Trouble in Utah, with a Capital “T”

School choice supporters were thrilled at the passage of the first universal voucher program in Utah this year. Unfortunately, the unions got enough signatures to put the law up for a referendum vote this fall and are gearing up to demolish it.

The Education Intelligence Agency Communiqué for this week reports that the National Education Association board of directors had an emergency conference call to consider a request by the Utah Education Association for $3 million to overturn the voucher law. The verdict?

“EIA has not yet heard the official results of the vote, but feels confident stating the request was approved.”

Referenda are very difficult to win under any circumstances. But with the referendum scheduled for the vote this November when there will be little or nothing else on the ballot for most communities, turnout for the voucher issue is going to be the one and only thing that matters.

The unions have their money, their network, and their members. And $3 million can help a lot of bodies turn out.

Voucher supporters are working overtime to make sure they top the union turnout, but every voucher supporter (and at least one friend wouldn’t hurt) will have to make it to the polls this November to give the union a run for its money. Otherwise, the first universal voucher program to pass in the U.S. won’t be the first to be implemented.

Sockin’ it to Honduras

A constant refrain from Democrats in Congress is that the Bush administration has been lax about enforcing the terms of U.S. trade agreements. Such a conclusion reveals a true naivete about trade diplomacy. The U.S. Trade Representative maintains ongoing dialogues with our trade partners during which many trade irritants are addressed and resolved without need of resort to the stick.

But Congress wants to see more of the stick, and more of the stick it shall see. Apparently our poor, but industrious Honduran neighbors have been shipping too many socks stateside. U.S. imports of cotton, wool, and man-made fiber socks from Honduras rose from 10.9 million dozen pairs in 2005 to 15.2 million dozen pairs in 2006, an increase of nearly 50 percent. In 2007 through June, imports from Honduras are up about 60 percent from the same period in 2006.

Under the terms of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), the U.S. government can impose special safeguards in the form of new a tariff if a textile or apparel product:

“is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage, or actual threat thereof, to a domestic industry producing an article that is like, or directly competitive with, the imported article.”

The Committee for the Implementation of the Textile Agreements (CITA), an agency within the Commerce Department, initiated proceedings for such a safeguard last week. If it makes an affirmative finding, duties of 13.5 percent will be imposed later in the year.

Despite the surge in sock imports from Honduras, the country still accounts for only about 4 percent of U.S. consumption. How can such a miniscule presence account for “serious damage” or even the threat thereof to the domestic industry?

The safeguard rule is a farce, and its application to a country which depends heavily on its few manufacturing industries, and where two-thirds of the citizens live in poverty, explains a lot about why international regard for
America is in decline.

Czech Republic Joins the Flat Tax Club

Following up on Marian’s earlier post, it’s time to cue up the unofficial theme song of the flat tax revolution and review one of the first English-language news reports about the Czech Republic becoming the 20th jurisdiction to adopt a low-rate flat tax. The Prague Daily Monitor reports that the vote in the Chamber of Deputies clears the only real obstacle to a low-rate tax system:

The cabinet’s package of public-finance reforms passed the final vote in the Chamber of Deputies yesterday thanks to two unaffiliated opposition MPs who voted with the governing coalition. Starting next year, the legislation will gradually reduce corporate and personal-income taxes, cut social spending and introduce cash fees for health care. It still requires Senate approval and President Václav Klaus’s signature, but no resistance is expected from either. …

The reform package will gradually lower the corporate tax rate from today’s 24 percent to 21 percent next year, 20 percent in 2009 and 19 percent in 2010. The existing progressive taxation of personal income at 12 to 32 percent will be replaced by a flat tax of 15 percent in 2008 and 12.5% in 2009. The personal income tax will be calculated from super-gross income, including social and health insurance contributions paid by the employee and the employer. This means effective taxation will be 23.1 percent of gross income in 2008 and 19.4 percent in 2009.

Buy Time and Pray for a Miracle

That’s essentially what the Bush administration’s strategy for Iraq amounts to, if the public statements of the administration, including Bush’s speech to the VFW today, are any indication. (“Fact sheet” available here.)

President Bush began the speech by likening the war in Iraq to the wars in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. The president went into detail describing his view that in its essence the war against Japan was an “ideological struggle” rather than a traditional war against one of the most advanced societies on Earth that had attacked the U.S. homeland. Bush focused on the democracy-building aspect of the aftermath of defeating Japan, and likened it to the current effort in Iraq.

The president ignored the fact that the “ideological struggle” against Japan was won after we dropped two nuclear bombs on its territory. He skirted the role of the Japanese emperor in uniting Japan’s ethnically and religiously homogeneous population behind the U.S. forces who occupied the islands after V-J Day. He ignores the fact that Japanese politics were not fractious like Iraq’s, with the faction displaced by democracy fearing that the depredations it visited on the other factions would be returned in kind under democracy.

Moving to Korea, Bush ignores the fact that U.S. forces accepted essentially a stalemate in that conflict, with Eisenhower signing an armistice that allowed the “forces of tyranny” in that conflict to remain in power with U.S. acquiescence in Pyongyang.

In the most contentious turn, Bush waded into the Big Muddy of the Vietnam analogy, pointing out (paraphrasing) that “the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of Southeast Asians.” As Jim Henley has pointed out, the price of America’s involvement in Vietnam was also paid by millions of Southeast Asians who perished as the conflict raged.

