In December of 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act passed both houses of Congress with the support of a Massachusetts senator named John Kerry. Two years later, Kerry attacked the Act: "Between now and the time I'm sworn in January 2005, I'm going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words No Child Left Behind." Flip. Flop.
In all fairness, Kerry has tried to explain himself by saying that Bush has not provided adequate funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. In fact, the Democratic National Committee and independent left-leaning groups have aired a number of ads criticizing the president for cutting education funding. But my research shows that under Bush, education funding has increased by 49 percent, and more has already been spent than during all eight of Bill Clinton's years in office. Don't get me wrong, I have major reservations about Bush's education policies, and the amount of cash he's poured into the pot is definitely one of them. (To put it succinctly, real conservatives don't think that underperforming government programs should automatically get flooded with taxpayer money. We think that there are other, more intelligent, less knee-jerk ways to fix things). But Kerry's reversal on the No Child Left Behind Act is another example of the fundamental problem with his candidacy, which I've harped on before: he has no grounding in principle.
As with Kerry's other baffling reversals, like voting for the war in Iraq and then against the $87 billion to fund it, taking both sides of the first Gulf War in separate letters to the same constituent, and supporting gay marriage before opposing it, the No Child Left Behind Act flip flop is another clumsy attempt to win votes, no matter what the cost. Kerry's countless flip flops are indicative of more than just excusable political scheming-which all politicians must do to some degree-they reveal something intrinsic to his character. He is either confused about what he believes in or he does not have any goals other than getting elected.
While we're on the subject of education, take a look at Kerry's higher education ideas. Kerry will make college more affordable for American families, his Web site says, because "the Bush economic policies have left states with nearly $90 billion in budget deficits, and have forced cuts to higher education budgets, resulting in higher tuition, increased class sizes, and cuts to counseling, tutoring, and remedial coursework." He cites Ohio State University, which raised tuition rates by 13.4 percent for the 2004-05 school year. But if Kerry had done his homework, he would have discovered that huge increases to financial aid awards have more than balanced out nominal tuition increases. As USA Today reported over the summer: "[L]isted college tuition is like the sticker price on a new car: Few people actually pay it. In 2003, students paid an average of just 27 percent of the official tuition price at four-year public universities when grants and tax breaks are counted. Students at private universities paid an average of 57 percent." This means that tuition actually paid at public universities has declined by a third since 1998 and increased by only seven percent at private colleges.
This is information that's not hard to come by, and we must presume that however competent or incompetent Kerry's campaign team might be, Kerry knew about it. This raises the question, then, why did he go ahead and make the claim anyway? We must presume that the answer to that question and to the puzzles of Kerry's flip flops is the same: Principled stands on important issues, even ones as important as the future of America's children, will always take a backseat to political expediency.