Florida Judge Dismisses Lawsuit against School Choice

This morning, a Florida circuit court judge dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit by the members of the education establishment against the 13-year old Florida Tax-Credit Scholarship law, which grants tax credits to corporations that make donations to nonprofit scholarship organizations. About 70,000 low-income students in Florida currently receive tax-credit scholarships to attend the schools of their choice. Travis Pillow of RedefinEd (a blog connected to the scholarship organization Step Up for Students) has the story:

The statewide teachers union, the Florida PTA, the Florida School Boards Association and other groups filed the lawsuit in August, arguing the tax credit scholarship program unconstitutionally created a “parallel” system of publicly supported schools and violated a state constitutional provision barring state aid for religious institutions.

Judge George Reynolds, however, dismissed the case this morning. The plaintiffs, he ruled, could not show the scholarships harmed public schools, and could not challenge the program as taxpayers because it was not funded through the state budget.

Claims the lawsuit would harm public schools were purely “speculative,” Reynolds wrote, siding with arguments made by the state and parents who had intervened in the case. The plaintiffs could not show the program would hurt school districts’ per-pupil funding, or result in “any adverse impact on the quality of education” in public schools.

In dismissing the lawsuit on these grounds, the judge is following the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court and the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

In ACSTO v. Winn (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the standing of plaintiffs against Arizona’s tax-credit scholarship law because the scholarships constitute private funds, not government expenditures. Private funds, the Court ruled, do not become government property until they have “come into the tax collector’s hands.” Moreover, any impact on other taxes or spending is purely speculative, so the plaintiffs could not demonstrate any harm:

The costs of education may be a significant portion of Arizona’s annual budget, but the tax credit, by facilitating the operation of both religious and secular private schools, could relieve the burden on public schools and provide cost savings to the State. Even if the tax credit had an adverse effect on Arizona’s budget, problems would remain. To find a particular injury in fact would require speculation that Arizona lawmakers react to revenue shortfalls by increasing respondents’ tax liability.

Last year, in Duncan v. New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a lawsuit against the Granite State’s tax-credit scholarship law for the same reasons:

The personal injuries alleged by the petitioners in this case […] are insufficient to establish standing. The petitioners’ claim that the program will result in “net fiscal losses” to local governments does not articulate a personal injury. […] Moreover, the purported injury asserted here – the loss of money to local school districts – is necessarily speculative. […] Even if the tax credits result in a decrease in the number of students attending local public schools, it is unclear whether, as the petitioners allege, local governments will experience “net fiscal losses.” The prospect that this will occur requires speculation about whether a decrease in students will reduce public school costs and about how the legislature will respond to the decrease in students attending public schools, assuming that occurs.

This morning, the Florida judge reached the same, logical conclusion. The plaintiffs are not challenging “a program funded by legislative appropriations” so they lack standing to sue. Moreover, citing both of the above opinions, the judge concluded that any “injury” they allege is purely speculative:

Plaintiff’s Complaint also does not allege special injury sufficient to confer standing on Plaintiffs to challenge the constitutionality of the Tax Credit Program. […] [W]hether any diminution of public school resources resulting from the Tax Credit Program will actually take place is speculative, as is any claim that any such diminution would result in reduced per-pupil spending or in any adverse impact on the quality of education.

The plaintiffs are likely to appeal. And they are likely to lose that appeal. Last September, another circuit court judge dismissed a separate teachers union lawsuit alleging that the legislation expanding the tax-credit scholarship law was passed improperly. That judge also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they could not demonstrate any harm.

Perhaps the education establishment should spend less time trying to prevent students from leaving their schools and more time trying to improve their schools so families will choose them.

A Happy Birthday for Head Start?

Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson announced the launch of Project Head Start, a federal program that would deliver health, nutritional, academic, and other services to low-income, preschool children, hopefully giving them an early boost in life. It was certainly well intentioned, but as the federal government’s own research has shown, pure intentions don’t make something work, nor do hundreds-of-billions of taxpayer dollars:

In summary, there were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found for either cohort in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices. The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children.

Unfortunately, the expansion of government pre-K programs generally seems to be based much more on good intentions than evidence. As George Mason University professor David Armor concluded in a recent examination of the research not just on Head Start, but numerous state-level preschool programs, “the evidence as it currently exists demonstrates only short-term skill gains that fade after a few years.”

It’s Head Start’s birthday. How happy should we be?

Washington Should Give Gulf State “Allies” No Special Favors

Washington’s determination to defend much of the globe has made the U.S. an international sucker, especially vulnerable to manipulation by supposed friends. Today the Gulf States are upset.

The basic “problem” in their view is that Washington is pursuing the interests of America, not Saudi Arabia & Co., which is seeking hegemony over the Gulf. The administration organized a summit yesterday to assuage their concerns, at which he promised to defend them.

They complain that Washington negotiated to prevent Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon rather than demanded Tehran’s surrender when that country said no, as it almost certainly would have. Even though forestalling development of an Iranian nuke would dramatically improve the region’s security environment, the Gulf nations worry that eliminating sanctions would increase Iranian revenues.

They insist on overthrowing Syria’s Bashar Assad, even though he has not threatened the U.S. Finally, they want Washington to issue security guarantees to protect corrupt gerontocracies and monarchies.

However, American foreign policy should be about promoting America’s security. As a global superpower which stands supreme militarily, the U.S. actually does not much need alliances to protect itself, especially in the Middle East.

