Topic: General

Ed Sec to Media: Get Those Common Core Critics!

In a bid to prove that Washington never tried to strong-arm states into adopting the Common Core, yesterday U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told the American Society of News Editors that the media had better start attacking “fringe,” “misinformed,” Core opponents and their arguments.

Think about that for a moment.

Yup, seems like a self-defeating tactic to me, too. But it’s not the first time the secretary has launched into attack mode to show that Washington would never – ever! – get pushy on education.

Now, despite my fatigue with constantly debunking Core supporters on federal coercion, I was prepared to do a huge dismantling of Duncan’s speech. Thankfully, both for the public and my workload, one of those media types whom Duncan implied hasn’t been doing her job – Michele McNeil of Education Week – was, indeed, inspired to do some fact-checking by Duncan. Too bad for the secretary, it was on his claims. Among McNeil’s offerings:

  • “On a grading scale of 500 points, Duncan said adopting common standards and assessments was worth relatively little. ‘Did the points, and the dollars, matter to the states? Undoubtedly. But it’s not the only reason or even the most important reason why states adopted the Common Core,’ he said. In fact, adopting and implementing common standards and assessments was worth 50 points, or 10 percent. That’s the same amount of points allotted to a state’s plan for turning around low-performing schools. In a contest in which only a few points separated winners from losers, those points mattered—a lot. And it likely spurred states to actually adopt the standards; the first state adopted them in February 2010.”

Time to End the Farmers’ Dole

Last week Washington enjoyed a miracle. Legislators failed in a high profile attempt to mulct the public.

Legislators were debating the Farm Bill, which mixes Food Stamps and agricultural price supports. Even though Washington is drowning in red ink, Republicans and Democrats wanted to approve a measure to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade. 

The Democrats and Republicans disagreed only over details. The Democratic Senate approved $955 billion. The House Republican leadership wanted $940 billion. The president took no position other than to support more spending. 

However, last Thursday the House leadership miscalculated and lost support from Democrats as well as conservative Republicans, leading to the bill’s surprise defeat.

Of course, Washington was filled with recriminations. But the collapse of the legislation is very good news. As I pointed out in my latest Forbes column, the politicians’ failure creates a rare opportunity for real change. 

Indeed, both parts of the Farm Bill require transformation.

As I wrote:

The first step would be to separate Food Stamps from price supports. Debate the former in the context of the scores of overlapping and expensive welfare programs. Indeed, the Carleson Center for Public Policy recently counted an astounding 157 means-tested federal programs. Total government spending on general welfare runs about $1 trillion a year. It’s time Congress rethought and revamped the entire welfare industry.

As for the farmers’ dole, abolition is the only sensible policy. New Zealand successfully took this approach in 1984. 

Farmers are practiced businessmen who employ sophisticated scientific techniques to produce food and sophisticated financial tools to manage risk. Farmers are enjoying boom economic times. Wealthier on average than other Americans, farmer don’t need their own special welfare program.  Indeed, many operators already make a profit with little or no federal support. 

It is rare to stop the two major parties when they combine for a raid on the taxpayers. The task now is to make their defeat permanent. In recent years Americans have deregulated communications, finance, and transportation. Agriculture should be next.

Read the rest here.

Obama to NBA: I’m Not Done Raising Your Taxes, Now Help Me Sell ObamaCare

President Obama has a lot of nerve asking the National Basketball Association to help him sell ObamaCare to their fans.

It’s not just that President Obama is asking the NBA to lend its credibility to the least popular thing this side of Tim Donaghy. Obama has spent his political career trying to take more money from high-income earners like NBA players, executives, and owners. ObamaCare is one of his great successes in that effort. Another is the recent fiscal-cliff-avoidance deal. Yet Obama isn’t satisfied; he wants to take even more of their money. 

NBA players, owners, and executives are extremely talented and productive people. They create lots of jobs. They earn lots of money because they make other people happy. For this crime, they already pay more in taxes than almost anyone, and pay more than they receive from the government in benefits.

Yet President Obama seems to spend every waking moment trying to figure out how to take even more from them. And then he turns around and asks them to help him sell his train wreck of a health care law. Chutzpah.

Before the NBA casts its lot with ObamaCare, every NBA player, executive, and owner should ask their accountant exactly how much this president has cost them. I’m looking at you, Lebron.

Committee Issues Excuse to Keep Doing Wrong Thing

Today, the Democratic staff of Congress’s Joint Economic Committee released a report which seems mainly to be an excuse to keep doing the wrong things.

The basic tenets of the report certainly feel sensible: People with more education tend to have greater skills and earn more, but the ever-inflating price of college saddles people pursuing education with bigger and bigger debts. The solutions? Keep subsidized federal loan rates frozen at 3.4 percent, greatly expand loan forgiveness, and convert private loans into federal loans. Basically, more cheap aid—exactly the wrong thing.

The fundamental problem with the report is the fundamental problem with federal aid in microcosm: It ignores the crippling, self-defeating, unintended consequences of aid. You know: The downsides of federal “help.”

First and foremost, federal aid furnishes jet fuel for tuition inflation, both by allowing people to demand more than they otherwise would, and by enabling schools to raise prices knowing students will be able to pay them. It also encourages millions of people to enroll in college who, for many reasons, have little prospect of finishing. That’s why roughly one out of every two people who enter a postsecondary program don’t finish. Finally, it powers over-credentialing, with about a third of people with bachelor’s degrees in jobs not requiring them, and many jobs that require the degree likely doing so for basic signaling reasons—e.g., the person has some basic stick-to-it-iveness—rather than indicating that they possess useful skills or abilities they obtained in college.

