Even Private Schools Sometimes Teach Awful Lessons

The anti-capitalist mentality of government schools is disturbing, but the virus of envy and resentment sometimes infects private schools. A TCSdaily.com column discusses a private school in Seattle that is using Legos to indoctrinate children in favor of collectivism:

Some Seattle school children are being told to be skeptical of private property rights. This lesson is being taught by banning Legos. A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children’s Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of “Rethinking Schools” magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.

…[T]hey first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers’ anathema to private property ownership. “If I buy it, I own it,” one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months. At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that “All structures are public structures” and “All structures will be standard sizes.”

Pork and Principle

The Hill reports that Blue Dog Democrats are very concerned about the proper balance of powers between the president and Congress. But for a big hike in farm subsidies, they’ll forget about that little constitutional matter. 

House Democratic leaders will add nearly $4 billion for farmers to a bill funding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to attract conservative Democrats concerned that the measure would wrongly constrict President Bush’s power as commander in chief.

The Democrats hope that moderate Republicans are just as malleable:

Democrats may also add money for children’s health insurance in the hope of winning the votes of Republicans such as Illinois Reps. Mark Kirk (R) and Judy Biggert (R), whose home state faces a $240 million deficit in its State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

To be fair, there’s no proof in the story that Kirk and Biggert are considering such a deal, but Republican leaders are reported to fear it.

In the civics books, they tell us that members of Congress deliberate about war, separation of powers, balanced budgets, and so on, and then make collective decisions. If you read a newspaper, though, you soon learn about logrolling and other budget games. Still, it’s one thing to trade your vote for farm pork for the other guy’s vote for urban pork; the taxpayers lose twice, but at least it’s only money. Trading your vote on a matter of life and death, which is also a fundamental constitutional issue, for a few billion in home-state pork seems entirely unbecoming to a member of the legislature of the world’s most successful republic.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Challenges Protectionists

Hearing Washington officials speak sense on international trade has become a rare event these days. So a speech today by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was like a fresh spring breeze after a long dreary winter.

Speaking to the Economic Club of Washington, Secretary Paulson delivered an important address on the huge benefits Americans realize every day from our growing trade and investment ties with the rest of the world.

The secretary touted America’s booming exports, including a 32 percent jump in exports to China in 2006. More importantly, he focused on the benefits of imports, the real payoff from trade:

Trade fosters the environment of competition, innovation, research, and investment that leads to better goods and services at lower prices. Some people speak about trade as if its benefits come only from exports, ignoring the positive contributions of imports. Data show that internationally trade products tend to experience lower inflation rates—even real price declines—while non-traded goods tend to rise in price. Trade thus helps Americans provide for their families. When special interests seek protection in the name of low-wage workers, we should acknowledge that limitations on imports do not benefit the vast majority of Americas. They deny people the freedom to choose from a broader array of goods and services, and impose a cruel tax on people who rely on low prices to stretch their family budgets. The cost of protectionism falls most heavily on those who are least able to afford it—the poor and the elderly.

The speech is packed with other sound thinking and useful numbers on the hot trade topics of the day, including China, the trade deficit, manufacturing, foreign investment and adjustment-assistance programs.

Secretary Paulson’s speech is an antidote to the economic snake oil that is being hawked on what seems to be every street corner of Washington these days.

The “Anger Index” or, “Profane in the Brain”

Having spent the better part of a year developing Cato’s Education Market Index, I’m obviously interested in the use of statistical indices to assess policies and measure trends. Well, it seems that the blogosphere is on the verge of developing a new “Anger Index” to measure the discomfiture of the left and right in America.

Blogger Patrick Ishmael has just compiled statistics on the use of profanity by the main left-wing and right-wing political blogs (hat tip Instapundit). The left is currently in the “lead” (waaaay in the lead).

It will be interesting to see how the distribution of political anger, as manifested by use of profanity, will be affected by the 2008 presidential election outcome. If a Democrat takes the White House, will the Anger Index flop the other way? Will it turn out to be lower in states that are more free than in states that are less free? What does it tell us, if anything, about the left, the right, and American political discourse?

