Drop the Excuses for Poor Coverage of School Choice

Jay Mathews, education reporter for the Washington Post, urges everyone to drop the voucher issue because:

1. “I am tired of the voucher issue.”

Mathews may feel like he’s had to write about vouchers too much, but most of the public hasn’t heard a thing about them, and certainly doesn’t know much about education tax credits, which get far less coverage and are usually called “vouchers” by journalists covering the education beat in any case. 

Being tired of covering an issue is a sorry excuse for a journalist to call for its dismissal.  Although, I have to say that it’s difficult to see how he could be tired of vouchers when he mentioned them in only 3 out of about 121 articles over the past year.  That’s just over 2 percent of his articles.

Perhaps Mathews could look into the bipartisan promise of education tax credits, which he mentions not at all over the past year.  Arizona, Rhode Island and Iowa passed tax-credit programs last year, and Pennsylvania expanded its existing business-tax credit program. The Arizona, Iowa, and Pennsylvania bills became law with Democratic governors, and the Rhode Island business-tax credit was born in a legislature controlled by Democrats. Finally, Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer in deep-blue New York proposed an education-tax deduction in his first state budget.

And he could even give more attention to charter schools, which he mentioned only 8 times.

2. “I do not think such programs are going to solve our education crisis.”

I disagree.  Just because a reform won’t solve every problem, doesn’t mean that it won’t solve many of them. 

And it will solve the education crisis of many individual children.

3. “Few of us are willing to go the voucher route.”

So, because most people don’t want to use a voucher no one should have the chance? 

Mathews claims, “I don’t see anything wrong with the [voucher] idea itself… .  I could not think of a single thing to say [to try to persuade a low-income mother that using a voucher is wrong] that would not leave me feeling guilty and deceitful.”

How would Mathews’ third objection hold up with a voucher mom as an argument for dropping the issue?  How would any of these objections?

4. “It is too risky, and too inconvenient.”

For whom is it too risky and inconvenient?  How is it too risky?  The parents who desperately need options for their child aren’t bothered by the inconvenience, and they certainly know it’s more risky to leave their child in a failing and dangerous school.

Again, how would this argument fly with a voucher mom?

Mathews goes on to say that “the two major political parties find it very hard to drop the voucher issue,” because “they can raise money on that issue forever, while in the meantime not doing much for schools.” 

This is absurd.  School choice is no fundraising issue.  School choice is being driven by people who believe it will save children and money while improving education across the board.  Lawmakers who support school choice, especially Democrats, are siding with principle and risking the wrath of the educational industrial complex.  With a monopoly on education, control of school boards, and forced dues, the big education unions have a lot more money to throw around during election season than school choice activists. 

Mathews may be tired of the voucher issue, but I think a little more reporting on school choice might do justice to his vocation as a journalist.

Tax Competition Forcing Lower Corporate Rates in Europe

The news pages of the Wall Street Journal have an excellent article showing how nations in Europe are cutting corporate tax rates in an effort to compete for jobs and capital. The politicians and bureaucrats do not like this process, of course, but European Commission-led efforts to harmonize taxes fortunately have failed. In closing, the WSJ article cites a post on the Cato blog about the shame of America having a higher corporate tax rate than France:

Europe’s major economies are competing with one another to cut corporate taxes as they fight to attract and keep investment, fueling a trend that has taken Europe’s corporate-tax rates below those of other regions. Nominal tax rates on corporate income in the European Union average 26%, compared with 30% in the Asian-Pacific region and nearly 40% in the U.S. The latest moves by European governments suggest business taxes in the EU will fall further in coming years. … In recent years, many smaller European nations – including Ireland and the former Soviet-bloc nations of Eastern Europe – have slashed corporate-tax rates to as low as zero, as part of their economic-growth strategies, and have succeeded in attracting investment from multinational corporations. That success has put pressure on Europe’s larger economies to cut their taxes. Until recently, Germany condemned the low-tax competition from Poland and others as “tax dumping.” But after failing to win support within the EU, Germany has joined in: Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition has agreed to cut the corporate-tax rate to just under 30% next year from 39%. Others in Western Europe have reacted to the tax cut in Germany, Europe’s largest economy. In March, Britain’s finance chief, Gordon Brown, announced a reduction to 28% from 30%, following complaints from British companies that Britain was losing its status as one of Europe’s low-tax countries. Nicolas Sarkozy, a leading contender to become France’s next president, wants to cut the French corporate-tax rate to less than 28% from around 34%, albeit with some vaguely defined strings attached. … Elsewhere in Europe, Spain is reducing its tax rate on corporate profits to 30% from 35% in stages. … The Cato Institute in Washington, a free-market think tank, calls it “rather embarrassing” that France has a lower corporate-tax rate than the U.S.

Wherein I Liken Jonathan Cohn to a Muckraker

But not in a bad way.

Yesterday, the Kaiser Family Foundation held a forum to celebrate the release of Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis—and the People Who Pay the Price. The book’s author is Jonathan Cohn, senior editor at The New Republic. I was invited to comment. Susan Dentzer of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer moderated the discussion, and was even kind enough to plug my book.

