for by New Mexicans for Political Accountability PAC,
Travis Green, Treasurer.
are not tax deductible.
what you think!
an issue been bothering you? Is there something
you think that should be discussed? What do you
think of the media coverage of Heather Wilson?
Submit letters to be posted in our web forum.
May 19, 2003
sent this to Wilson
am a conservative constituent who is generally
loathe to invite you to expand an existing federal
program other than the military and other essential
existing services. However, I would urge you to
consider rejecting the so-called State Option
Proposal in H.R. 2210, as well as certain other
deficiencies in the bill.
Start is one federal program whose success is
undisputed. As a former educator, and now attorney,
I believe the proposal will threaten the quality
and reach of Head Start's early education services.
Research shows that quality is crucial in achieving
successful early educational outcomes. Research
also shows that the quality of state-funded early
education is extremely mixed. Indeed, the states
that meet Head Start's quality in all areas all
chose to adopt Head Start performance standards
in the first instance.
latest proposal undermines this quality for a
variety of reasons. First, it eliminates the standards
for any state that chooses to administer the Head
Start program. Thus, it makes the new quality
enhancements inapplicable to these states and,
in the process, eliminates the quality guarantees.
In addition, participating states could use quality
improvement funds for any related purpose, including,
impliedly, those unrelated to quality.
there is no review of state plans. In fact, state
plans are approved by default if the Secretary
decides to do nothing. The lack of oversight makes
high quality less likely, not more.
general, it seems odd to me that a program with
Head Start's track record on the federal level
would be given the state-option, when most deficit-heavy
states are already cutting funds for early education
state option also threatens the essential income
targeting aspect of Head Start. Presumably, the
Secretary could permit states to determine eligibility
without reference to poverty at all. Income targeting
is critical to serving the most at-risk of failure
in later years. The poorer in our midst should
not be expensed for the benefit of the less needy.
am also concerned that the new proposal threatens
access to early Head Start. Research demonstrates
that such early care is essential toward achieving
educational success in later years. Although the
proposal requires states choosing this option
to meet the requirements for Early Head Start,
it does not require that funds be used to serve
only infants and toddlers. Most states lack early
education and care programs that serve large numbers
of three and four-year-olds. Even more lack programs
for infants and toddlers. The possibility that
states would use Early Head Start funds for programs
for 3- and 4-year-olds is a significant risk.
Early Head Start should be expanded, not reduced.
I am urging you to oppose the Title II state option
proposal. Although I would agree that shifting
power and money away from Washington is preferable
as a matter of principle, that principle should
not prevail in this instance. Put a feather in
your education cap this time: Instead of claiming
success for "reforming" Head Start (which
you won't by supporting this proposal), claim
victory by strengthening this proven program essential
to education. Reject the state-option proposal.
May 19, 2003
have, by implication, now associated Heather Wilson
with terrorist organizations and rogue nations
who seek WMD, as though there were a comparison
to be made between the two. There is not.
is at times like these that I wish I was advising
Ms. Wilson for I would offer two pieces of advice:
(1) pay your organization absolutely no mind;
your baseless diatribes deserve no audience because
your ridiculous positions speak for themselves;
and (2) associate your invective with the other
idiots that reflect your "Party" leaders,
i.e. John Kerry ("Regime change in Washington.").
some point, Democrats will realize they will never
win anything being merely an "opposition"
party. Democrats have no idea what they stand
for with respect to national security policy,
and most of their voters don't care anymore. Republicans
make them feel safe, and that's enough for them.
Democrats need to tell us what they believe in,
and come up with alternatives, not mere invective.
Yet, at the risk of being labelled a hypocrite,
here's some invective for you: Don't let your
hatred for Wilson and Bush runneth so much over,
that you have none left over for those abroad
that want you dead; Wilson and Bush are on your
Sir or Madam:
you for your letter. NMPA does not associate Congresswoman
Heather Wilson with terrorists. You drew that
conclusion. Our site simply reports nuclear weapons
are "Weapons of Mass Destruction." That
is a fact (George Bush, CNN, NYT, FOX NEWS agree).
Wilson's report encourages development or the
possibility of such development. That is a fact.
goal is to provide a perspective absent from the
media, and our intent is to publish the truth
about Congresswoman Wilson's activities in Washington.
As we are both aware, Americans always support
their leadership in times of threat, and NMPA
is no different. However, all politicians must
be held accountable to their constituency. And
the beauty of our constitutional freedoms is that
all people may make their voices heard.
far as your statement about Bush and Wilson being
on our side, you are absolutely correct that as
to foreign threats we are on the same side; as
to misrepresenting positions on Title I funding,
as to the appropriateness of tax cuts at a time
when this country has spent billions of dollars
ridding the world of an evil dictator, we respectfully
disagree with your contention that we should overlook
concerns just because Wilson and Bush are "bully"
on Saddam. We find it beyond irony that in 1998
Heather Wilson criticized Title I federal funding
for education in New Mexico, only to tout it as
a prize she has won for New Mexico in 2003. And
to add insult to injury, Wilson voted in favor
of reducing the amount of Title I funding New
Mexico ultimately received.
and Bush are responsible to the American public,
and, yes, Congresswoman Wilson is responsible
to New Mexico - both you and me. We need not support
all her positions; in fact, it is our duty to
question those we disagree with. If you are proposing
blind loyalty to our political leadership, we
decline your offer.
state desperately needs better schools, but our representative
votes against education. She cut Title I funding by
$4 billion and voted for a budget resolution that took
$36 million from New Mexico social programs.
More about Education
us monitor your representative. Take a step towards
political accountability. Contribute online, by
mail, or pledge by email. Please note: contributions
are not tax deductible.
the contribution center