by Mark Silva
Acknowledging that he hasn't persuaded the American public and Congress to support sweeping changes to healthcare, President Obama offered a humbling admission Sunday: His message is sometimes not "breaking through."
"I think there have been times where I have said, 'I've got to step up my game in terms of talking to the American people about issues like healthcare,' " he said during an unprecedented spree of appearances on five Sunday television news shows.
Asked if he had lost control of the healthcare debate at those times, the president said: "Well, not so much lost control, but where I've said to myself, somehow I'm not breaking through."
The president's Sunday blitz -- which skipped Fox News Channel -- marked yet another effort to explain to a divided public why he is trying to remake the healthcare system. Taped on Friday at the White House, his appearances on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Univision followed a prime-time address to a joint session of Congress this month and a series of town-hall-style appearances and rallies across the country aimed at reviving the fervor for "change" that propelled Obama into the White House. He also plans to be on David Letterman's "Late Show" tonight, a first for a sitting president.
The media venture underscores the administration's confidence that Obama is the best salesman for his policies.
But his critics suggested that people had heard the president's message -- they just weren't buying it.
"Actually, he has broken through. People don't like what he is selling," said Alex Castellanos, a Washington-based Republican consultant and campaign media expert. "This is not a communications problem."
See the full analysis of Obama's TV blitz on health care in Tribune newspapers today and here in the Swamp:
The phalanx of TV appearances presents a risk for the president, as does his broader strategy of staking so much political capital on a healthcare overhaul, said Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster who served President Clinton.
"If he doesn't get a bill, he's been on five Sunday shows, David Letterman, and, if he doesn't move the needle, it's hard to see how he wins. And the midterm elections become very problematic" for his party, Schoen said. "He is doubling down, betting the ranch and putting it all on the line on the basis that his communications skills are superior and that he can carry the day."
With the proposed healthcare overhaul, Obama and supporters in the Democratic-controlled Congress are promising better health insurance for Americans who already have it and coverage for millions lacking it -- without raising taxes on anyone who earns less than $250,000 a year. They are also aiming to rein in healthcare costs that are consuming a large part of the family budget and, through Medicare and Medicaid, the federal budget.
"I don't think I've promised too much at all," Obama said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Everyone recognizes this is a problem. Everyone recognizes the current path we're on is unsustainable. . . . We know that standing still is not an option."
Republicans are not the only ones resisting Obama's plans. So are some lawmakers in his own party.
Many liberal Democrats insist that any healthcare overhaul must include a "public option" -- a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private companies. That's anathema to Republicans and many conservative Democrats.
House Democratic leaders say they cannot pass a bill without a government-run insurance program, but it appears that the Senate cannot pass a bill that includes one.
Obama insists he has not given up on the public option, even though he has said that it's negotiable.
"I absolutely do not believe that it's dead," he said on Spanish-language Univision. "I think that it's something that we can still include as part of a comprehensive reform effort."
The president calmly addressed the fervor of recent protests and the public debate, suggesting that much of the vitriol aimed at him stems from a natural fear of "big changes" in government -- and not, as former President Carter has suggested, because opponents cannot accept the fact that an African American is president.
"Unfortunately, we've got . . . a 24-hour news cycle where what gets you on the news is controversy," Obama said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "What gets you on the news is the extreme statement. The easiest way to get 15 minutes on the news, or your 15 minutes of fame, is to be rude."
Speaking about his political opponents' stance on healthcare, Obama said on Univision's "Al Punto Con Jorge Ramos": "I think that the opposition has made a decision. They are just not going to support anything for political reasons. . . . There's some people who just cynically want to defeat me politically."
The president has called for a civil debate, and analysts said his steadfastness and calmness set a certain tone.
"First, he is the administration's best spokesperson," said John Geer, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. "Second, he gets to be the story, as opposed to others, such as Jimmy Carter, who can muddle and undermine the message."
Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, lauded Obama's strategy.
"It is a smart move to saturate the Sunday interview shows," West said. "This gives the president a chance to dominate the news cycle and get his views on healthcare into the papers. You cannot buy that kind of publicity."
Asked about the risk of putting so much on the plate without winning any converts, West said: "Presidents have to communicate, because if they don't, their opponents will fill the void."
Those opponents were ready for the Sunday media blitz.
Michael S. Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, followed Obama on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"The president said a lot without saying anything," Steele said. "There was nothing that moved the needle on this debate."
But Castellanos, the Republican consultant, suggested that Republicans had failed to reach the public with their own healthcare proposals -- leaving Obama to benefit from the absence of a clear GOP alternative.