You can find the video, a podcast, bios, and even our slide presentations at the web page Kaiser devotes to the forum.

Hate Crime Legislation

I testified before a congressional committee yesterday on the subject of hate crimes. Since all violent acts in the proposed legislation are already against the law, proponents of hate crimes legislation have to come up with reasons as to why such laws are necessary. One argument is that hate crimes are different because they not only impact the victim, but a broader community. For some so-called hate crime incidents, that is true. But the same thing can be said for other crimes that fall outside of the hate crime definition. The tragedy at Virginia Tech is a prime example. Reporters have repeatedly noted that it’s not just the victims and their families that have been impacted–but the entire university community.

Cato associate policy analyst David Kopel has an article in today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required) about “gun-free zones” and the slayings at Virginia Tech.

Government Monopoly is our Educational Disease

Sara Mead over at The Quick and The Ed laments the one-note, “pro-voucher conservative insistence that choice will solve any and all educational problem one can imagine*,” including what she thinks is a phony “boy crisis.” The asterisk there is for sex ed – she is under the misapprehension that supporters of educational freedom want to make an exception here to force all children to be taught “abstinence-only.”

I really wonder whether Mead understands what choice in education means … it certainly doesn’t mean a state-mandated curriculum, conservative or liberal. A state mandated curriculum means no effective choice. That’s what we have right now, and choice in education is the way to change it.

The larger point here, though, is found in the utterly exhausted trope Mead trots out: our education problems can’t be solved with a “silver bullet” (she uses the hammer-nail metaphor, but you get the point).

Why don’t I try my hand at this: A single disease can cause many symptoms.

Brain cancer may cause debilitating headaches, but the cancer is the cause and the headache is a symptom of that disease. Some treatments of breast cancer might cause heart failure, but the cancer is still the root problem. If there’s no cancer, none of these problems exist.

The major educational problems in this country – poor student achievement, the achievement gap, low efficiency, high and climbing costs, social conflict, even discipline and safety – are not independent of each other. These problems are symptoms caused by the same disease: a government controlled and operated educational system.

Mead doesn’t understand how the mechanism of educational freedom can solve specific educational problems, and that’s too much to fully explain in a blog posting. A better way of putting it is that educational freedom is a mechanism that allows specific educational problems to be solved. This is the core difference between market and command and control systems.

I am not saying that in a system of educational freedom we would wake to find a Lake Wobegon America, where all children are above average, education costs nothing, and social ills have disappeared.

I am saying that the serious problems prompting all of our policy debates will be greatly mitigated by educational choice, and to an extent greater than under any other possible reform.

Government monopolies are very poor providers of all services, but they are especially poor providers of something as nuanced, personal, and value-laden as education.

The education industrial complex, Big Ed, is the disease. Educational freedom is the cure.

Estonia’s Flat Tax Leads to Economic Boom

In an article on the anti-growth American tax system, John Stossel notes that other nations have implemented simple and fair tax systems. Estonia’s low-rate flat tax has been particularly successful:

Other countries have made their citizens’ lives better by simplifying and lowering taxes. Estonians need an average 10 to 15 minutes to file their income taxes. Most do it without leaving their desk: 84 percent file online. … Unsurprisingly, Estonia is booming. The former Soviet republic used to be poor, with an average income 65 percent below its European neighbors. Today, Estonians are almost as rich as their neighbors, and their economy is growing more than 11 percent a year. Corporations like a tax system that is low and simple, too, and that leads them to do more business in flat-tax countries. American companies such as Microsoft, Colgate, 3M, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Johnson & Johnson opened businesses in Estonia after the flat tax was adopted. Twelve years ago, foreign investment in Estonia made up only 5 percent of GDP, but today, it’s up to 20 percent.

Preliminary HSA Limits for 2008

Former White House health policy advisor Roy Ramthun has announced what he estimates will be the limits for deductibles, out-of-pocket exposure, and health savings account (HSA) contribution limits for 2008:

 

2007 Amount

Est. 2008 Amount

Self-only coverage
Minimum deductible

$1,100

$1,100

Maximum HSA contribution

$2,850

$2,900

Out-of-pocket maximum

$5,500

$5,600

Family coverage
Minimum deductible

$2,200

$2,200

Maximum HSA contribution

$5,650

$5,800

Out-of-pocket maximum

$11,000

$11,200

Ramthun, who is the president of HSA Consulting Services, LLC, writes:

We now know all the data points to calculate the 2008 numbers for HSAs. This will give everyone offering an HSA program in 2008 much more time for planning. In past years, this information was not available until very late in the year.

Noting that the minimum deductible limits for HSA-qualified health insurance probably will not change from 2007 to 2008, Ramthun writes:

This means HSA-qualified plans will not have to make any changes to their plan designs because their current policies will meet the minimum deductibles and out-of-pocket limits for 2008.

Ramthun further notes that the limit on “catch-up” contributions by HSA holders age 55-64 in 2008 will remain $900; that amount is set by law rather than a formula, and will top out at $1,000 in 2009.

The IRS will publish the official HSA limits for 2008 by June 1.

For more on HSAs, click here.