New Jersey LOVES Education Tax Credits

A recent poll conducted by Monmouth University’s Polling Institute on behalf of Excellent Education for Everyone (E3), showed that an overwhelming 74 percent of New Jersey residents support targeted education tax credits.

The support for tax credits is tremendous – you can’t find 74 percent support for apple pie – but it’s not all that surprising.  Education tax credits consistently outpoll vouchers and have been the most successful school choice legislation in recent years.  This new “blue” state poll adds to the mountain of evidence that people want school choice, and that education tax credits are the most promising way to get it.

The poll also found a solid majority, 54 percent, supports vouchers, although this is a significant drop from the 66 percent support found in a 2002 poll.  Only 38 percent oppose vouchers.  The level of support for vouchers is the same as it is for another popular reform, student-based funding, which determines funding for each student according to their need and allows that money to follow them.  54 percent of respondents support the proposal and 32 percent are opposed.

Maybe one more poll showing how big support for school choice really is will be enough to get politicians to stand up to the teachers’ unions … ok, maybe not.

Habeas Corpus

Today’s Washington Post has this to say about the detainee bill that is working its way through the Congress:

Some of the fiercest debates focused on whether foreign terrorism suspects should have access to U.S. courts for challenging the legality of their detention, a right known as habeas corpus.

House Republicans blocked Democrats from offering amendments, including one that would have extended the habeas corpus right to detainees.

Cato Institute adjunct scholar Richard Epstein, criticized the proposals to curtail habeas corpus in this statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee a few days ago.

For additional background on the writ of habeas corpus, read this and this.

Costs vs. Spending

In yesterday’s New York Times, David Leonhardt writes:

Mr. Wagoner’s argument has become the accepted wisdom about the [health care] crisis: the solution lies in restraining costs. Yet it’s wrong.

In fact, the solution does lie in restraining costs.  Leonhardt is wrong because he conflates costs and spending

Spending is the amount of money we devote to medical care.  Costs are different.  The money devoted to medical care represents a cost, because we give up the next-highest value use of that money (e.g., a skiing trip).  But we also bear costs due to illness, including pain, limited mobility, and shortened lifespans.  We spend money on medical care to reduce the total costs that we bear.  Spending a lot of money on medical care is therefore desirable – so long as the benefits (reduced pain, enhanced mobility, longer lifespan) exceed the costs for each increment of spending.  The solution to every economic problem undeniably lies in restraining costs. 

Leonhardt probably meant to shoot down the idea that the solution to America’s health care crisis is in restraining spending.  Indeed the thesis of his article seems to be that even though there are many wasteful medical expenditures, a lot of what America spends on health care is very worthwhile.  But he repeatedly confuses the two concepts:

But the No. 1 cause of the cost increases is still the one you can see at the hospital and in your medicine cabinet — defibrillators, chemotherapy, cholesterol drugs, neonatal care and other treatments that are both expensive and effective.  

But if those treatments are expensive and cost-effective, then they would reduce costs. 

The confusion keeps Leonhardt from reaching the $64,000 question: How can we eliminate waste while preserving what works?  Or to put it another way, How can we reduce spending without increasing costs?

Baltimore Sun: Deep-Six REAL ID

The Baltimore Sun opinion page recognizes that the REAL ID Act’s national ID system “will neither weed out terrorists nor make a dent in the flow of illegal immigration - the two problems it was devised to address.”  In light of the exorbitant cost and impossibility to implement, its advice is to junk the REAL ID Act.

Feariness about Data Loss

In the spirit of Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness,” here’s another useful term for the pop lexicon:

fear i ness (fir’ e-nes) n. The quality of being feared, even though logic and/or evidence indicates there is little to fear.

A prime example of feariness right now is data loss — the loss of control over confidential information that could lead to violation of a person’s privacy, identity theft, and fraud. This feariness has been fanned by the recent thefts of government and corporate computer hardware containing important data files.