T.R. with Nukes

So Senator John McCain has officially entered the race.  Which may be good news if you like the idea of a president who puts sardonic quote marks around the phrase “First Amendment rights.”  But if you like your government limited and constitutional, and the aims it pursues sober and realistic, you may not feel like cheering.   

Matt Welch has a piece in the latest issue of Reason detailing the myriad reasons limited-government types should fear a McCain presidency, among them: McCain’s fascination with Teddy Roosevelt, his indiscriminate hawkishness, and his affinity for National Greatness Conservatism, libertarianism’s bete noire.  The Reason piece isn’t online yet, but Welch’s recent LA Times op-ed on the subject will give you the flavor:

Sifting through McCain’s four bestselling books and nearly three decades of work on Capitol Hill, a distinct approach toward governance begins to emerge. And it’s one that the electorate ought to be particularly worried about right now. McCain, it turns out, wants to restore your faith in the U.S. government by any means necessary, even if that requires thousands of more military deaths, national service for civilians and federal micromanaging of innumerable private transactions. He’ll kick down the doors of boardroom and bedroom, mixing Democrats’ nanny-state regulations with the GOP’s red-meat paternalism in a dangerous brew of government activism. And he’s trying to accomplish this, in part, for reasons of self-realization.

But there’s a detail that I haven’t seen in any of Welch’s writings on McCain that further supports his case.  It’s stuck with me since I read it in newsprint some seven years ago.  From a profile of McCain in the February 27, 2000 edition of the New York Times, there’s this:

“I think he sensed that life held something bigger for him, but he didn’t know what it was yet,” said Doug McCain, his eldest son. The younger Mr. McCain remembers once going with his parents to France and visiting Napoleon’s tomb – Napoleon had been a childhood hero of John McCain – and sensing that his father was searching for any lessons history might hold about how he himself might best serve his country. [Emphasis added].

Napoleon “a childhood hero”?  No kidding.  As a kid, I think I preferred Aquaman, but it takes all kinds.   

Wealth, Income, and the Folly of Redistribution

A column by Peter Cuthbertson at TCS Daily comments on research showing that most wealthy people have very frugal habits. Indeed, their frugality is a big reason why they are wealthy:

Dr. Stanley revealed that the typical millionaire spent less than $400 on their most expensive suit, and only about 1% spent more than $2,800. Only one in ten millionaires had ever spent more than $300 on a pair of shoes. Most millionaires pay a few hundred dollars or less for their watch, and $30,000 or less for their main motor vehicle. They have been married to the same person most of their adult lives. …This is no coincidence. It is not that most millionaires are in the habit of being frugal despite their wealth: it is that they are so wealthy because they are in the habit of living so frugally. The plentiful residual income goes into savings and investments that are left to grow for decades. It is not inheritance that explains American millionaires: most inherited nothing and fewer than one fifth inherited even 10% of their wealth.

The column also notes that there is a big difference between income and wealth, and explains how class-warfare policies are poorly designed:

This surprising picture of America’s wealthy presents class warriors with two problems. First, un-American as it might be to scapegoat and overtax the rich when they are perceived as Porsche-driving and Rolex-wearing, one can nonetheless imagine the envy that might inspire. But what is the future of class hatred in an America where, in fact, Porsche drivers and Rolex wearers have little net wealth, and the real rich are those who eat at the same restaurants and drive the same cars as most people, even when they can afford not to? …Second, devising economic policies that would target the wealthy would be still more difficult. Higher income taxes might reduce income inequality, but it would be a sideshow to the reality that inequalities of wealth are a result of some living below their means, not unequal incomes.

Unfortunately, the American left is unlikely to promote the behaviors that would lead to greater prosperity among those with lower incomes:

If liberals are determined to reduce economic inequality, they would have to take lessons from Dr. Stanley and encourage generally a culture of delayed gratification and a certain amount of self-denial – a self-reliant America of stockholders and coupon-clippers who marry and stay married. This is the profile of America’s wealthy, and a serious effort to reduce inequality would mean getting more Americans to adopt this lifestyle.