During the 1980’s, Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar built a global cocaine cartel of unrivaled power and influence based on a simple philosophy, Plato O Plomo.

Translated literally that means “silver or lead,” but every Colombian knew what it really meant – “money or bullets.” Either you took Escobar’s bribe, or you dealt with Escobar’s wrath.

Today, these thuggish tactics are alive and well in – of all places – Washington, D.C., a city where two decades ago officials were busy hunting down criminals like Escobar. Meanwhile elsewhere in the United States, stealing from Medicaid has replaced cocaine dealing as the most practiced, most profitable form of white collar crime – another reason Barack Obama and his Congressional allies should think long and hard before they expand governmental “control” of this industry.

Yet as another unprecedented Washington power grab takes shape, Plato O Plomo indeed appears to have been adopted by Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate President Harry Reid as their modus operandi for passing an un-American socialized medicine proposal that America doesn’t want and cannot afford.

In fact, these so-called “leaders” are perpetrating the ultimate in “white collar” Medicaid fraud – dipping into this taxpayer-funded slush fund to pad the pockets of lawmakers whose votes they need for the larger, $2.5 trillion heist.

Take the proposed $300 million Medicaid payout offered to the state of Louisiana in a (successful) effort to secure the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu. This provision was inserted into the 2,700-page bill as Landrieu was waffling on whether or not to bring the legislation to the floor for debate.

“After a thorough review of the bill, I have decided there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward …” Landrieu said from the Senate floor shortly after accepting this glorified bribe.

And while Landrieu claimed at the time that there was “more work to be done” on the legislation, she has since changed her tune and voted to shut down debate on further amendments.

Next in line was another fence-sitter, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who was offered millions of dollars in Medicaid payments for his home state beginning in 2017 and extending forever.

That’s right – the federal government is offering to pay 100% of Nebraska’s Medicaid cost increases from here to eternity, a deal no other state is getting but one which every other state must finance.

Of course there have been sticks associated with these carrots, too.

At every stage of socialized medicine’s march through the legislative process, these taxpayer-funded bribes have been accompanied by

Sen. Nelson, for example, was reportedly told that Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha would be placed on a base closure list if he didn’t take the deal he was being offered.

That’s vintage Plato O Plomo.

Similarly in the U.S. House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly received more requests for “passes” on the socialized medicine vote from House Democrats than she could handle, which is said to have prompted a massive behind-the-scenes Plato O Plomo campaign in which everything – pork barrel spending, committee chairmanships, electoral support – was placed on the table in an effort to move a sufficient number of votes into the “Yes” column.

Even then, the legislation was just three votes away from being defeated.

Fortunately, these despicable tactics are no longer hidden behind closed doors. The Landrieu and Nelson payoffs in particular have attracted substantial media attention and public outrage, and states which are being forced to pay for these bribes are demanding investigations.

Already leery of this massive government power-grab, Americans are now keenly aware of the Gangland tactics that are being used to drag it kicking and screaming across the finish line.

And that’s the ultimate lesson of Plato O Plomo – the plan falls apart as soon as people realize they can stand up to the gangsters.

From The Texas Farm Bureau

---

There is an ancient Chinese curse that sounds harmless until you think about it: “May you live in interesting times.”

Interesting times are challenging times. They can bring hardship. They can dash hopes and destroy dreams. Sometimes, however, lying right in the same ditch with all of our tough problems, are opportunities.

There’s no doubt about it. We live in interesting times. But as Farm Bureau members—as Texas farmers and ranchers—we refuse to be boxed in, and limited, by these “interesting times.”

We are completing a year of remarkable achievement. We meet here today and reflect on an all-time membership high. Our service programs continue to meet the needs of our members. Our programs are nationally recognized for excellence.

This year also included the 81st Session of the Texas Legislature. It was, in most respects, an okay session for Farm Bureau and agriculture, one in which we achieved several policy goals. Unfortunately, it was also defined by frustration on the issue of eminent domain reform, our top goal.