"If the Republicans have failed at anything, it's to be clear enough that there are alternatives to what he is proposing," Castellanos said.
But he suggested that the president's words could be lost in a storm of controversy -- amid conservative commentary on television, the recent tax protester march on Washington and the sheer length and contentiousness of the healthcare debate.
"When you drop a pebble in a still pond, you make ripples," Castellanos said. "When you drop a pebble in a stormy sea, you change nothing. . . . He dropped a few pebbles in a very stormy sea."
Comments
With a $9,000,000,000,000 projected deficit over the next ten years, can we afford to add another gov't run social program that will add to this deficit?
I have challenged people in here to name a gov't run social program in here that meets the customers' needs and has come in lower than the original budget. So far no takers. Step up libs.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 8:30 AM
" A pebble in a stormy sea." is the best a Republican spin doctor can do to describe what President Obama is attempting. Here he is, reporting on the sinking of the Titanic, as he is about to go down with it !! Typical Republican-Libertarian spin, President Obama is willing to spend political capital on an initiative for a reasonably good, efficient healthcare system for all Americans and what do we get from the " loyal obstructionists ", the stating of the obvious. That the Cheney&Bush fringe stirred the stormy seas, goes unstated. It is a sad day in America, when you have a Party, the Republican-Libertarian Party, standing silently by, while their financial backers debase our system with the hiring of goons, nay-sayers, and provocateurs, simply to allow those moneybags to keep their ill-gotten gains and keep the rest of America in slave-wages employment !! That isn't America, that is some developing country, trying to improve their national way of life. Not here in America, though, these days the capitalist want nothing better than to keep, we, the people, in these servile positions. We are easier to handle, then !! We went from the economic standard bearer for a national plan to raise almost every citizen to a dignified way of life to a nation where the primary growth industries are those cash cows, the Healthcare Corps and the Law Enforcement Corps. Is that a national disaster, or what !!? Is that the land of equal opportunity, or what ?? Talk about going from rags to riches !! Those Republicans-Libertarians sure know how to destroy dreams, with their Weasels on Wall Street, their Bandits in the Boardrooms and their Phonies in the Pharmaceutical Corps !! Welcome to Gulag USA, where you can work your heart out and still go hungry, or without medical attention, or without your child's good education. What a country, America, has devolved into, thanks, in large part, to the Repbulican-Libertarians and their anti-American agenda !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | September 21, 2009 9:22 AM
"With a $9,000,000,000,000 projected deficit over the next ten years, can we afford to add another gov't run social program that will add to this deficit?"
Q: What's the difference between Obama and a drunken sailor?
A: The drunken sailor can't confiscate other people's money.
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 11:04 AM
Just out of curiosity Terry, how many million Americans are you willing to see go without health insurance to bring fown the deficit? How many million children's health are you willing to endanger to bring down the deficit? Are you willing to sacrifice your health, or your families health to bring down the deficit, or are you just bravely willing to sacrifice the health of others? If the number of uninsured rises to 100 million, is that acceptable to you? How many million are you nwilling to see suffer to keep your taxes down Terry? Tell us what that limits are to your love of the unbridled free market.
Posted by: How Many Terry? | September 21, 2009 11:47 AM
How many,
Considering we went from 47 million to 30 million in the past month - at least according to BO (now that America has caught onto his numbers scheme), I think we can get the remaining 30 million into some health insurance by opening up the state markets so people can shop across state lines. This would drop the price. We can give favorable tax treatment to individuals buying health insurance, just as we give corporations, we could give vocuhers to the remainder so they could purchase health insurance in the open market.
That should solve it.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 12:55 PM
Just out of curiosity ...
Whence the moral mandate for me to pay for your or any one else's health care? I find none.
Whence the moral justification for you to confiscate the fruit of my labors to finance your policy priorities? I find none.
Whence the Constitutional authority for the federal government to take any action whatsoever on health care? I find none.
Just curious.
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 1:10 PM
Terry, Your proposal would raise deficts as well. Tax credits and vouchers aren't free. What if your proposals dont't address the problem Terry? What if deregulating the insurance companies by allowing them to trade across state lines actually makes the problem worse? (Which it surely would by making insuarnace all but impossible to get for people with pre-existing conditions). How many million people without the ability to get health inusrance is acceptable to you? 30 million? 50 Million? 100 million?
Posted by: How many Terry | September 21, 2009 1:21 PM
Just curious.
