Hill Fires Back at Bolton

A lot of observers took note when former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton blasted the Bush administration’s new North Korea deal before the ink was dry:

You know, Secretary Powell in 2001 started off the administration by saying he was prepared to pick up where the Clinton administration left off. President Bush changed course and followed a different approach. This is the same thing that the State Department was prepared to do six years ago. If we going to cut this deal now, it’s amazing we didn’t cut it back then. So I’m hoping that this is not really what’s going to happen.

Now that the deal has been seemingly endorsed by the president, it looks like Christopher Hill, the architect of the deal, is feeling his oats and looking to shoot back at Bolton. On the Charlie Rose Show the other night, Hill engaged in this exchange:

CHARLIE ROSE: You believe — there are those who suggest there are hard-liners in North Korea who don’t believe this will happen.

CHRISTOPHER HILL: Hard-liners in North Korea? There are hard-liners all over the place.

CHARLIE ROSE: Hard-liners in Washington?

CHRISTOPHER HILL: I sometimes think they’re all related, because there are hard-liners who don’t believe in a negotiated process.

Now, for those not versed in the subtlety of cufflinked diplo-speak, this isn’t such a jab, but in the State Department lexicon, this is about as close as you get to a middle finger. (Secretary of State Rice had responded to Bolton’s criticism by stating flatly, “He’s just wrong.”)

Substantively, there’s an interesting question here: do you take what you know to be an imperfect deal in order to at least, say, retard the North Koreans’ nuclear program? In a Korea war game conducted by the Atlantic magazine a couple years back, former Clinton administration official Robert Gallucci described the thinking after having argued with Kenneth “Cakewalk” Adelman and retired Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney about the right approach to dealing with North Korea:

“When I came back with the Agreed Framework deal and tried to sell it,” he said, “I ran into the same people sitting around that table — the general to my right, Ken across from me. They hated the idea of trying to solve this problem with a negotiation.

“And I said, ‘What’s your — pardon me — your [expletive] plan, then, if you don’t like this?’

“ ‘We don’t like—’

“I said, ‘Don’t tell me what you don’t like! Tell me how you’re going to stop the North Korean nuclear program.’

“ ‘But we wouldn’t do it this way—’

“ ‘Stop! What are you going to do?’

“I could never get a goddamn answer. What I got was, ‘We wouldn’t negotiate.’”

I pointed out that the North Koreans had — as McInerney emphasized — cheated on the 1994 agreement. “Excuse me,” Gallucci said, “the Soviets cheated on virtually every deal we ever made with them, but we were still better off with the deal than without it.”

To people who say that negotiating with the North Koreans rewards bad behavior, Gallucci says, “Listen, I’m not interested in teaching other people lessons. I’m interested in the national security of the United States. If that’s what you’re interested in, are you better off with this deal or without it? You tell me what you’re going to do without the deal, and I’ll compare that with the deal.”

He was adamant that we were better off under the Agreed Framework—cheating and all — than we are now. “When the Clinton folks went out of office, the North Koreans only had the plutonium they had separated in the previous Bush administration. Now they’ve got a whole lot more. What did all this ‘tough’ [expletive] give us? It gave us a much more capable North Korea. Terrific!”

On a less substantive note, all the back-and-forth sniping between the diplomats and the Boltonites should make Bolton’s forthcoming memoir all the more readable. He’s reportedly “typing as fast as his fingers can go.”

California’s Burgeoning Nanny State

Los Angeles Times reporter Nancy Vogel has a roundup of nanny-state bills pending in the California legislature:

Enjoy fast food? Like to light up while you watch the waves? Forget to sock away money for your kids’ education?

Some California lawmakers want to change your ways. They’ve planted a crop of proposals this year — “nanny” bills, as they’re called — that would:

•  Restrict the use of artery-clogging trans fat, common in fried and baked foods and linked to heart disease, in restaurants and school cafeterias.

•  Bar smoking at state parks and beaches, and in cars carrying children.

•  Open a savings account, seeded with $500, for every newborn Californian to use at 18 for college, a first home purchase or an investment for retirement.

•  Fine dog and cat owners who don’t spay or neuter their pets by 4 months of age.

•  Require chain restaurants to list calorie, saturated fat and sodium content on menus.

•  Phase out the sale of incandescent light bulbs, which are less energy-efficient than compact fluorescent bulbs.

The debate has commenced in the Capitol: How far should government go?
Vogel notes that all these proposals come from Democrats and that

Republicans, who say the sponsors are trying to parent the whole state, are having none of it.