We’ve talked about eminent domain reform many times over the last three years. Today, I just want to thank you for the remarkable job you did in making sure Proposition 11 was passed in November.

Pass it did, by an overwhelming margin. Even as a poorly worded, bottom-of-the-ballot initiative, it was the top vote getter among them all.

That, my fellow Farm Bureau members, makes this vote a mandate for finishing the job on eminent domain reform.

There’s an old saying: “The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.” We’ve carried away a bunch of stones on this issue, but we still have work to do.

We know Proposition 11 does not “fix” Texas’ terrible eminent domain law, as some of its opponents said. It does, however, set the stage for going forward.

There’s no question that some politicians running for office next year will try to hide behind Proposition 11. They will try to claim that it’s more than it really is. They will try to hide their own record and say that eminent domain is “fixed” in Texas.

We know it is not. They know it is not. And before we are done, all of Texas will know the job is not yet finished.

Farm Bureau members and leaders have kept this issue alive for more than two years. Now, we have to do so yet again. We’ve heard all the empty promises, and it’s time to hold some folks accountable for that.

Very soon now, the race for Texas governor will begin in earnest. You will hear much lip service paid to property rights. The heroes of the Alamo will be mentioned. Texas’ so called tradition of property rights will be held up as an example.

Andrew Carnegie once said: “As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.” It is very easy to talk about property rights, but “watch what they do.”

We’ve heard all the talk. We’ve listened to all the rhetoric. If you take the time to examine the record, you will discover the truth.

We have many friends running for office in 2010 who need our help. We must be there for them. The issues we care about depend on it. With our work in the election season next year, we’ll set the stage for meeting our objectives in the next legislative session.

Texas Farm Bureau members are being called upon once again to make a difference. We live in interesting times, as the old curse says. But rather than view it that way, I see it as a challenge.

With your continued commitment, dedication and hard work, we will meet the challenges of these interesting times—confident that we can make them the best of times, a future of promise, hope and accomplishment for the rural families of Texas.

From American Thinker

---

Tom Endicott

The current issues involving our Congress are debated endlessly in the media, but ultimately they become framed in the context of what they mean to the re-election efforts of our senators and representatives. We watch our congressmen deftly balance their positions on the issues in front of the cameras, dodging and feinting as they seek to determine the safest path to re-election.

Why must the importance of issues that impact our daily lives, and what they portend for our progeny, be degraded by relating them to the personal desires of our duly elected representatives to retain their access to cushy benefits and the perks of power? Are not the ramifications to our collective interests of national fiscal responsibility, defense of our country, energy independence, and health care policy more important than the career longevity of our congressmen?

It seems we elect serious and sincere individuals to go to Washington on our behalf and tend to our national interests. And for the most part, they are that. But once they become accustomed to the special benefits self-endowed by themselves and their antecedents, their interest turns from the merits of the issues to how their positions on the issues will impact their ability to retain the accouterments of power and representation. In this context, the issues become “all about them.” The quest to maintain membership among the favored few becomes a barrier to voting their conscience and tending to what is in the best interests of those who sent them there.

Therefore, if we expect our representatives to deal with national issues without the risk of subordinating the importance these issues have to the populace to the temptations of power, this risk needs to be eliminated. And this can be achieved with the implementation of term limits.

Americans understand this intuitively, and it is the understanding of the potential structural conflict between responsible representation and the corruptive capabilities of power that have caused 37 states to impose term limits on their elected state officials . The provision, of course, also exists for our President as a result of the Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution and it needs to be extended to Congress for all the same reasons. And because the depth and breadth of the impact Congress has on our lives is greater than state officials, the reasons are even more compelling.

Since it would be naive to expect those in the position of power to adopt provisions that would constitute a self-imposed date for their return home, we must do it for them. This movement needs to be resurrected at the grass-roots level so that the associated relevance of the importance of national issues can be returned to what each means to our collective interests and not theirs.

From The New Haven Register

---

I give John Carusone a lot of credit for his letter breaking from the party line. U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd has worn out his welcome and it is time for him to go.

