Tag: President Obama

Core Misinformation: Bad News for the Blame Obama Crowd

A favorite refrain of Common Core advocates is that their opponents are peddling “misinformation.” Well Core fans are quite adept at doing the same thing, and as a new Washington Post article reinforces, no case of this is more egregious than pretending that Core adoption was supposed to be “state-led” and “voluntary,” and federal coercion was just unwanted Obama administration interference. That is simply not true: Core crusaders wanted federal involvement from before the Common Core was even given its name.

On numerous occasions I have cited the 2008 report Benchmarking for Success, from the Core-creating National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, as indisputable evidence that Core supporters wanted federal pressure to push state adoption of common, internationally benchmarked standards. That report – written before there was an Obama administration – says explicitly that Washington should “offer funds” and provide “tiered incentives” to push states onto common standards. It was a call reiterated on the website of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, though it was eventually removed.

Despite this crystal clear evidence, Core defenders have continued to imply that federal intervention has all been the unwanted, unappreciated pushiness of President Obama. Indeed, just last Friday, Michael Petrilli of the Core-supporting Thomas B. Fordham Foundation said it again in a discussion with AEI’s Mike McShane. Go to the 28:50 mark to hear Petrilli say, “I think many of us could make the argument that this whole thing would have played out very differently if the Obama administration had just stayed out of it.” And Petrilli is not alone in suggesting that the Core initiative was always supposed to be fed-free. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin (R), signing a bill removing her state from the Core last week, implied the same thing, saying:

Unfortunately, federal overreach has tainted Common Core. President Obama and Washington bureaucrats have usurped Common Core in an attempt to influence state education standards. The results are predictable. What should have been a bipartisan policy is now widely regarded as the president’s plan to establish federal control of curricula, testing and teaching strategies.

Obviously, based on Benchmarking for Success alone, this is utterly misleading. But what the Washington Post has now reported, in a piece largely about the role of Bill Gates in pushing the Core, is that Core supporters not only suggested that there be federal incentives, they worked with the Obama administration to get them:

Duncan and his team leveraged stimulus money to reward states that adopted common standards.

They created Race to the Top, a $4.3 billion contest for education grants. Under the contest rules, states that adopted high standards stood the best chance of winning. It was a clever way around federal laws that prohibit Washington from interfering in what takes place in classrooms. It was also a tantalizing incentive for cash-strapped states.

Heading the effort for Duncan was Joanne Weiss, previously the chief operating officer of the Gates-backed NewSchools Venture Fund.

As Race to the Top was being drafted, the administration and the Gates-led effort were in close coordination.

Note that the article goes on to say that an early draft of RTTT mentioned the Core by name, but supporters objected that that would be too much for some states to handle. Instead, in contrast to what the article suggests, to be fully competitive for grants the regulations required adoption of standards common to a “majority” of states – not just “high” standards – a parameter that only included Common Core.

Now, I don’t think this will happen, but at this point it would at least clear the air for Core supporters to openly admit that they always wanted to employ federal pressure, and gladly worked with President Obama to get it. At the very least, it would make their own accusations of “misinformation” a little more tolerable.

Afghanistan: Obama’s War

Last week, when President Obama made his trip to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, he claimed that “America’s war in Afghanistan will come to a responsible end.” This turned out to be the greatest applause line of his speech. With his assertion, Obama, in effect, declared himself the hero of the Afghan war – the one who put an end to that nightmare. But what Obama failed to mention was that it was his war, and that nothing but unattractive scenarios lie ahead for that war-torn state. Indeed, Afghanistan might just continue to hold down its ranking as the most violent country in the Global Peace Index.

This gloomy prognosis would not have surprised Thomas Jefferson. Yes, Jefferson’s words point to a fundamental truth, “Governments constantly choose between telling lies and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other.”

