact that the protocol outlined under this Sec. 101 proposal relies a little too heavy on IRS “decision”-making capabilities, it does make efforts towards preventing US companies from their current status of practically being awarded for relocating into cheaper, less-taxed developing countries in order to gain proximity to markets with more potential for government contracts.

Other provisions under this division include tightening financial reporting certifications and strengthening statues in order to reduce personal interests of those directly affected by the creation of defense contracts. These provisions certainly would make the likelihood of acts similar to Cheney’s involvement with Halliburton much more difficult than was experienced recently by the contract-happy vice president. The main difficulty Clinton will face under these provisions lies within the definitions of terms like “offshore secrecy jurisdiction” and “controlled group of entities”. In order to view these plans, please click here to access the PDF file containing Hilary’s plan.

Competition and Transparency

After careful review of Hilary’s plan for accountability, I believe the ideas outlined in this section of the bill prove to be the most useful to the American public. The main plan proposed here is to create a database containing all Federal records for federal contracts and grants. The database would emphasize information gathered on Federal personnel either aiming to advance proposed contracts and to offer insight into such official’s backgrounds, thereby allowing the Accountability Office to more easily investigate the personal influence or motivation that federal personnel may have in establishing contracts, no matter what type of contract is being reviewed.

Unfortunately, Clinton does not outline protocol to make such a database easily accessible by the public, but it does help offer more of an option in the accountability and tracking of often-cumbersome Federal contracts. Additionally, a database as significant as this would help judicial research initiatives to become much more efficient when reviewing the legality of Federal contracts along with court cases previous Supreme Court decisions.

Building a Better Federal Government Workforce

The last provision of the bill has a title that is slightly misleading. This part of Hilary’s plan seeks to have the Inspector General of the DOD to list the inherent government functions and objectives the government has in maintaining private contracts. The bill then seeks to provide “incremental staffing requirements” in the attempt to prevent future private contracts from being established without fulfilling improved requirements and lining up “conflicts of interest” by government personnel.  

After reviewing Clinton’s proposal, readers find themselves wondering why certain provisions don’t already exist in the status quo. Government contracts are an extremely attractive commodity and certainly lead some to believe that the age of the “Military-Industrial Complex” as forewarned in Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation is upon us. After the current Bush administration’s foreign policy decisions and self-fulfilling contract goals, a bill aiming to reduce the questionable activity of private contracts is greatly appreciated. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Time has passed since her health reform campaign in the nineties, but Hillary Rodham Clinton is still fighting for change. Hillary is trying to claim that her newest plan is not a new bureaucracy, but would build on the good parts of system while improving parts that are failing. (I wonder who’s writing the checks that might have changed those opinions from her first plan.) Either way, the results would look the same as herfirst proposal ten years ago with S.3674, “The 21st Century Wellness Trust Act.”

The Looming Crisis

Predictions in the introduction of the bill say that by 2025 nearly half of the United States population will suffer from at least one chronic disease. Currently, 70 percent of deaths and health costs in the United States are attributable to chronic diseases. These are preventable diseases! The United States has the highest rate of preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations and lags behind 28 other nations in life expectancy. Unarguably, our health care system is dysfunctional.

This bill claims that, “If effective risk reduction were implemented and sustained by 2015, the death rate due to cancer could drop by 29 percent. Improved blood sugar control for people with diabetes could reduce the risk for eye disease, kidney disease, and nerve disease by 40 percent. Similarly, blood pressure control could reduce the risk for heart disease and stroke by 33 to 50 percent.” It also deems the workforce to deliver prevention as insufficient. In addition, the supply of health care providers trained to emphasize prevention is shrinking. Between 1997 and 2005, the number of medical school graduates entering family practice residencies dropped by 50 percent. There is an acute shortage of community health workers. Between 25 and 50 percent of the existing Federal, State, and local public health work force is eligible for retirement in the next 5 years. As of 2008, more than 75 percent of the existing public health workforce has no formal public health or prevention training. There is no national, uniform credentialing system for public health or prevention workers that would ensure that these workers are trained in the basics of preventive care.

Hilary’s Proposal

This is a loud call for preventative services that reduce these unnecessary costs and improve the quality of life and health of Americans. In quick reaction to these harms, Ms Clinton would create a “trust fund board” composed of seven president appointed members to oversee improvement and change. First, this board would spend their first year examining and researching the system and then attempt to find the best plan to develop. After the first year, these select seven would report on broadening prevention in the workplace, “payment methodologies,” connecting incentives with goals to increase community organization involvement with prevention, and present funding spent on prevention.

After which they will then organize “delivery systems” to provide finances for prevention priorities and implement pilot programs. This group would become the central for prevention information. If by this time, there were no nationwide electronic medical record systems already in place, this bill would create an electronic prevention record. Most importantly, plans would oversee the additional training and credentialing prevention of health workers.

Funding would come no later than January 2011 from the “Wellness Trust Fund”, increasing by a percentage for each subsequent year, as seen fit by the board of trustees.

After assuring prevention priorities are in place this bill would approve “eligible individuals the prevention services to the uninsured.” It seeks coordination with Medicare and other private insurers, but again only to make sure that they receive funds for the health workers that are providing the prevention-oriented health care option.

Why Hilary Would Find Failure 

At reviewing the bill’s provisions, it is clear that Hilary’s elite group of seven would not have the capacity to make decisions that bring about the best outcome for all. Furthermore, with little support and authority, they do not have the ability to carry out all the necessary improvements. It just feels like an organized list of boxes to check for our overwhelmed health professionals. Reform will not take place when you tack on a longer working week for our nation’s overworked nursing staff. It will not happen if you ask our doctors to require more training and qualifications. We have yet to admit a larger problem: the intense control of insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association. We have certified health care employees. What we do not have is a system that allows patients complete access to these opportunities. True, moving the focus onto preventive care will be the best solution. However, the mindset associated with this plan has a very limited picture of the system as a whole and still allows these problematic groups to stand in the way of a greatly needed solution.

