Immutable law of Beltway political physics: The only real jobs that a government stimulus stimulates are government jobs. A year after President Obama signed his first almost trillion-dollar economic stimulus package into law, the federal workforce is at an all-time high. The nation's unemployment rate has swelled to 9.7 percent, but Washington's economy is thriving.

More than 2.1 million government workers will be on the federal payroll by the end of 2010. The lobbying industry is booming. USA Today reports that 14 federal agencies have hired 3,000 workers to oversee stimulus spending and have spent nearly $190 million so far on salaries and overhead.

Just one-third of the stimulus money has been spent so far, but the White House is now hectoring the Senate to ram through yet another phony jobs boondoggle in the name of bipartisanship. As GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas reminded Americans during the Republicans' weekly radio address, Obama and the Democrats promised a year ago that the jobless rate would remain below 8 percent with their stimulus legislation. "Americans are still asking, 'Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs?' But all they are getting from Washington is more spending, more taxes, more debt and more bailouts." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that the Porkulus II plan -- reportedly with an $85 billion price tag -- was a "really nice piece of legislation." But you'll have to take his credibility-damaged word for it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/02/10/porkulus_ii_return_of_the_phony_jobs_boondoggle

A recent flap in a Berkeley high school reveals what a farce "fairness" can be. Because this is ultra-liberal Berkeley, perhaps we should not be surprised that a proposal has been made to eliminate four jobs as science teachers and use the money saved for programs to help low achievers.

In Berkeley, as in many other communities across the country, black and Latino students are not performing as well as Asian and white students. In fact, the racial gap in academic achievement at Berkeley High School is the highest in California-- no doubt a special source of embarrassment in politically correct Berkeley.

According to the principal, "Our community at Berkeley High School has failed the African-Americans." Therefore "We need to bring everybody up-- that's what this plan is about."

Surely no one, not even in Berkeley, seriously believes that you will "bring everybody up" by eliminating science teachers. This is a proposal to redistribute money from science to social work, by providing every student with advisors on note-taking, time management and other learning skills.

The point is to close educational gaps among groups, or at least go on record as trying. As with most equalization crusades, whether in education or in the economy, it is about equalizing downward, by lowering those at the top. "Fairness" strikes again!

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/02/10/the_fallacy_of_fairness_part_ii

"Do you mean he is taller than me am?" sarcastically barked Dr. Martin Rosenberg, my high school English teacher, to one of the students in our class. The student actually said, "He is taller than me," but Rosenberg was ridiculing the student's grammar. The subject of the elliptical (or understood) verb "am" must be in the subjective case. Thus, the correct form of the sentence is: He is taller than I.

This correction/dressing down of a student, that occasionally included me, occurred during my attendance at North Philadelphia's Benjamin Franklin High School in the early '50s. Franklin was predominantly black; its students were poor or low middle class. On top of that, Franklin had just about the lowest academic standing in the city. All of our teachers, except two or three, were white. Despite the fact that we were poor, most of Franklin's teachers held fairly high standards and expectations.

Today, high standards and expectations, at some schools, would mean trouble for a teacher. Teachers, as pointed out in one teaching program, are encouraged to "Recognize and understand the cultural differences among students from diverse backgrounds, and treat such differences with respect. Intervene immediately, should a fellow student disparage a Black student's culture or language." That means if a black student says, "I be wiff him" or "He axed me a question," teachers shouldn't bother to correct the student's language. What's more, should anyone disparage or laugh at the way the student speaks, the teacher should intervene in his defense. Correcting the student's speech might be deemed as insensitive to diversity at best and racism at worst, leading possibly to a teacher's reprimand, termination and possibly assault.

A teacher's job is to teach and failure to correct a student's speech, just as failure to correct a math error, is a dereliction of duty. You might say, "Williams, Ebonics or black English is part of the cultural roots of black people and to disparage it is racism." That's utter nonsense. During the 1940s and 1950s, I lived in North Philadelphia's Richard Allen housing project, along with its most famous resident, Bill Cosby. We all were poor or low middle class but no one spoke black English. My wife was the youngest of 10 children. Listening to her brothers and sisters speak, compared to many of her nieces and nephews, you wouldn't believe they were in the same family. The difference has nothing to do with cultural roots of black people. The difference is that parents, teachers and others in authority over youngsters have become less judgmental, politically correct and lazy; therefore, speaking poorly is accepted.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/02/10/black_opportunity_destruction

Government is taking us a long way down the Road to Serfdom. That doesn't just mean that more of us must work for the government. It means that we are changing from independent, self-responsible people into a submissive flock. The welfare state kills the creative spirit.

F.A. Hayek, an Austrian economist living in Britain, wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in 1944 as a warning that central economic planning would extinguish freedom. The book was a hit. Reader's Digest produced a condensed version that sold 5 million copies.

Hayek meant that governments can't plan economies without planning people's lives. After all, an economy is just individuals engaging in exchanges. The scientific-sounding language of President Obama's economic planning hides the fact that people must shelve their own plans in favor of government's single plan.

At the beginning of "The Road to Serfdom," Hayek acknowledges that mere material wealth is not all that's at stake when the government controls our lives: "The most important change ... is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people."

This shouldn't be controversial. If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can't help but make us dependent. That changes the psychology of society.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/02/10/hurtling_down_the_road_to_serfdom

It was only a year ago that liberal elites in Washington were shoveling dirt on conservatism. James Carville was writing boastful books about 40 years of Democrat dominance, boasting in his typical way that he could call "time of death" on the Republican Party. Liberals believed their hype that Barack Obama would be that black FDR they pictured on the cover of Time magazine.

Now newspaper headlines read otherwise: "Where did the hope for Obama go?" The hot-air balloon has crashed to Earth, and you can tell conservatism is back with a swagger. You can tell because the media's daily output has gone from breathless valentines for Obama to angry denunciations of Tea Party protesters.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews was apoplectic about this conservative uprising. "What's going on out there in the Republican Party is kind of a frightening, almost Cambodia re-education camp going" where "if you're not far-right, you're not right enough." It didn't seem to matter to Matthews that millions of people were executed in those communist Cambodian "re-education camps." His desire to demonize far outstripped any desire to treat conservatism with respect.

http://townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozell/2010/02/10/obamas_balloon_hits_the_dirt