Graciana del Castillo, one of the world’s leading experts on failed states, has just written a most edifying book on the Afghan war (Guilty Party: The International Community in Afghanistan. Xlibris, 2014). Del Castillo’s book allows us to finally understand just what a fiasco the Afghan war has been.

Why is Afghanistan, as Bob Woodward correctly termed it, Obama’s war? Del Castillo’s sharp pencil work shows that during the period 2002-2013, $650 billion have been appropriated for the Afghan war effort, and a whopping $487.5 billion of that (or 75%) took place after President Obama took office (see accompanying chart).

If one pulls apart that $650 billion price tag, a variety of interesting sleights-of-hand emerge. For example, about $70 billion was disbursed to what is euphemistically termed reconstruction. But, in reality, 60% of this $70 billion (or $42 billion) was actually spent on beefing up the Afghan National Security Forces. And not surprisingly, 75% of the $42 billion spent on national security forces was spent under President Obama’s watchful eye.

To put these outsized numbers into perspective, just consider that the total cost of the Afghan war from 2002-2013 amounts to $7089 per American taxpayer (based on the number of income tax returns). More revealing is the fact that the annual expenditure rate under the Bush administration was already $222 per taxpayer. Then, it exploded to an annual expenditure rate of $1329 per taxpayer under President Obama.

In addition to laying out the phenomenal spending magnitudes on President Obama’s watch, del Castillo demonstrates just how unsustainable all this Afghan spending is. For example, in 2013, the United States financed over $5 billion of the $6.5 billion needed to field the Afghan National Security Forces. This $5 billion of U.S. financing was roughly 10 times more than the Afghan government actually spent from its own revenue sources. In fact, the U.S. funding of Afghan forces was almost three times the total revenue collected by the Afghan government.

To put Afghanistan’s financing gap into perspective, the Afghan government estimates the total fiscal deficiency that they will face over the next decade would amount to a whopping $120 billion. Considering that a July 2013 Washington Post/ABC poll showed that only 28% of Americans say the war in Afghanistan has been worth the cost, it is unlikely that the U.S. would even contemplate continuing to finance the house of cards it has built at anything close to these estimates.

And if this isn’t bad enough, consider that the countryside has been forgotten and neglected during the war years. It is here where 75-80% of the population resides, and produces its livelihood. The rural population has done what is only natural – farm a cash crop. And, the most attractive cash crop in Afghanistan is poppies. Not surprisingly, the poppy plantations have greatly expanded, from 75 thousand hectares in 2002 (near the start of the war), to over 210 thousand in 2013, surpassing the previous peak of 190 thousand hectares in 2007. Just another small example of the collateral damage associated with war and misguided economic policies in Afghanistan.

At West Point, Obama Seeks to Reassure Foreign Policy Elite

Foreign policy in the United States is an elite sport. Unless there is a big Iraq- or 9/11-style disaster, the public mostly ignores foreign policy, because it can. The United States is extremely safe, but it runs an expansive, ambitious grand strategy that keeps elites busy and the public largely uninvolved. President Obama will give a speech tomorrow at West Point defending his foreign policy and answering elites who have begun to grow bored with it.

The president seems to view foreign policy mostly through a domestic political lens. While he opposed an Afghanistan surge, he ordered one anyway, likely for fear of the domestic political implications of defying the generals’ request for more time and more troops. Ideologically, Obama fancies himself a realist in the mold of Reinhold Niebuhr, although no actually-existing realists think his policies resemble realism. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama found himself particularly captivated by an essay from Robert Kagan—a neoconservative Romney adviser—that urged Americans to wade ever more deeply into world politics. If there were any doubt that the two political parties agree on U.S. foreign policy, Obama’s accord with Kagan should have demolished it.