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite your personal opinions about the Clinton administration and the Clintons in general, based on statements from times past I for one have a hard time believing what comes out of the New York Senator’s mouth. After the last presidential debate on October 15 at Hofstra University Hilary was interviewed by CNN and announced that she would not accept a cabinet position invitation from Obama if offered. She feels that Democrats still will need sway in the Senate and it is her prerogative to ensure the backup troops will still be available when needed. When was the last time that you can recall Hilary accepting a backseat position under any circumstance?

Hilary’s influential background in brief

Hilary Clinton graduated from Wellesley College with honors in political science, originally being highly active in college Republican initiatives. During her college experience she quickly decided that she could not fulfill her lifelong dream of becoming an athlete and decided to turn towards the ever-honest path of US Litigation. Hilary found herself attending Yale Law School in 1969 while maintaining her active track record of high-level involvement. Two years later she met Bill and after four years of his developing and relentless hug-infused diplomacy she was finally won over. In 1975 the Clintons wed in Fayetteville, Arkansas, near the headquarters of the retail monolith she would later find herself representing and serving on the board of directors for.

Hilary’s long list of accomplishments range from being named the first female partner of Rose Law Firm to being ranked 1 of the most 100 most influential lawyers in the US by the National Law Journal in 1988. Hilary surprisingly made more taxable income than Mr. Clinton until he became Mr. President. Her long list of focuses most notably include working for children’s advocacy (namely through the Children’s Defense Fund), literacy and education efforts in Arkansas, and largely socialist-based healthcare proposals.* Hilary certainly is not a dumb person by any stretch of the imagination and she knows it, clearly not taking Socrates’ line of thought into account, “I know that I am intelligent, because I know nothing.”

*“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

Hilary’s track record: Foreign policy spotlight

While Hilary’s skills are highly attractive in the courtroom, she is not necessarily the freedom-fighting, life-risking US citizen she likes to make herself out to be. After CBS discovered that she and Chelsea were greeted by indigenous flower girls and not sniper fire upon their 1996 arrival in Bosnia, she had nowhere to turn but to begin focusing on more domestic issues that rings true to her Rambo-tainted patriotic passion for the truth and nothing but the truth. Aside from the evidence captured by the CBS camera crew, fellow American comedian Sinbad added to the exciting experience by stating “the most dangerous part of the trip was remembering where we were going to eat next”. Hilary’s convincing response? “Sinbad is a comedian…” I personally am comforted that the former First Lady can recognize when people tell jokes for a living instead of pretending to be the next Mother Teresa that makes jokes to our delight pro bono. The more you revisit this series of occurrences the more generous you realize Hilary truly is.

Clinton adviser Lissa Muscatine attempted to clear up all of the questions we were all asking but somehow just wasn’t convincing enough: “She met that there was fire in the hillside around the area when we landed which was the case.”Clearly CBS should increase the quality of their audio equipment. Even the pilot of the trip pointed to the absurdity of Clinton’s claims making it very clear that they never would have attempted to land if they were indeed under attack and that under his watch no passengers would be told to sit on their bullet-proof jackets; a strategy that US Army tests have found unsuccessful in trying to prevent injury when under fire or in the battlefield (this claim not yet confirmed).

The true implications of what Hilary’s track record shows us are best seen through her own words: “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down (her laughing and smiles multiply at this point) to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” In an entirely different speech Hilary stated “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” I agree with you Hilary, perhaps you should think about what you claim more carefully from here on out (especially if you have a CBS media team documenting your entire trip).

Hilary’s exciting life: Back in the US

Despite the disappointing announcement that Hilary was not named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hilary (she was born in 1947; Edmund’s successful hike was five years later), we do know that she tends to have psychic abilities when it comes to the press. Despite the fact that the Wall Street Journal’s financial section did not cover the futures market when she claimed to make her fortune she had an uncanny sense for the paranormal. But more realistically, perhaps what we’re observing within Hilary’s patterns is a disconnect somewhere in her memory in terms of timelines. Orders of occurrences do not seem to be her strong suit, a skill that most public officials would value above erroneous claims of just how much danger her daughter Chelsea has been through (controversy abound as to whether or not Chelsea had to duck into a café as the Two Towers were hit or if it was all just another misunderstanding).

Even today there is a long list of claims that Hilary still needs to “clarify” for us. Does Hilary like NAFTA or not? Does she understand the difference between clerical errors and White House gifts? Did she ever oppose the pre-emptive war with Iraq? More importantly, was she always a Yankees fan? The more one reads about Hilary Clinton the more one recognizes just how ambitious she claims (and takes back, and rewords, then restructures) she is. But one thing is clear among this growing list comprised with a tone of severe lack of accountability, Hilary is not done yet. She had her sights set on getting back to the White House since the day she and Bill moved out.

Why Hilary will not stay out of the White House

“In the Bible it says they asked Jesus how many times you should forgive, and he said 70 times 7. Well, I want you all to know that I’m keeping a chart.”

For a politician with such an extensive background with such intense experiences* it should be clear that Hilary is not going to slow down. For those who spend any amount of time learning about her background it is hard to believe that Hilary could stay in the Senate offering back-up support for a historical “rising star” candidate that defeated her so boldly. Based on Hilary’s track record of sticking so closely to her claims I for one do not find myself in a position to be able to trust her seemingly humble intentions of supporting the Democrats from behind the scenes… and so far away from the Oval Office. Hilary’s story is not done yet, and she will not allow the defeat of the 2008 Presidential Election quiet her intentions down.