Even Public School Employees Love Education Tax Credits!

This recent Education Next/ Harvard (PEPG) survey of U.S. adults’ opinions on education issues has been out for a bit, but everyone seems to have missed some really interesting results. 

In this poll, like so many others, there is significantly more support for tax credits (53 percent) to offset private education costs than for school vouchers (45 percent), and much greater opposition to vouchers (34 percent) than to tax credits (25 percent).  That leaves a 28-point margin of support for tax credits compared to just 11 points for vouchers. 

And before you object that “the voucher label has been trashed by the unions!,” the possibly tainted word “voucher” doesn’t appear in the relevant survey question.

But that’s not all; most current/former employees of the government school system support tax credits, by a decisive margin of 22 percent!

I have to repeat that, because it just feels so flippin’ good: Most of the people who have worked for the government school system support education tax credits.

This is truly remarkable.  Even vouchers are only narrowly opposed by public school employees, by a close two-point margin. 

It is clear that using tax credits to effect school choice is much more popular and less objectionable to the general public, and even to public school employees, than are vouchers.  It is also clear that the word “voucher” appears to have relatively little to do with the tax credit advantage in public support. 

I just wish they had asked about broad-based programs, not just ones targeted to low-income families.  Polls show that the public is much more supportive of universal policies.

Education tax credits are a political win — and we in the school choice movement need to do a much better job getting politicians to see that fact.

Good News for D.C. Schools

The Washington Post reports:

D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee said yesterday that most of the District’s public schools will start the academic year this month stocked with required textbooks, although more than half of the schools lack the requisite number.

Most of the schools will have textbooks when they open. Cool. A few years ago the school superintendent was boasting that most of the schools would open on time. So this is an improvement. Not only will they open, most of them will have textbooks.

My former colleague Casey Lartigue told the sad story of the D.C. government-run schools five years ago. Then-School Board president Peggy Cooper Cafritz sharply rebuked him — without pointing out any errors in the study — at a Cato Policy Forum.

A Snub for the Dying

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 8-2 that terminally ill patients who have exhausted all available treatments have no constitutionally protected right to access experimental treatments not yet approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration.  A panel of the D.C. Circuit previously had ruled 2–1 in favor of the terminally ill patients who brought the case, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach

The Abigail Alliance is named for Abigail Burroughs, who died of head and neck cancer in 2001 after failed attempts to access Erbitux (cetuximab) through the FDA’s existing channels.  (In 2006, the FDA approved Erbitux for treatment of head and neck cancer.)  The Abigail Alliance now represents similarly situated, terminally ill patients who only want one last shot at life.  Eschenbach is commissioner of the FDA.

In an op-ed [$] in today’s Wall Street Journal, my colleague Roger Pilon discusses the tortured legal reasoning that led to the perverse conclusion that terminally ill patients do not have a fundamental right to save their own lives. 

The scientific and economic argument supporting the FDA’s case is that we would get far less information about drug safety and efficacy if terminally ill patients could access unapproved drugs, because there would then be no incentive for patients to participate in the clinical trials that generate such information.  There are a number of problems with this argument, the greatest being that it reduces Abigail Burroughs to a cog in some bureaucrat’s grand machine.

On September 25 from noon to 2pm, the Cato Institute will host a forum on Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach.  Speakers will include Scott Ballenger, lead counsel for the Abigail Alliance; Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health; and yours truly.  Keep watching Cato@Liberty or the Cato website for further details.

This week’s ruling brought to mind a quote from Mark Twain that appeared in the New York Times on February 28, 1901, and that Mike Tanner and I included in our book Healthy Competition:

The State stands a Gibraltar between me and anybody who insists upon prescribing for my soul what I don’t want to take… . Why shouldn’t I have equal liberty with regard to my body, which is of so much less concern? … Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffer, not the State.