But the president has begun to irritate both the right and left halves of the foreign policy establishment by declining to intervene more forcefully in Syria and in Eastern Europe. Obama will likely play to nationalist themes in his speech tomorrow, reassuring the foreign policy elite that he endorses their project and explaining to Americans that their special place and special responsibilities in the world necessitate a costly, globe-girdling grand strategy. News reports indicate the administration is contemplating sending anti-aircraft weapons to the Syrian opposition, and that the president will criticize Russian behavior in Ukraine during an upcoming trip to Europe. In addition, the foreign policy establishment has breathed a collective sigh of relief with the announcement that the president will keep nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond his previously-announced 2014 withdrawal date.

Regular Americans should view the speech for what it is: a cynical sop to the insular clique of Beltway elites who view themselves as the vicars of liberalism on earth, and the rightful possessors of hundreds of billions of American tax dollars to do with what they will.

Democrats and Mansions

Washington Post reporter Bill Turque swallowed the Democrats’ spin hook, line, and sinker. He reports in Friday’s paper:

The Potomac estate of IT entrepreneur and philanthropist Frank Islam seemed more fitting for a Republican soiree than a Democratic fundraiser, some of Maryland’s top elected officials said Wednesday.

But big-time donors, including developers Aris Mardirossian and Fred Ezra, hotel and nursing home magnate Stewart Bainum and auto executive Tammy Darvish, gathered there to raise big bucks for the re-election campaign of Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett (D).

“There are not too many people who own homes like this who are great Democrats,” Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) told the audience of about 400.

I’m not surprised that Senator Cardin would press the line that Republicans are the rich guys with mansions. But why would the Post report it as fact? Consider a few other news articles from the past few days. Here’s the Post’s Zachary Goldfarb reporting from California:

As he toured a series of mansions,…at the home of Walt Disney Studios chief executive Alan Horn… at an event hosted by Marissa Mayer, the chief executive of Yahoo, and Sam Altman, the president of Y Combinator…At the home of Irwin Jacobs, founder of the telecom giant Qualcomm,…Obama put the blame for failing to make progress squarely on the Republicans — “a party that has been captive to an ideology, to a theory of economics, that says those folks, they’re on their own and government doesn’t have an appropriate role to play.”

Later that day, the Associated Press reported,

Obama was to attend a fundraiser hosted by Anne Wojcicki, a biotech entrepreneur who founded the personal-genomics startup 23andMe. The event is advertised as a Tech Roundtable, with 30 guests and tickets set at $32,400 — a nearly $1 million potential haul for the Democratic National Committee.

Stop Insulting Our Intelligence, and the Tea Party, Core Supporters

I really shouldn’t have to write this anymore, because the basic facts should keep anyone from saying that state adoption of the Common Core was “absolutely voluntary.” Yet Chester Finn, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, has made just this proclamationagain. And this time, he has done so right after having written that “the feds blundered into the middle of [Common Core] with ‘incentives’ that turned it into a sort of national piñata.”

I’ll say, “incentives”! At the low point of the “Great Recession,” Washington told states that to fully compete for hundreds-of-millions of Race to the Top dollars – money that state citizens had no choice but to send to DC – states, among other things, had to adopt the Common Core. Later, the feds told states that if they wanted a waiver from the irrational, punishing, No Child Left Behind Act, they had but two standards choices: either adopt the Core, or have a state university system certify state standards “college- and career-ready.” And this came after most states had already promised to adopt the Core for RTTT.

There’s simply no way to call Core adoption “absolutely” voluntary, unless you think bribing someone with money you took from them, or giving them just two ways to stop your throttling them, is absolute voluntarism.

Making matters worse, after boldly denying reality about the Core, Finn continues the cheap-shot, debate-destroying tactic of demonizing Core opponents. He writes that those who oppose the Core are primarily:

interest groups that really don’t want to change how they’ve always done things, whether or not such change would be good for kids or the country. I have in mind textbook publishers, test-makers, teacher unions, and political opportunists of every sort, lately and most prominently of the “tea party” persuasion, who will do and say anything to take down Obama and everything he’s for.

