Some People Probably Shouldn’t Have Health Insurance

In an e-newsletter sent today, Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute writes:

“No one is arguing that children shouldn’t have health insurance….”

Sigh.  Looks like I’ll have to say it again:

Sick people don’t need insurance. Insurance doesn’t make sick people healthy. They need medical care. They may even need subsidies. So why not try to provide them those things, rather than wreck the markets for both health insurance and health care?

Have a happy Cover the Uninsured Week

‘Consoler-in-Chief’

I don’t blame President Bush for visiting Virginia Tech the day after the shootings. It probably made some people feel better, and it didn’t do any harm.   

However, it is not healthy for mainstream elites to talk about the presidency as they do in this article from Wednesday’s Washington Post:

“At times like this, [says David Gergen, the president] takes off his cap as commander in chief and puts on the robes of consoler in chief.”

“It’s important for the country to see the one person they decided on as a leader out front and speaking for them in moments like this,” said Joe Lockhart, who served as press secretary for President Bill Clinton.

Leon Panetta, Clinton’s chief of staff, agreed: “In many ways, he is our national chaplain.”

In this case, nothing that comes out of the president’s visit is likely to affect any American’s liberty interests.  But in a larger sense, the expectation that there ought to be a presidential response to any highly visible public event has had a dramatic impact on American liberty over the course of the 20th century and into the 21st.

Here’s an interesting piece from Slate on the Great Coolidge’s resistance to responding to the Mississippi Flood of 1927:

Governors, senators, and mayors asked him to visit the flood zone. “Your coming would center eyes of nation and the consequent publicity would result in securing millions of dollars additional aid for sufferers,” the governor of Mississippi wired. But Coolidge demurred. He declined requests from NBC to broadcast a nationwide radio appeal, and from humorist Will Rogers to send a telegram to be read at a benefit. Taking center stage, Coolidge feared, would feed demands for a greater federal role in dealing with the calamity.

Keeping cool like Coolidge was no longer possible by midcentury. In 1956, political scientist Clinton Rossiter wrote approvingly that faced with “floods in New England or a tornado in Missouri or a railroad strike in Chicago or a panic in Wall Street … the people turn almost instinctively to the White House and its occupant for aid and comfort.”

It’s that reflex that makes the solutions to highly visible news events increasingly federal, increasingly presidential, and, in some cases, increasingly military. There’s something to be said for Silent Cal’s Waspy reticence.

School Choice and Government Education Realities

Blog-fight!  Very stimulating.  My thanks to Sara Mead at The Quick and the Ed, who responds to my response to her post about how advocates of educational freedom are hawking snake-oil. 

First, I’d like to happily and wholly agree with one of Mead’s points:  “[School choice programs that target students with disabilities] create perverse incentives for parents and schools that could exacerbate one of the biggest problems in special education: overidentification of students with disabilities.”  No argument there at all, and I would simply add that there are perverse incentives for disability over-ID in the public system right now.  Getting your kid classified as ADHD, or Asperger’s, etc. allows your child to receive extra consideration and a more individualized education.  If your child is difficult to control and only responds well in a particular educational environment, your only recourse may be a special classification.  Wouldn’t it be great if parents could just choose a school that works for their child in the first place, without the need to label them?

Now, on to the good stuff. 

Mead admits that these special programs “seem to be working okay,” but that “they don’t seem to be solving the problem they ostensibly were intended to solve–parent difficulties getting needed services or out-of-district placements for their children.”  I’m sorry, but I fail to see how giving parents another choice isn’t a general step forward.  No one ever claimed that vouchers would make the government system perfect, only that it would allow parents easily to look elsewhere for the services their child needs.  The program does that, and there’s nothing disingenuous about saying choice solves a lot of problems for thousands of families.  The report Mead cites claims only that children with less severe disabilities are the ones helped most by the program, not that it doesn’t help children with disabilities. 

I’d also like to point out that although political support is difficult to come by for any school choice program, the public actually supports universal over targeted programs by huge margins, often with two or three times the support.  This is a very consistent finding (I’ve found the same thing in my own recent opinion research).  And I think the school choice movement’s myopic obsession with hyper-targeted programs is both a tactical and a strategic mistake.

Mead concludes by conceding “there’s a compelling case that building an education system more premised on choice will have significant benefits, in terms of efficiency but more so in terms of customization and parent and student satisfaction and engagement.”  But then she insists “it’s also likely that educational policies that improve student achievement on average will end up leaving some [presumably low-income] children behind.”  I don’t know where this prediction comes from, other than from a general distrust of markets, but the relevant question here isn’t whether or not some children will be “left behind.”  The question is how many, and compared to what else?  How’s our current system doing in that department?  Pretty swell, eh?  And why, if the market is so likely to leave poor kids behind, are low-income families so desperate to get scholarships?  And why is a free market already serving the poor children in poor countries well?

