Topic: Cato Publications

Just like Ohio’s Children, Gov. Strickland Needs a Good Education

Ryan Boots over at Edspresso hits Ohio’s new Governor Ted Strickland  for claiming that vouchers are “inherently undemocratic.”  Strickland thinks that vouchers are “inherently undemocratic” because “they allow public dollars to be used in ways and in settings where the public has little or no oversight,” and “those who are paying those tax dollars have no ability to vote for a board of education or to make determinations regarding curriculum, or discipline or admission policies or a whole range of things.”

As Ryan points out, this just isn’t the case with the highly (over)regulated EdChoice program, which encumbers participating schools with an array of restrictions that ensure no real market in education services will arise to serve the needs of the neediest children.

Even if Strickland’s fantasy voucher program did exist, however, the current system of government schooling is less democratic and more prone to corruption.  The profligate spending, waste and outright fraud that characterize the government education system hardly suggest that it is subject to effective public oversight.

And for good reason … it is controlled by the education-industrial complex, aka “Big Ed,” which short-circuits all political attempts to direct it for the public good.  Big Ed controls board of education elections as well as “determinations regarding curriculum, or discipline or admission policies or a whole range of things.”  That’s why exasperated policy experts with no love of the free market are calling for parental choice in education and why parents are desperate to escape a system they pay for but can’t control.

But Strickland does hit on one good point, buried though it may be beneath a pile of misconceptions and delusions.  “Those who are paying those tax dollars” for education should be able to direct their money to the kind of education that they support.  Agreed.

Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for kids to learn about condoms in the 3rd grade or abstinence-only in the 12th grade. Forcing all parents to educate their children in the same way is a recipe for irresolvable value conflicts and civic strife.   Disbursing general revenues for education forces some people to pay for education with which they disagree.

Education tax credits allow every taxpayer to support the kind of education they want to and force no one to pay for education to which they object.  Tax credits create a public education system where schools are accountable to the parents who choose them and the people who pay for them … not through a corrupt political process beholden to Big Ed, but directly accountable to the people themselves.

That is true oversight. That is a democratic system of education.  If Strickland can’t support vouchers, he certainly has no reason to oppose education tax credits.  Other than fealty to Big Ed over our children.

Republicans Remember Some of Their Principles

Great headline in the Washington Post today –

Dozens in GOP Turn Against Bush’s Prized ‘No Child’ Act

The good news is that

More than 50 GOP members of the House and Senate – including the House’s second-ranking Republican – will introduce legislation today that could severely undercut President Bush’s signature domestic achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act, by allowing states to opt out of its testing mandates.

The bad news is that even

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that advocates do not intend to repeal the No Child Left Behind Act. Instead, they want to give states more flexibility to meet the president’s goals of education achievement, he said.

So even a small-government federalist like Jim DeMint isn’t willing to say that education is a family, community, or state responsibility, but not a federal responsibility. Still, weakening the mandates would be a real victory for decentralization and competition.

I particularly liked the comment from Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), author of the proposed House bill:

“President Bush and I just see education fundamentally differently,” said Hoekstra, a longtime opponent of the law. “The president believes in empowering bureaucrats in Washington, and I believe in local and parental control.”

Hoekstra, who spoke at last week’s Cato conference on reauthorization of the No Child act (at the end of the panel 1 video), sounds like he’s read Cato’s 2005 paper on the topic. Now he and DeMint should reread the paper and commit themselves to getting the federal government out of our local schools.

No People in Washington, D.C.?

The majority opinion in last week’s federal Appeals Court ruling striking down D.C.’s stringent gun ban has garnered considerable attention from both the media and the public. Much less attention has been given to the court’s dissenting opinion (which begins on p. 59 of this .pdf), authored by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson. I suppose that’s not surprising, given that her opinion “lost.” 

But part of the dissenting opinion should be very troubling to D.C. residents: according to Judge Henderson, they’re not “people” in the eyes of the Bill of Rights.

Judge Henderson states in her 5th footnote (p. 5 of her opinion, p. 63 of the .pdf):

[J]ust as the Tenth Amendment ties the rights reserved thereunder to “the people” of the individual “States,” thereby excluding “the people” of the District, … the Second Amendment similarly limits “the people” to those of the States….

Do you get it? According to Judge Henderson, Second and Tenth Amendments’ protections extend only to “people” living in the “States.” As D.C. is not a state, reasons Judge Henderson, District residents are not covered by those protections. 