Though privacy violations and fraud are worrisome, an article in today’s New York Times explains that much of the alarm over data loss is just feariness:

The veterans’ laptop episode underscores the crucial distinction between data loss and malicious data theft — a distinction that has often been glossed over or ignored in the recent wave of alarming disclosures of data breaches at government agencies, universities, companies and hospitals. In most cases, the consequences — financial and otherwise — of the data losses have been slight.

But while high-profile data breaches are common, there is no evidence of a surge in identity theft or financial fraud as a result. In fact, there is scant evidence that identity theft and financial fraud have increased at all. Even when computer networks are cracked into, and troves of personal information intentionally stolen, fraudsters can typically exploit only a tiny fraction of it.

Readers of Cato’s Regulation Magazine already know this story. In last spring’s issue, Tom Lenard and Paul Rubin describe how the incidence of data theft–inducing fraud is fairly stable, how most of that fraud is the product of the theft of old-fashioned paper statements instead of electronic information, and how the response to data loss (including government-mandated response) is far more costly in aggregate than any resulting fraud.

Spelling Disaster for Higher Ed

In a speech at the National Press Club yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings made the prophecy come true.

In November – not long after Spellings announced the creation of her Commission on the Future of Higher Education – I wrote the following in a National Review Online op-ed:

In September, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced the formation of a commission tasked with designing a “national strategy for higher education” to prepare us for the 21st century.

The commission is composed entirely of people in academia, government or big business, all of whom benefit when taxpayer money is shoveled into higher education. Its recommendations are therefore almost a foregone conclusion: The federal government should spend more on student aid supposedly to ensure, as Spellings demands, that we have a workforce for the 21st century, and on “basic” research that businesses want done, but on which they would rather not risk their own money.

Of course, with a unified national strategy two more things will come: federal control of academia and an end to the competition for students that has driven innovation in American higher education and made it the envy of the world.

In her speech yesterday, Spellings confirmed many of my fears from November, calling for more federal student aid, new federal databases populated with information on every student and college in America, and a federally funded program that would bribe schools into making all their students take standardized tests in order, supposedly, to measure their “learning outcomes.” And Spellings opened the door to do even more than that, announcing that she will be holding a “summit” this spring to discuss each and every proposal in the commission’s final report, which includes demands for substantially increased federal research spending, and a blanket charge to create a national “strategy for lifelong learning.”

What Spellings glossed over – as did the commission’s report – was the cause of higher education’s most basic problem, skyrocketing prices. Why? Probably because the federal government is to blame. Federal financial aid enables students to demand ever-more expensive college goodies, fueling, rather than grounding, the college cost rocket. Indeed, as George Leef of the John William Pope Center explains in a new study, it is abundant government aid, as well as politicians’ incessant and specious declarations that almost everyone needs to go to college, that drive almost all of higher education’s major problems. In addition to pushing up prices, government aid and political rhetoric have convinced woefully unprepared students to pursue schooling they can’t handle, fueled rampant “credentialism,” and rendered actual learning in college largely irrelevant.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of Spellings’ efforts to control higher education, however, is that she openly touts federal work in elementary and secondary education as the model for what needs to be done in higher ed.

Maybe I’d better repeat that: She openly touts federal work in elementary and secondary education as the model for what needs to be done in higher education.

Apparently, our stagnant, embarrassing, public K-12 schools, which the federal No Child Left Behind Act has only made worse by encouraging states to lower academic standards and hide failures, have a lot to teach our colleges and universities, which are, if nothing else, hands down the most popular destinations in the world for international students.

Hopefully, it’s not too late for colleges and universities to realize what they’re heading for, and fight federal assaults tooth and nail. Today, we will begin to get an idea whether this will happen, both as reactions to Spellings’ plans hit the media, and at a special forum on overhauling the ivory tower to be held right here at Cato.

The prophecy about Spellings’ proposals has come true, but there’s still hope that those proposals won’t become reality.