“Could you imagine the founding fathers dealing with — I don’t know — wearing a helmet when you’re in the buggy?” said the Assembly’s Republican leader, Mike Villines of Clovis.

“We all know you can’t mandate behavior; it just does not work,” he said. “It creates criminals of people for things that are not criminal behavior…. You can’t legislate for stupidity.”

Of course, Republicans are no slouches in the nanny-state department. From New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s jihad against smoking to Arkansas governor Michael Huckabee’s war on obesity to President Bush’s grab-bag of Clintonesque hand-outs and religious-right prohibitions, Republicans have proved themselves equally adept at hectoring, monitoring, nudging, and punishing recalcitrant citizens.

As I wrote last year at Cato Unbound:

Republicans used to accuse Democrats of setting up a nanny state, one that would regulate every nook and cranny of our lives. They took control of Congress in 1994 by declaring that Democrats had given us “government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money.” After 10 years in power, however, the Republicans have seen the Democrats’ intrusiveness and raised them.

So from the Republicans we get federal money for churches; and congressional investigations into textbook pricing, the college football bowl system, the firing of Terrell Owens, video games, the television rating system, you name it; and huge new fines for indecency on television; and crackdowns on medical marijuana and steroids and ephedra; and federal intervention in the sad case of Terri Schiavo; and the No Child Left Behind Act; and federal subsidies for marriage; and (for less favored constituencies) a constitutional amendment to override the marriage laws of the 50 states.

As far as California’s Democratic nannying goes, let me just say this: Governor Schwarzenegger, only a girlie-man would be afraid to veto these bills that treat adult Californians like children.

The IBD Calls for More Central Planning

The Investors’ Business Daily newspaper is viewed as “exceptionally pro-economic individualism” with an editorial page that is “especially pro-capitalist.” But there is at least one issue on which the paper’s stance would be more at home in a politburo meeting than a capitalist publication: the federal No Child Left Behind law.

An editorial in yesterday’s edition opens with the assertion that the law is “far from perfect,” but that its “no-excuses approach to school accountability is worth keeping.” The NCLB’s ”most fundamental flaw”, according to the IBD, is “the lack of credible national benchmarks for school performance. Without these, no reform has much of a chance.”

When I regained consciousness after reading that, I had to double-check that I was indeed reading the IBD and not the IBRP.

The editors of Investors’ Business Daily are telling us that Washington must set output targets for the education industry and that, without them, no reform can succeed. They would not make that recommendation for any other industry.

It seems that the IBD’s editors have bought into the myth that education is somehow different from all other human endeavors, and therefore not able to benefit from the market forces that have been responsible for the economic miracle of the last 200 years. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I summarized in my talk at our NCLB forum yesterday, there is overwhelming evidence that choice and financial responsibility for families, coupled with freedom, competition, and the profit motive for schools, produce by far the best educational outcomes on both an individual and a social level.

The research shows that markets are not only better at raising achievement overall, but also at diminishing the racial and socio-economic achievement gaps that have been created, to a significant degree, by the existing top-down monopoly system.

The IBD is right that accountability is crucially important in education as in every other human exchange. But simulated bureaucratic “accountability” has proven grossly inferior to real market accountability. Being able to leave bad schools and move to good ones at will is the only kind of accountability that produces real and sustained results.

The IBD’s editors not only should know this, they already do know this with respect to the rest of the economy. They need only recognize the fact that education and educators are part of the same reality that is discussed on the news pages of their own publication.

NCLB: The Bad, the Worse, and the Ugly

Want to know how the No Child Left Behind Act has actually affected overall student achievement and the gaps between students of different races and socio-economic backgrounds? Want a guided insider tour of the political sausage factory that produced it and the political calculus that allowed it to pass in the first place? Look no further than the podcasts that are available here.

They’re enough to make H.L. Mencken look like a political optimist.

Just one highlight, uttered by former House majority leader Dick Armey, who voted against national education standards under President Clinton but for the NCLB under President Bush: “My NCLB vote, perhaps more than any other one thing, was the reason I left Congress…. If I couldn’t be myself and vote my conscience, why stay?”

According to Armey, opposition to national education standards under Clinton and support for them under Bush were driven overwhelmingly by political considerations that had nothing to do with the evidence of what works. That’s not surprising, of course, but it’s one thing for pundits to opine about it and quite another to have a key player openly acknowledge it.