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 1:10 PM
I'm sure you are also against my paying for your childrens education. You guys kill me. Selfstyled coonskin cap wearin, musket armed "freedom" fighters. While you like to feel you are holding the lantern for one if by land...etc., you have lost no freedoms, and these issues are what happens in a democracy. You can throw all the childish names you want, and you had plenty to toss when you were in power, but it changes nothing. This is a democracy plain and simple. I say put down your musket boys, takeoff the indian costume, don't waste good tea, and use your weapon of choice in a democracy.....your vote. We just had one....you lost....get over it and over yourselves. You great defenders of America from Americans.
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2009 1:40 PM
bill r. wrote: "I'm sure you are also against my paying for your childrens education."
Actually I am. Public education is one of our nation's greatest tragedies, and accounts for much of the country's current state of decline. I am quite content to shoulder my own responsibility and pay for my own children's education, thanks.
"You can throw all the childish names you want..."
Which childish names would those be? I suggest that you look to your post for examples of those. You'll find none in mine.
Now, if you're quite finished ducking my questions, kindly answer them if you can. Or would you prefer to simply concede that you can't answer them without resorting, as you say, to "childish names"?
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 1:59 PM
"Whence the moral mandate for me to pay for your or any one else's health care? I find none."
*************************
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Posted by: Matthew | September 21, 2009 2:13 PM
Actually I am. Public education is one of our nation's greatest tragedies, and accounts for much of the country's current state of decline.
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 1:59 PM
Well you're one of the few. Personally, while you blame the education system, I blame the decline in parental guidance. My wife taught for 20 years and noticed the slow decline in the guidance by parents over the years to the point were "most" parents don't even sign off on test scores or homework anymore. But of course it must be teacher unions...how could it be us? Of course, you're the exception, but it doesn't change the end result. As far as your questions? I find them laughable and disengenuous. If you're a constitutional lawyer, you already have an idea, if you aren't, then you're just another armchair lawyer fed with what you hear on your chosen right wing channel. I might waste my time and ask where in the constitution were we allowed to invade a sovereign nation? Oh that's right, you and the right gave us that. That and Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps.......what Constitution....right?
As far as the names....I talk about your calls of Communism, Marxism, Socialism, get a grip. Set up another straw man.
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2009 2:35 PM
Matthew, your point is a fair one, but the great disconnect between that and what Obama is selling is this:
The moral mandate of the scriptures is an INDIVIDUAL response based upon an INDIVIDUAL conviction that one must respond to a perceived need. It's a one-on-one choice of obedience to God and service to one's fellow man.
I have no problem with doing that, and in fact I and millions of other regular Americans do so on a regular basis. I, like many of my fellow citizens, have a long personal history of charitable giving that, on percentage-of-income terms, dwarfs that of our vice president, who calls us "greedy" for not wanting the government to confiscate the fruits of our labors.
Obama, by contrast, pretends to be concerned about these things as a disguise for his efforts to aggregate power to himself, by enforcing a COLLECTIVE response to an IMPOSED obligation to care for others.
I would also add, a bit, gratuitously maybe, that Americans are an exceptionally generous people, but our ability to engage in even more VOLUNTARY charity (which I personally would like to be able to do) is severely hampered by the government's efforts to FORCE us to be charitable by confiscating such a significant, and ever growing, portion of our resources. Frankly, Matthew, I like your approach much better.
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 3:10 PM
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 1:59 PM
So the children of the poor shouldn't be educated? Seriously, is that your position?
Posted by: Nick | September 21, 2009 3:17 PM
"As far as your questions? I find them laughable and disengenuous."
You shouldn't. Instead they should provoke you to an honest assessment of the philosophical underpinnings for these rather substantial constitutional and policy issues, but you are so hopelessly blinded by your own self-inflicted partisanship that you refuse to allow for the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you haven't thought through all the larger implications of the positions you espouse so stridently.
I would love to have an honest debate, but frankly you seem unwilling or, possibly, unequal to the task. I perceive, Bill, that you are a man of very narrow intellectual horizons. You fancy yourself a clever debater because you are facile with your ideological talking points, but all you really offer is a cheap substitute for the hard work of rigorous reason. That's nothing to brag about, yet every post you make to this forum veritably trumpets that sad fact from the rooftops.
Frankly, politics as they are generally on display today are for the narrow-minded, the petty and the self-serving among us. The real action is in the realm of ideas that transcend the banality of mere factionalism.