However, it is also worth remembering that U.S. soldiers stopped dying after we left, and that the “dominoes” that were to have fallen from India to Japan didn’t fall. The United States won the Cold War just a decade and a half later. Our defeat in Vietnam did not prevent victory in the Cold War, and defeat in Iraq will not ensure defeat in the struggle against terrorism. Meanwhile, does the president believe we should have stayed in Vietnam? At what enormous cost in blood and treasure?

Bush then amplified the oddity of turning to the Vietnam analogy by introducing body counts to the debate over Iraq, noting that US forces are capturing or killing an average of 1,500 “al Qaeda terrorists per month” since the beginning of the year. This again is a paraphrase since I don’t have a copy of the Bush speech, but if that figure is true, we are creating an awful lot of new terrorists, since even by the almost-certainly-inflated statements of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia itself, they only had 12,000 fighters as of November 2006.

It seems unlikely that the president’s speech is going to change many minds about Iraq, but the “the surge is working” narrative has already caused a small bump in support for the war. It seems incredibly doubtful that the Democratic Congress will be able to do anything to force the president to move in the direction of withdrawal.

At this point the smart money would probably bet on having over 100,000 troops in Iraq when the president leaves office. If we get out without a total meltdown, the president will be revered in hawkish circles as a visionary. If the next president–or a subsequent president–withdraws and chaos ensues, the Bush people will claim that it isn’t their fault, that things were moving in a positive direction when they left office.

Probably the smarter money would say what folks at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community are saying–that we’ll likely have troops in Iraq for another 10 years. Ted Koppel told NPR that a senior military official told him that Hillary Clinton had admitted that if she is a two-term president, we’ll still have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term.

Given the views of the candidates who have a realistic shot at the presidency, it’s tough to see how any president would get us out entirely much sooner.

I’m in Pajamas

Over at PajamasMedia today, I address the recent handwringing about the competitiveness of American workers. Legions of pundits, legislators, and business leaders have warned us that foreign competition compels us to improve our schools. But after selling us on the power of competition to drive the pursuit of excellence, do these good folks actually suggest introducing the “C” word to the school system itself? Do they seem aware, as a new Cato book illustrates, that market forces work as well in education as in other fields? Er… no.

Stop by and share your thoughts (they have a comment section).

Topics:

Starving College Students? Yeah, Right!

Read almost any news story about the price of college, and it will no doubt start with a heart-wrenching tale of some student who works approximately 3,000 hours a week, takes six classes, and has no idea how he’ll afford to pay tuition. Such human-interest hooks are great for grabbing readers’ attention, and certainly there are some students who struggle to pay for college. The problem is, these ubiquitous tales of woe have convinced many Americans that constant, on-the-edge subsistence is the plight of most college students, and that only copious amounts of taxpayer-financed aid — which itself helps drive rampant tuition inflation — can save them.

And then there is the other side of the story: all the money spent by college kids not on the basics, but creature comforts and extravagances that if he were transported to the present day would make yesteryear’s college student choke on his cafeteria mystery meat. From today’s Inside Higher Ed:

As she did her usual move-in day sweep of residence halls, Kathy B. Hobgood, director of residence life at Clemson University, noticed students in a dozen or so rooms unpacking their flat-screen televisions items that until recently might have been spotted in a campus café but certainly not in a dorm.

Up and down the halls, people piled their electronic gadgets on top of storage cubes and dishware, leaving behind a monumental trail of cardboard and packing foam.

“The volume of stuff is alarming,” says Hobgood, who is publications coordinator for the Association of College and University Housing Officers International. “This pile of boxes … you wouldn’t believe.”

Housing directors all over — and not just in places that tend to attract wealthy students — are reporting an increase in the number of belongings students bring with them to college. Carloads, they say, are becoming the norm.

Of course, one might say that tales of flat-screen TV’s and designer dorm furniture are as anecdotal as starving student stories. And one might be right. Some data in the Inside Higher Ed article, however — and in the survey linked to within — strongly suggests that student luxury is far from restricted to a few Richie Riches:

Back to college has become big business. According to an annual survey from the National Retail Federation, students and their parents are spending $5.43 billion this season on dorm and apartment furnishings, up from $3.82 billion a year ago. The survey shows that they will spend a combined average of $956.93 per student on back-to-college merchandise, up from last year’s $880.52.

According to the data, it certainly seems that a large number of college kids aren’t struggling just to survive. Indeed, it seems many aren’t wanting for anything at all.

Perhaps, though, hard statistics aren’t enough for you. Here, then, is one more heart-wrencher to help kill the starving student myth. It’s the Princeton Review’s vaunted — and infamous — list of the nation’s top-20 party schools, which, with one exception, contains all state — meaning directly taxpayer subsidized — universities.

Party on, “starving” students!

Pregnancy as a Random Occurrence

In 2004, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists tried to get California’s legislature to require consumers who purchase their own health insurance to buy coverage for … wait for it … the services of obstetricians and gynecologists.

The following comes from an analysis of the failed legislation that is available on the California Senate’s web site:

In response to the suggestion that mandated coverage for maternity care will promote adverse selection, ACOG asserts that empirical evidence shows women cannot accurately predict when they will become pregnant, and therefore would not be able to time a purchase of insurance with an expected birth.