There are a lot of other interesting bits throughout the podcasts, including an appearance by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) pre-announcing legislation that he will formally reveal next week that would give control over federal education spending to the states. Perhaps not an ideal solution (the feds should not be involved in the first place, according to the Constitution), but it would be better than any other serious legislative proposal I’ve seen.

Swedish Pension Reform

Sweden is widely considered a cradle-to-grave welfare state, but that is somewhat misleading. The burden of government is significant, to be sure, but there have been some impressive market-oriented reforms. Sweden, for instance, has eliminated its death tax and implemented school choice.

Perhaps most surprising, Sweden has partially privatized its Social Security system. The amount going into private accounts is small — just 2.5 percent of earnings, so the system is not nearly as good as Chile’s, but it is much better than the American system.

In addition to small private accounts, Sweden also has created a direct link between taxes paid and benefits received. This shift to a “notional” defined contribution system represents a significant departure from traditional Social Security systems, which are akin to defined benefit schemes containing widespread redistribution.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Swedish reform is inspiring other nations to move in a similar direction:

By pegging public pensions to individual earnings and overall life-expectancy rates, Sweden has given its citizens incentives to be more productive and retire later — and sidestepped the political paralysis that has stymied change elsewhere.

Some Eastern European nations have already ditched their struggling post-Communist systems and gone Swedish. Steps taken in countries as diverse as Brazil and Russia boast some Swedish elements. A World Bank book based on the Swedish model has been translated into Chinese.

…[C]alculating payouts according to salaries and aging projections gives [the Swedish system] the flexibility to accommodate revenue and population shifts. If the economy does poorly, the thinking goes, future pension payments will go down. And the longer people in a particular age group are projected to live, the smaller their pension payouts will be.

…The bottom line of the Swedish model: Most people will have to work harder to reap the kinds of pensions their grandparents could take for granted. “It puts the cost of aging onto the individual, rather than onto society,” says Sarah Brooks, an Ohio State University political-science professor who has studied the plan.

‘Terror Porn’

The Homeland Security budget has become a business-as-usual way for politicians to steer tax dollars to contributors and supporters. But even though the budget is being allocated using traditional pork-barrel methods, the arguments for more homeland security spending are based on exaggerated claims that the money is necessary to thwart terrorism.

Veronique de Rugy, an American Enterprise Institute scholar and Cato adjunct, call these claims ”terror porn.” ABC News’ John Stossel quoted de Rugy as part of a recent report:

[T]he bureaucracy hypes terrorism to justify its pork. “Terror porn” is what economist Veronique de Rugy calls it. Why “porn”? “Because porn sells, [and] terrorism sells even better,” she says. “It’s great for politicians. They can campaign on the fact that they are protecting us. They also can campaign on the fact that they’re bringing more money to their states.”

Lots of small towns do get absurd grants for homeland security. Lake County, Tenn., a rural county with only 8,000 people, got nearly $200,000 in homeland-security money. …”I don’t know that terrorists will come, but I don’t know they won’t come,” Lake County Mayor Macie Roberson told us, smiling.

At least he didn’t do what Columbus, Ohio did: spend it on bulletproof vests for police dogs.

Inordinate fear of terrorism leads to more than just wasteful spending. Stossel also cites a study estimating that 1,000 people have died because they avoided air travel and instead relied on a much riskier mode of travel:

Of course, terrorism is a real threat. But fear kills people, too. A University of Michigan study found that an additional 1,000 Americans died in car accidents in the three months after Sept. 11, because they were afraid to fly. We need to keep risk in perspective.

New at Cato Unbound: Brian Doherty on the Past and Prospects of Libertarianism

The release of Reason senior editor Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement — the first comprehensive history of its kind — provides a fitting occasion for libertarian reflection. How did libertarians get to where they are today? Where are they going? How should they proceed? Drawing on his book, Doherty kicks off the new issue of Cato Unbound with a lead essay reflecting on the miracle that libertarians are politically and culturally relevant at all, while promoting a continued laissez faire attitude to libertarian strategy.

To showcase the high art of libertarian in-fighting, we’ve gathered a panel of libertarian luminaries including: Cato Unbound’s own Brink Lindsey, author of the controversial “Liberaltarians” essay in the New Republic; George Mason’s most famous blogger-polymath, New York Times Economic Scene columnist Tyler Cowen; Cato’s globe-trotting ambassador for liberty Tom G. Palmer, who was writing libertarian political theory as a zygote; and Atlantic columnist, former Reason editor in chief, and author of The Substance of Style, Virginia Postrel. Stay tuned over the next two weeks as our very special conversation on the future of libertarianism unfolds.