No doubt people have numerous motives for supporting or opposing the Core, and I wouldn’t presume to say I know what they are. I will, though, say I have no reason to suspect Finn and Fordham have anything but the best interest of the nation at heart.

If only they would accord the same presumption to tea party types! Or, at the very least, provide some evidence that tea partiers only oppose the Core because they are obsessed with bringing down President Obama. But Finn offers not a speck of evidence, ironically at the same time the general impression is that tea party types are far too willing to sacrifice political success for principle. And what are tea party principles? Some are quite time-honored, among them that the federal government should not interfere in education, and that education should be controlled by parents.

And let’s be careful who we say is obsessed with taking Obama down over the Core. Fordham has quite prominently blamed the Obama administration (go to the 6:45 mark) for Washington’s “absolutely voluntary” coercion. This despite the fact that the creators of the Core called for federal coercion in 2008, before there was either an official Common Core or Obama Administration, then called for it again after officially launching the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

Apparently, the sign that you want what’s “good for kids or the country” is you attack the President to advance the Core. Oppose the Core, in contrast, and it’s self-evident you actually just despise Mr. Obama.

At this point, Core supporters really need to stop insulting both the tea party and the public’s intelligence. Instead, maybe they should try engaging in factual, reasoned debate.

President Obama and the Case of the Missing Research

One of President Obama’s favorite rhetorical tactics is to claim that there is no serious evidence pointing in any direction other than his preferred policy. The president had occasion to deploy this tactic in an interview earlier this week, when Bill O’Reilly asked him why he opposed school vouchers:

O’REILLY - The secret to getting a … good job is education. … Now, school vouchers is a way to level the playing field. Why do you oppose school vouchers when it would give poor people a chance to go to better schools?

PRESIDENT OBAMA - Actually — every study that’s been done on school vouchers, Bill, says that it has very limited impact if any —

O’REILLY - Try it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA - On — it has been tried, it’s been tried in Milwaukee, it’s been tried right here in DC —

O’REILLY [OVERLAP] - And it worked here.

PRESIDENT OBAMA - No, actually it didn’t. When you end up taking a look at it, it didn’t actually make that much of a difference. ... As a general proposition, vouchers has not significantly improved the performance of kids that are in these poorest communities —

The most charitable interpretation of the president’s blatantly false remarks is that he’s simply unaware that 11 of 12 gold-standard studies of school choice programs found a positive impact while only one found no statistically significant difference and none found a negative outcome. Jason Riley summarized the findings of a few recent studies:

Minimum Wage Laws Kill Jobs

President Obama set the chattering classes abuzz after his unilateral announcement to raise the minimum wage for newly hired Federal contract workers. During his State of the Union address, he sang the praises for his action, saying that “It’s good for the economy; it’s good for America.[1] Yet this conclusion doesn’t pass the economic smell test; just look at the data from Europe.

There are seven European Union (EU) countries with no minimum wage (Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Sweden). If we compare the levels of unemployment in these countries with EU countries that impose a minimum wage, the results are clear – a minimum wage leads to higher levels of unemployment. In the 21 countries with a minimum wage, the average country has an unemployment rate of 11.8%; whereas, the average unemployment rate in the seven nations without a minimum wage is about one third lower – at 7.9%.

Nobelist Milton Friedman said it best when he concluded that “The real tragedy of minimum wage laws is that they are supported by well-meaning groups who want to reduce poverty. But the people who are hurt most by high minimums are the most poverty stricken.”[2]


[1] Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, New York Times, January 28, 2014.

[2] Milton Friedman, The Minimum Wage Rate, Who Really Pays? An Interview With Milton Friedman and Yale Brozen, 26-27 (Free Society Association ed. 1966), quoted in Keith B. Leffler, “Minimum Wages, Welfare, and Wealth Transfers to the Poor,”Journal of Law and Economics 21, no. 2 (October 1978): 345–58.

Pages