And while we’re comparing school choice reform to present realities in the government system … school choice program problems with fraud and theft are nothing compared with the rampant corruption commonplace in the educational industrial complex.  Never mind the legal travesty of paying incompetent teachers large sums to malpractice because they are tenured and senior.

Finally, this sex-ed thing seems trivial, I know, but Mead shows a blind spot here that’s interesting. 

The conservatives she cites as supporting abstinence-only sex ed support it because they think it’s the best policy.  These conservatives also support a system of school choice in which liberals could send their kids to a free-range school where sex ed starts early and includes cucumber demonstrations of condom use.  In the absence of such a system, many of these conservatives support making abstinence-only sex ed the standard in sex-ed because without educational freedom, curriculum decisions are a zero-sum game.  You win, I lose.  I win, you lose.  This is a recipe for social strife, and we have it aplenty in our schools.

You see, there’s the system of education we have, and the one school choice supporters want.  The system we have forces diverse communities and families to decide, through a corrupt political process dominated by the educational industrial complex, on what every child will be taught. 

If you want your kid to have abstinence-only sex ed and can’t afford a choice, then you’d better throw your support behind those who want it in the curriculum.  The same goes for everything else under the curriculum sun. This doesn’t bear at all on the issue of support for educational freedom.

Ok, I think that’s all …

Link Analysis and 9/11

In our paper Effective Counterterrorism and the Limited Role of Predictive Data Mining, Jeff Jonas and I pointed out the uselessness of data mining for finding terrorists. The paper was featured in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year, and a data mining disclosure bill discussed in that hearing was recently marked up in that Committee.

On his blog, Jeff has posted some further thinking about 9/11 and searching for terrorists. He attacks a widespread presumption about that task forthrightly:

The whole point of my 9/11 analysis was that the government did not need mounds of data, did not need new technology, and in fact did not need any new laws to unravel this event!

He links to a presentation about finding the 9/11 terrorists and how it could have been done by simply following one lead to another.

Jeff feels strongly that Monday morning quarterbacking is unfair, and I agree with him. Nobody in our national security infrastructure knew the full scope of what would happen on 9/11, and so they aren’t blameworthy. Yet we should not shrink from the point that diligent seeking after the 9/11 terrorists, using traditional methods and the legal authorities existing at the time, would have found them.

IRS Chief Will Make Ideal Vampire

The American Red Cross is known for its blood drives, so there is something appropriate about the selection of an IRS Commissioner as its new chief. Mark W. Everson compiled a dismal record at the IRS, expanding the power and size of the tax agency, so he has ample experiencing extracting blood from unwilling victims. The Washington Post reports:

One day after taxpayers filed their annual returns, the American Red Cross picked the head of the Internal Revenue Service to take over the disaster-relief agency as it struggles to restore a reputation damaged by its responses to Hurricane Katrina and other recent catastrophes. The Red Cross Board of Governors voted yesterday to name IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson, the nation’s top tax man since 2003, as the new president and chief executive of the $6 billion organization.

Paulson Commits Faux Pas, Tells Truth About Tax Gap

Democrats on Capitol Hill are upset because the Treasury Secretary told the truth about the tax gap. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, Henry Paulson explained that there was very little chance of substantially closing the tax gap without resorting to onerous measures that would diminish freedom and penalize millions of compliant taxpayers. Paulson’s testimony is particularly refreshing since the IRS has been using the issue to seek a bigger budget and more power. The Washington Post has the story:

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson said yesterday that the Internal Revenue Service would have a tough time wringing money out of the nation’s tax cheats without imposing “draconian” new burdens on honest taxpayers. Speaking to a Senate committee led by Democrats eager to raise cash without raising tax rates, Paulson said it was “unrealistic” for them to expect to collect hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal tax gap, the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid. …Democrats bristled at Paulson’s remarks and accused the administration of failing to take seriously its duty to enforce the nation’s tax laws. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) demanded that Paulson return in July with a strategy for increasing the voluntary compliance rate to 90 percent by 2017 from 84 percent, a change he said would increase tax collections by $150 billion a year. …Paulson said other tax-gap ideas floating around Washington “would be unnecessarily painful, expensive and time-consuming for taxpayers.” Politicians haven’t endorsed the more extreme notions, but Paulson cited some anyway – steps such as eliminating most cash transactions or tripling the number of IRS audits. “In theory, each of these measures could bring in some additional revenue,” Paulson said. “But the cost of compliance for individuals and businesses – most of whom already pay what they owe – would far outweigh the gains.”