The Left Understands RomneyCare

In defending his health care plan, former Massachusetts governor turned presidential candidate Mitt Romney never fails to call it a “free market” plan or to denounce “HillaryCare,” the presumed alternative. In the most recent Iowa debate, he proclaimed: “This is a country that can get all of our people insured with not a government takeover, without HillaryCare, without socialized medicine…. We [in Massachusetts] didn’t expand government programs.”

In reality, as my collegue Michael Cannon has pointed out, RomneyCare is virtually indistinguishable from HillaryCare. But don’t take our word for it.

Joe Conason of the New York Observer is the latest liberal advocate of national health care to note the similarities. As Conason says, “Actually, his fabulous Bay State plan is based entirely on governmental action, from mandating insurance coverage and minimum coverage requirements to subsidizing insurance and imposing fines on those who fail to comply.”

Romney has been trying to position himself as the “conservative” alternative to Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. But being a conservative Republican should be about more than abortion policy and the War on Terror. At the very least, supporting a government take over of one-seventh of the U.S. economy should disqualify one from being anything but the biggest of big-government conservatives.

Bureaucrats Run Up $13 Billion Travel Tab

Federal bureaucrats spend as much as $13 billion each year on travel, though that number is just a rough guess since the government is too incompetent to keep track of expenses. It also is no surprise to learn, as reported by the Federal Times, that the federal government has no ability to monitor how the money is being spent.

Gee, one would almost think that there is a lesson to be learned about the likelihood of waste when bureaucrats get to spend other people’s money:

The government knows what it spends on travel but not how. The General Services Administration estimates agencies spend $11 billion to $13 billion a year on business trips, but lacks the ability to say exactly where the money goes.

Follow the Moving Goalpost

Over on the Bloggingheads website, New Republic writer Michael Crowley asks pro-war pundit Eli Lake of the New York Sun to define “victory” in Iraq for us. Here’s Lake:

“avoiding a competitive, confessional genocide.”

Lake concedes mildly that this is a “fairly low standard.” (What would a really low standard be?) In that case, sounds like we won before we got in.

The Roberts Court

Doug Bandow has a terrific article about the Roberts Court and judicial philosophy over at the American Spectator.  Excerpt:

Washington is rife with awful arguments, shameless demagoguery, and flagrant hypocrisy, of course. But Smith’s concern lest “a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda” and plunge “the court into the vortex of American politics” is almost too hilarious to repeat. Apparently the Warren and Burger Courts were merely following popular values when they overturned decades and even centuries of precedent to transform sizable areas of constitutional law. When they turned the law into a matter of judicial preference rather than constitutional interpretation, they presumably did so in a nonideological and nonpolitical fashion. …

Judicial philosophy obviously matters. Here the right long has gotten the argument much more correct than the left. Conservatives can and do argue about exactly what “original intent” should constitute – I believe that constitutional and legislative provisions must be understood in terms of the political compromises from which they sprang. What did the voters and ratifiers as well as drafters believe to be true? That may not always be easily discoverable, of course. Nevertheless, constitutional (and legal) understandings must be rooted in what the provisions meant when enacted. Otherwise there is little to prevent courts from becoming mini-legislatures, enacting their preferences through shameless sophistry disguised as judicial opinions.

Learned liberal treatises on jurisprudence abound, justifying judicial activism on behalf of any number of ends. But all of these arguments lead to the same basic result: a much-expanded state built on the tenets of modern liberalism. Once the official meaning of law is cut loose from what its specific provisions were originally expected to mean, the only restraint on judges is their personal temperament. If the Constitution means what judges say it does, it means nothing at all. A court that can eviscerate the property takings clause, for instance, can eviscerate the First Amendment guarantees for free speech and religious liberty, and the Fourth Amendment’s bar on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Although unbridled judicial activism is an unsatisfactory jurisprudential principle, the left has nowhere else to go because the Constitution is fundamentally, though not purely, a libertarian-conservative document. The nation’s basic law is meant to constrain politics, to put many issues, centered around an expansive and expensive national government, out of bounds of the democratic process. In short, to be a liberal and believe in original intent is to be eternally frustrated.

Read the whole thing.