You'll notice that while I may champion conservative ideas, you will never hear me championing any political party. Why? Because I have never found a party worthy to be championed, and because in any event the ideas I concern myself with are not proprietary to any one party. You should try it some time -- it's much more satisfying than what you're swimming in, and serves the public interest infinitely better.
By the way, it's spelled "disingenuous".
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 3:34 PM
14They came and said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?
15"Shall we pay or shall we not pay?" But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a [a]denarius to look at."
16They brought one. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" And they said to Him, "Caesar's."
17And Jesus said to them, "(D)Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.
Posted by: Mark | September 21, 2009 3:35 PM
"So the children of the poor shouldn't be educated? Seriously, is that your position?"
How in the world did you ever arrive at such an unwarranted conclusion? I think you assume too much.
Public education HAS been a national tragedy -- the statistics don't lie, nor does the unmistakable intellectual and moral decay of our nation. The answer, like it or not, is the complete privatization of education. Having to compete for private consumer dollars to keep their doors open will FORCE schools and their administrators to actually deliver a product worth paying for.
Those who have the ability to pay for themselves should be expected to do so. Those who cannot should be means-tested to qualify for vouchers, preferably funded as much as possible by private charitable donations, but by the several state governments (NOT the federal government) to the extent necessary to ensure reasonable access.
Contrary to your evident misperception, I am not anti-poor. My quarrel is with the inexcusable inversion of the roles of the state and federal governments, and of the respective responsibilities of the public and private sectors. That is the even greater national tragedy.
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 3:48 PM
By the way, it's spelled "disingenuous".
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 3:34 PM
Why thank you. It seems you are quite the legend in your own mind. While your wax poetically, some may be dazzled, others find it a smoke screen for failure to actually making a point. 2 paragraphs to call me stupid? Some would call that long winded. I also love those who claim that "independent" status. Some also say that if you need to correct spelling....you have already lost the debate. But I would never try to change the high opinion one holds of themself.
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2009 4:30 PM
How Many,
My proposals would be a lot cheaper than the ones put forth with a single-payer or gov't run option. Why is it you think the American people are incapable of providing for their own needs? Get rid of state regulations and you will increase competition - make service better and product cheaper. Always has, always will, I agree to out law the denial of coverage based upon pre-conditions. Just as tort reform is needed to reduce the cost to the doctors that can be passed onto the customers.
BillyR,
You are correct, much of the blame of today's lack of education lies at that feet of their parents. That would be the generation of parents that have been raised that the gov't is going to take care of your needs, so why work hard and get an education.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 4:32 PM
Mark, I couldn't agree more. My issue is not whether to pay taxes, but to limit the federal government's imposition of taxes to its constitutionally prescribed functions, and for it to cede back to the states those functions not granted to it by the people and the states (see Amendments IX and X). Additionally, all levels of government should strive to avoid wasting our tax dollars. The Framers understood that this happens best when the governance occurs as close as possible to the local level -- thus the layered federal structure of our government.
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 4:41 PM
The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don)-
Please provide one example, anywhere in the world, at any time, where universal education has been accomplished by those means. Please provide one example, anywhere in the world, at any time, where all of the children of the poor were educated by charitable giving, and without a public school system. You can't. Simple fact. Charitable giving has never, ever been able to come close to meeting that goal. Where there is no public education, the children of the poor largely go uneducated. Public education hasn't been a failure, since it is the ONLY system that has been able to provide an education for all, regardless of wealth. Private education failed, and failed badly, to provicde an education for all. That is why public education exists, much to the disgust of elitists like you who hate the though of poor children getting the same education your children get.
Posted by: Nick | September 21, 2009 4:42 PM
And who could argue with the intellectual responses such as these. Hey...but your spelling was impeccable. Thankfully...you don't come off as a partisan or a hack.
As I said above, those of us who pay the freight in this country are sharpening the pitchforks and stocking up on tar and feathers. If the left-wing nutjobs in D.C. don't wake the [bleep] up and back the [bleep] down, they're going to have a lot more to worry about than some noisy townhall meetings.
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | August 4, 2009 5:32 PM
Go drink some more Kool-Aid.
Chimp.
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | August 5, 2009 4:39 PM
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2009 4:58 PM
Get rid of state regulations and you will increase competition - make service better and product cheaper."
Get rid of regulations and you will also get more fraud, inferior products and more risk to the public. Always has and always will. The market does NOT adequately regulate itself. Businesses do NOT regulate adequately themselves. Never have and never will.
Yet you still duck the question Terry. How many million uninsured is acceptable to you? How many million of your fellow citizens must go without before you see it as a problem?