He is a perfect example why we need term limits in the Senate. He has been part of the best club in the world, the Senate, for too long.

His poor judgment is good reason to be up in arms. Was he supporting Connecticut when he moved his family to Iowa for his feeble run for president?

He was a leading member, now chairman, of the Banking Committee when the country went through the worst banking and housing crisis since the Depression. If he was running a company, he would have been terminated for cause. Instead, he got a raise like all members of Congress.

What about all the special interest donations to his campaigns from companies like Countrywide and AIG?

The debacle of the AIG affair had to be the icing on the cake. AIG has been one of his largest campaign supporters. He supported the bonus payments to the AIG executives and lied about it on national television. How stupid does he think we are?

I have been a registered Democrat my entire life and I strongly support dumping Dodd.

Mike Carbray

Hamden

From The Providence Journal

---

The Rhode Island Board of Regents recently approved its 2010-11 budget, which includes an additional $7.3 million in aid for public charter schools.

That action, along with numerous stories in the print and broadcast media detailing the education opportunities offered at any one of Rhode Island’s 13 public charter schools, have once again resurrected myths about public charter schools — how they are financed and who they serve. Public charter schools are an integral and important part of the public-education system in Rhode Island, providing necessary public-school choice options for students and their families.

Public charter schools show much promise for the future of education — they are here to stay! It is important for all Rhode Island’s students, educators, policy makers and families that we move beyond myth to fact.

Here are the facts:

Fact: Public charter schools do not “drain” money from the district public schools. First and foremost, public charter schools are public schools, open to the public, funded by the public and accountable to the public. The total amount of money spent on public education in communities with public charter schools or with students attending public charter schools in another district does not change.

In Rhode Island, while local and state aid for public charter school students does go to the public charter school, the state aid part also goes to the traditional school district where the student resides, resulting in a “double” payment of the state share! While the public charter school educates the student, the sending district still gets the state aid part of the per-student allotment! Our charter funding formula is “flawed” in favor of traditional school districts. A true, “money follows the student” education-aid formula would end that double payment.

Fact: Public charter schools do not “cream” the best students. Public charter schools are open to any student who resides in the city or town identified in the school’s target population. Public charter schools have “open admissions” and to apply, families need only to fill out a short application requesting basic information. Public charter schools are open to every student regardless of race, religion, disability or academic ability. They are open to all students on a space-available basis and cannot select students on the basis of skills, ability or past performance.

By statute, if the total number of students who apply to a public charter school is greater than the number of openings available, the public charter school must conduct a blind lottery to determine which students are admitted. The lottery and overall charter-admission process are conducted under the authority of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Fact: Public charter schools are held accountable for performance. While public charter schools do operate independently of the local school system, they are held to even higher standards by the Board of Regents and state Department of Education. The state’s rigorous charter-application process results in only strong, viable applications being approved. Public charter schools must follow all state educational standards, participate in all mandated assessments, and comply with federal No Child Left Behind requirements. Public charter schools must demonstrate fiscal responsibility by providing and participating in all financial reporting requirements, which include all revenue/expenditure reports as well as providing quarterly budget reports to the auditor general and the Department of Administration’s Office of Municipal Affairs. Rhode Island public charter schools provide an annual report to the Board of Regents and are comprehensively reviewed and renewed after an initial five-year period and in successive five-year periods thereafter.

If the charter public school fails to meet objectives outlined in its charter, the charter can be revoked and the school closed.

Fact: Every one of Rhode Island’s children deserves a good educational experience. Public charter schools are an important part of building and sustaining a public education system that works for all of our state’s families. The demand continues to be high — with just over 3,400 enrolled in public charter schools and another 3,600 on waiting lists, public charter schools are a school-choice option that Rhode Islanders have embraced. It is time for us to put aside the “us against them” mindset, focus on the facts, and work together to improve the state’s overall public-education system.

Stephen A. Nardelli is executive director of the Rhode Island League of Charter Schools.