I wonder: does this reasoning extend to the other protections granted by the Bill of Rights to “the people”? In the opinion of Judge Henderson, do District residents also not have the right ”to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”? Do District residents not have the right to due process? Do they not have constitutional protection from double-jeopardy and self-incrimination? Can District residents “be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime” without indictment from a grand jury and without representation? Can District residents “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”? Can District residents’ “private property be taken for public use without just compensation”? After all, the Bill of Rights explicitly guarantees those rights to “the people” or to a “person,” just as it guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

To remember what rights you have (or, if you’re a District resident, what rights you may not have), be sure to order a copy of the U.S. Constitution (also available in Spanish and Arabic).

Private Education in China — You Read It Here First

Bloomberg’s Singapore-based columnist Andy Mukherjee writes about the private-education boom in China:

At the end of 2005, some 15 million students were enrolled in 77,000 non-state schools. That’s 8 percent of the 197 million Chinese children aged 5 to 14 years. Privately funded schools in India have twice as large a share of the total market.

Expect the gap to close quickly.

Nine years ago, Ma Lei of Fudan University wrote about the growth of private schools in China for Cato Policy Report:

In Wenzhou, more than half of the 600 million RMB spent on education comes from the private sector. That’s a claim that few, if any, communities in the United States can make. …There are more than 2,300 privately run kindergarten classes in Wenzhou, in which more than 90 percent of all children of kindergarten age are enrolled. In addition, there are 21 private high schools, which educate about a quarter of the total high school student population.

James Tooley has also written at length about private education for the poor in Africa and India. His work, and its exciting new directions, are discussed in this Atlantic article.

Soaring Cost Overruns

Last week, we found out that new combat ships for the Navy will cost taxpayers at least 59% more than promised.

Today, the Washingon Post reports that upgraded Air Force cargo planes will cost taxpayers at least 35% more than originally promised.

Are such cost overruns some sort of unfortunate accident? Or are they a routine scam perpetrated by an iron triangle of federal officials, companies feeding off the government’s teat, and members of Congress with taxpayer-financed activities in their districts? 

Examine the record of overspending in the table here and decide for yourself.

‘Terror Porn’

The Homeland Security budget has become a business-as-usual way for politicians to steer tax dollars to contributors and supporters. But even though the budget is being allocated using traditional pork-barrel methods, the arguments for more homeland security spending are based on exaggerated claims that the money is necessary to thwart terrorism.

Veronique de Rugy, an American Enterprise Institute scholar and Cato adjunct, call these claims ”terror porn.” ABC News’ John Stossel quoted de Rugy as part of a recent report:

[T]he bureaucracy hypes terrorism to justify its pork. “Terror porn” is what economist Veronique de Rugy calls it. Why “porn”? “Because porn sells, [and] terrorism sells even better,” she says. “It’s great for politicians. They can campaign on the fact that they are protecting us. They also can campaign on the fact that they’re bringing more money to their states.”

Lots of small towns do get absurd grants for homeland security. Lake County, Tenn., a rural county with only 8,000 people, got nearly $200,000 in homeland-security money. …”I don’t know that terrorists will come, but I don’t know they won’t come,” Lake County Mayor Macie Roberson told us, smiling.

At least he didn’t do what Columbus, Ohio did: spend it on bulletproof vests for police dogs.

Inordinate fear of terrorism leads to more than just wasteful spending. Stossel also cites a study estimating that 1,000 people have died because they avoided air travel and instead relied on a much riskier mode of travel:

Of course, terrorism is a real threat. But fear kills people, too. A University of Michigan study found that an additional 1,000 Americans died in car accidents in the three months after Sept. 11, because they were afraid to fly. We need to keep risk in perspective.

New at Cato Unbound: Brian Doherty on the Past and Prospects of Libertarianism

The release of Reason senior editor Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement — the first comprehensive history of its kind — provides a fitting occasion for libertarian reflection. How did libertarians get to where they are today? Where are they going? How should they proceed? Drawing on his book, Doherty kicks off the new issue of Cato Unbound with a lead essay reflecting on the miracle that libertarians are politically and culturally relevant at all, while promoting a continued laissez faire attitude to libertarian strategy.

To showcase the high art of libertarian in-fighting, we’ve gathered a panel of libertarian luminaries including: Cato Unbound’s own Brink Lindsey, author of the controversial “Liberaltarians” essay in the New Republic; George Mason’s most famous blogger-polymath, New York Times Economic Scene columnist Tyler Cowen; Cato’s globe-trotting ambassador for liberty Tom G. Palmer, who was writing libertarian political theory as a zygote; and Atlantic columnist, former Reason editor in chief, and author of The Substance of Style, Virginia Postrel. Stay tuned over the next two weeks as our very special conversation on the future of libertarianism unfolds.