A reasonable reading of the data forces one to conclude that Washington should markedly reduce its presence in college—indeed, get out altogether—rather than perpetuate bad policy. Which is likely why policymakers seem to assiduously avoid reasonable readings—or any readings at all—of important data.

Cross-posted at seethruedu.com

Only Wusses Go to War Without Cause

President Barack Obama has been evidently reluctant to go to war in Syria, but has started down the long and winding road by deciding to provide weapons to the insurgents. Why he is risking involvement in another conflict in another Muslim nation is hard to fathom.

However, the president did act only after former president Bill Clinton warned that Obama could end up looking like a “total wuss” and “a total fool” if the latter did not drag America into war. If there is anyone who should not be giving war-related advice, it is Bill Clinton.

His “splendid little war” in Kosovo left a mess in its wake, including ethnic cleansing by America’s putative allies. Indeed, he always had a curious view of the purpose of war. He once expressed his frustration that he likely would not be considered a great president without prosecuting a major conflict. 

Moreover, why is Clinton of all people accusing another president of looking like a “total wuss” and “a total fool” for hesitating to go to war? After all, as I relate in the American Spectator, he engaged in all manner of personal maneuvering to avoid being drafted to fight in Vietnam. 

That’s fine by me. It was a stupid war in which tens of thousands of fine Americans died as a result of dumb decisions by foolish Washington policymakers. But it is striking how reluctant he was personally to go to war.  Why, some people might consider him to have been a “wuss.”

As I pointed out:

Intervening in Syria is a serious mistake.  The U.S. has no interest at stake that warrants entanglement in another Middle Eastern civil war.  President Ronald Reagan learned that lesson three decades ago and responded appropriately, by getting out fast.

It’s bad enough if President Obama made his decision because he genuinely believes that the U.S. needs to fight another war in another Muslim nation.  It’s far worse if the president acted to ensure that he doesn’t look like a wuss and a fool.  For there’s no bigger wuss and fool than someone who allows Bill Clinton to manipulate him into going to war.

Read the rest here.

 

Scratching the Surface Until We Bleed

Yesterday, the Washington Post published a poignant, ably-written piece on the plight of DC’s high school graduates. Even the city’s top students struggle with college-level work because they’re so ill prepared. The story is heavy on “heart interest” but bereft of “head interest.” It will sadden or even anger most readers, but won’t enlighten them as to potential solutions.

If the writer had dug deep into this story, instead of just scratching at its emotional surface, she would have discovered a wealth of relevant research. Private schools, it turns out, not only have higher graduation rates than public schools (controlling for student and family characteristics), but also higher college acceptance rates and much higher college completion rates. In other words, there is a proven solution to the outrageously poor education children are offered in DC and elsewhere. Derek Neal, Jay Greene (2004), and J.R. Warren (2011) all find that private schools significantly increase the graduation rates of urban (especially minority) children over the rates of similar students attending public schools. Those studies that looked at college completion rates find very strong effects there as well. A very recent journal paper on the subject confirms the earlier findings. And DC’s own private school choice program has a beneficial effect on educational attainment according to federal government research.

But instead of offering solutions, the story merely tugs at our heart strings. Journalism could be—should be—so much more than this.

What’s the Better Role Model, France or Switzerland?

At the European Resource Bank conference earlier this month, Pierre Bessard from Switzerland’s Institut Liberal spoke on a panel investigating “The Link between the Weight of the State and Economic prosperity.”

His presentation included two slides that definitely are worth sharing.

The first slide, which is based on research from the Boston Consulting Group, looks at which jurisdictions have the most households with more than $1 million of wealth.

Switzerland is the easy winner, and you probably won’t be surprised to see Hong Kong and Singapore also do very well.

Switzerland Liberal Institute 2

Gee, I wonder if the fact that Switzerland (#4), Hong Kong (#1), and Singapore (#2) score highly on the Economic Freedom of the World index has any connection with their comparative prosperity?

That’s a rhetorical question, of course.

Most sensible people already understand that countries with free markets and small government out-perform nations with big welfare states and lots of intervention.

Speaking of which, let’s look at Pierre’s slide that compares Swiss public finances with the dismal numbers from Eurozone nations.

Switzerland Liberal Institute 1

The most impressive part of this data is the way Switzerland has maintained a much smaller burden of government spending.

One reason for this superior outcome is the Swiss “Debt Brake,” a voter-imposed spending cap that basically prevents politicians from increasing spending faster than inflation plus population.

Now let’s compare Switzerland and France, which is what I did last Saturday at the Free Market Road Show conference in Paris.

As part of my remarks, I asked the audience whether they thought that their government, which consumes 57 percent of GDP, gives them better services than Germany’s government, which consumes 45 percent of GDP.

They said no.

I then asked if they got better government than citizens of Canada, where government consumes 41 percent of GDP.

They said no.

And I concluded by asking them whether they got better government than the people of Switzerland, where government is only 34 percent of economic output (I used OECD data for my comparisons, which is why my numbers are not identical to Pierre’s numbers).

Once again, they said no.

The fundamental question, then, is why French politicians impose such a heavy burden of government spending - with a very high cost to the economy - when citizens don’t get better services?

Or maybe the real question is why French voters elect politicians that pursue such senseless policies?

But to be fair, we should ask why American voters elected Bush and Obama, both of whom have made America more like France?