Posted by: How many Terry | September 21, 2009 6:02 PM
Wow, Bill, you're archiving my old posts? I must have genuinely crawled up under your skin at some point. That's not normal -- not even for the Swamp. And yes, sometimes I do let myself be dragged down to the level of you and your contemporaries, both for the purpose of venting my spleen and, more importantly, to try to speak in terms you can understand. Evidently the latter objective remains a hopeless exercise at any level of discourse. I frequently ask myself why I bother wasting time in a forum like this. I'll attribute it to may misplaced faith in the fundamental rationality of mankind. Oh well, live and learn.
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 6:03 PM
That would be the generation of parents that have been raised that the gov't is going to take care of your needs, so why work hard and get an education.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 4:32 PM
Public schools, or the government as you call it was never there to raise our kids. As important to our society and country as education is, the availability of it should be open. What needs to change is the behavior of the parents. More involvement on their part. Taking away educational oportunities solves no problems but create much more.
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2009 6:06 PM
As I said above, those of us who pay the freight in this country are sharpening the pitchforks
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | August 4, 2009 5:32 PM
Again, let me try to explain to the "selfimportant", you may be surprised to see that your "freight" you pay pales in comparrison to others with an opposite view of yours. Sorry...you are not the only "big trucker" out there.
Ps...Please check my spelling. It makes you feel so much better. About yourself!
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2009 6:13 PM
And yes, sometimes I do let myself be dragged down to the level of you and your contemporaries
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) |
That's OK Don...anytime you need to talk or vent....I'll be right here...under that nose of your's that you look down at us from.
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2009 6:58 PM
Wow, Bill, you're archiving my old posts?
Posted by: The Guy Who Hides Behind False Names (so sayeth Don) | September 21, 2009 6:03 PM
Naaaa...It's just that we stupid, uneducated retirees at the age of 52, know what a search engine is. I use it alot when I need port of calls on the ICW on the ol' 45' Island packet. Damn...I wish I could spell better. I may have to sell one of our houses for some more of that edumacation.
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2009 7:33 PM
What the Hey! Actually Costellano's, he is not selling anything. This country needs national health care with a public option. If we don't get it health care costs will take this country down. Get on board, or get the hell out of the way! Remember the Republicans never do anything for this country, they only do things to this country! whiteagle38
Posted by: Raymond Juneau | September 21, 2009 7:38 PM
How Many,
"Get rid of regulations and you will also get more fraud" - we already of medicare and medicaid to cover that. The regulations that I am referring to disallow people to buy health insurance across state lines - it has nothing to do with fraud.
As long as all have access to health CARE, that is the important thing and all citiens and illegal aliens have access to health CARE. I already told you, my proposal would drop that 30 million down to a few million and those few million would have access to health CARE.
How many children do you think is acceptable that do not have the ability to read, write, or do basic math? How do you think gov't education is doing in this regard?
BillyR,
You are correct, it is primarily the parent's issue, but like I said today's parents were raised in a society where they expect the gov't to take care of their every need, so why should they not expect the kids to be taken care of the schools? Schools will feed many of these children two meals per day, the school provides transportation, so sadly the parents just blame everything on the teacher because the gov't has set these expectations. If the parents had to write a monthly check to cover some of the cost, they would become more involved.
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2009 10:29 PM
Terry.....There is no substitute for parental commitment. If they have to pay out of pocket (even though they do now), the parental commitment won't improve, only the demand that they paid good money for someone to do their job. Schools have kids for 6-7 hours a day, that is for learning, not teaching social skills. I believe one of the biggest factors in the decline came when mom had to enter the work place. I don't have the answer, but believe it rests with a re-commitment by parents to become more invovled with "parenting". But thanks for the thoughtful debate. We really can talk and discuss........can't we?
Posted by: bill r. | September 22, 2009 8:46 AM
BillyR,
How do you figure parents pay out of pocket now?
Posted by: Terry | September 22, 2009 10:59 PM
How do you figure parents pay out of pocket now?
Posted by: Terry | September 22, 2009 10:59 PM
Taxes!
Posted by: bill r. | September 23, 2009 10:09 AM
Bill,
That is what I thought you would say. The problem is, many parents do not make the connection when incomes taxes are w/h from their paycheck, part of their mortgage payment is for a real estate tax escrow account, and part of everday purchases include a sales tax.
My point is -if parents were to write a check every month to George Washington elementry school, there would be more involvement in the learning process.
Posted by: Terry | September 23, 2009 6:09 PM