A new addition to The Dana Report’s “Reagan Spot“: Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine in 1961:

“Governments don’t tax to get the money they need, governments will always find a need for the money they get.”

Arne Duncan, the new head of the Educational Department, has moved from his roots in the Chicago public school system to the issues facing the school system nationwide. Fully equipped with 5 billion dollars of stimulus money and a plan for merit pay public school programs, Duncan appears to have nothing in his way from achieving his goals. He is even noted to be close personal friends with President Obama, who supports the policies Duncan has proposed to implement in schools nationwide.

Politico reports that while heading the Education Department in Chicago Duncan “shut down 60 schools, reopened a dozen” and, when he realized that teachers could not step up to the merit standards he held, he “increased the number of teachers who had national board certification.”

It is not a wonder then that test scores improved as the standards and requirements decreased.

The major problem with a merit based educational system is that teachers cannot choose the students they teach or a student’s motivations to learn. An individual’s testing abilities are not only determined by his or her current teacher but also the study and learning habits acquired over time from previous teachers as well as social and familial conditions.

The Huffington Post compares these standards to a car dealership where the owner goes up to a salesman and says, “here are 30 adults chosen at random. Your salary depends on being able to sell all of them cars—a standard car, at that—regardless of their needs, desires, or ability to pay.” Despite the motivations behind Duncan or Obama, who hope to achieve the ultimate goal of improving the educational system, data and merit based systems are not the answer when factors outside of one’s control can severely skew the results of one’s achievements. While one should be rewarded for good work and receive penalties for smaller efforts, a reflection of how much time a teacher spends outside of the classroom and tries to reach students may be a more accurate measure of teaching skills and efforts. That method, however, may be a much more difficult way of recognizing a teachers accomplishments.

The Federal Educational Department seeks to nationalize an issue previously viewed as a state and local issue. By implementing a data based educational system to track progress in public schools, Duncan seeks a system completely run by merit pay. Although politicians such as the President believe this is an appropriate and necessary course of action, teachers and teachers unions have greeted this policy with staunch resistance.

Since, these unions have historically been a strong base for Democrats, their protest against these actions could influence the administration with its course of action. If they do not, however, we may begin to see unions drift from the beloved Barack Obama and resort to alternative alliances. This may be one of the first real tests to see whether the President puts his supporters or his policies first.

It doesn’t matter which political party has more cheating husbands, more corrupt officials or more bad personal press on the airwaves – the problem is that it happens at all in politics, which makes the political arena as a whole look dishonest and corrupt.

Sure, Republicans look better when Democrats like former Congressman Jefferson are found to have $90,000 in the freezer, but, in the bigger picture of government, it makes all players look untrustworthy. Why are these scandals used as a tactic to highlight the other party’s faults in making one look less bad in the media? Why are so many people elected that have bad character?

Both in recent history and beyond, both parties have used diversionary tactics; pointing the finger at whose political representatives are more scandalous and corrupt rather than face bad press on substantive policy issues. The fact of the matter is that both Democrats and Republicans have had their share of corrupt officials. Even though one should not, and does not, choose a party based on its corruption and personal scandal tab, they do add to the public perception of a given party. Character does matter.

Adultery and corruption scandals involving politicians, are not a crime, and are therefore seemingly irrelevant to their ability to hold a political office. Policy and voting records are far more important and relevant factors in determining the appropriate party and electing an official. Further, corruption scandals that do involve criminal acts should reflect on the individual and others involved, not the political party as a whole. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as each scandal receives more than ample airtime; the fifteen minutes of national fame that most would never hope to receive and another sigh of disappointment to the trustworthy and honest politicians.

Although adultery, fraud, and corruption occur everyday by individuals in and out of the media radar, it seems to be more noteworthy and prevalent in government, which makes politicians’ and their role look shady. Instead of learning from a fellow politician’s downfall, many believe that, because of their power and influence, they are invincible.

In case you haven’t noticed Governor Sanford, you are not invincible. You are not only vulnerable to the consequences of cheating as much as any other man, you are also in the limelight, so everyone else gets to watch your current troubles on display like a monkey in a zoo.

Elected officials like these men tarnish the reputation of their party and position with each passing day. When will they learn that being in office means you are under a media and law enforcement microscope? When your job requires you to be a model representation of your district or state, you must be prepared to keep that promise to your constituents.