Washington’s interests in the region are far more limited than commonly assumed. The energy market is global and expanding. The Gulf States would sell their oil even if Washington did not act as monarchical bodyguard on call.

Democratic and humanitarian concerns have been hopelessly compromised by decades of support for dictatorships like in the Gulf. First do no harm would be the best humanitarian prescription.

Israel’s safety is of concern to many Americans. However, it is a regional superpower well able to defend itself.

Instability is endemic to the region and beyond America’s control. Indeed, in recent years Washington has demonstrated that intervention promotes instability.

America’s most important interest is terrorism. Yet U.S. support for authoritarian monarchies angered the likes of Osama bin Laden, making America a target of violence, including 9/11. At the same time the Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, were underwriting Islamic fundamentalism and violent extremism. The Riyadh-led attacks on Yemen have empowered al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

A “new equilibrium” is desperately required, as President Barack Obama suggested. But not the one he favors.

Before the summit the Gulf States pushed for a formal defense treaty, but likely congressional opposition killed that option. So, explained Secretary of State John Kerry last week: “we are fleshing out a series of new commitments that will create, between the United States and the GCC, a new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives that will take us beyond anything that we have had before.”

As I write on Forbes online: “It is hard to imagine a worse idea than committing America to directly intervene in conflicts irrelevant to American security on behalf of nations which share none of America’s most cherished values and which are able to defend themselves.” The conference attendees already have an institutional frameworks for common defense, the Gulf Cooperation Council and 22-member League of Arab States. Saudi Arabia ranks fourth in the world in military outlays.

The U.S. probably is best served if no single state dominates the Mideast. Certainly not Riyadh. The Kingdom tolerates no religious or political liberty at home; Riyadh has radicalized Islamic children around the world through construction of fundamentalist madrassahs. Saudi Arabia may have done more than any other country to promote terrorism.

Instead of offering long-term dependents enhanced protection, Washington should indicate that it is turning regional affairs over to those in the region. The Middle East likely would be an unstable, chaotic mess—rather like today. Conflict would continue, and it would be better for Americans to be out, not in, the unending bloodletting.

The administration did not need the summit to better communicate with the Gulf States. Washington should just say no and adopt a new policy.

You Ought to Have a Look: Human Progress Linked to Better Environment

You Ought to Have a Look is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science posted by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. (“Chip”) Knappenberger.  While this section will feature all of the areas of interest that we are emphasizing, the prominence of the climate issue is driving a tremendous amount of web traffic.  Here we post a few of the best in recent days, along with our color commentary.


A scattering of stories this week addressed the well-known, but perhaps not widely-recognized, fact that with human progress comes a more protected environment.

First up is a piece called “The Return of Nature: How Technology Liberates the Environment” posted at the Breakthrough Journal by Jesse Ausubel. This article makes a strong companion to the Ecomodernist Manifesto, that we commented on a few weeks ago.

The main premise is that human technology, as it develops and matures, actually decreases our negative impact on the environment.  This is something that we have been fond of saying—the richer and more developed a country becomes, the more it protects its environment. Instead of measures to restrict human progress (such as artificially limiting energy choice) we should be supporting efforts to further it.

Ausubel’s essay is packed with interesting nuggets of information—a comparison of amount of corn fed to people vs. that fed to cars, mpg of farm animals, peak demand of materials, etc.—some of which may be new to even ardent followers of human progress. Here is the article’s teaser:

Despite predictions of runaway ecological destruction, beginning in the 1970s, Americans began to consume less and tread more lightly on the planet. Over the past several decades, through technological innovation, Americans now grow more food on less acres, eat more sources of meat that are less land-intrusive, and used water more efficiently so that water use is lower than in 1970. The result: lands that were once used for farms and logging operations are now returning as forests and grasslands, along with wildlife, such as the return of humpback whales off the shores of New York City. As Jesse Ausubel elucidates in a new essay for Breakthrough Journal, as humans depend less on nature for the well-being, the more nature they have returned.

Ausubel’s full article is really well-worth a detailed look.

Wasting a Crisis: A Book Forum

Wasting a CrisisThis is a story we all know: the Great Depression was caused by market failure, the predictable fall-out from the excesses of the unrestrained, unregulated, Wild West that was the securities markets at the dawn of the 20th century. After all, before the 1930s, there was no Securities and Exchange Commission. The state securities laws, the so-called “blue sky laws,” were also products of the early 20th century, largely implemented between 1911 and 1931. These laws, as well as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, tamed the wild speculators that had been defrauding the American public by requiring transparency in the markets and promoting thorough disclosure in securities offerings.

But is that story true? Paul Mahoney, Dean of the University of Virginia School of Law, has dug deeply into this narrative in his recent book, Wasting a Crisis: Why Securities Regulation Fails. The results of his research and analysis reveal a mismatch between the received wisdom about the causes of the Depression and the actual data, and a pattern of crisis-narrative-regulation that has persisted through the recent Great Recession and the implementation of Dodd-Frank.

Dean Mahoney recently shared his thoughts on these and related issues at a book forum at the Cato Institute. Joining us was also banking regulation scholar Heidi Schooner of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, leading to an interesting discussion of the externalities of bank failures and the application of banking regulation principles to non-bank entities.

Watch the video of the event:

The Lax Kw’alaams and Why Property Rights Matter

The New York Times recently reported that the Lax Kw’alaams Band, an indigenous tribe in a remote part of British Columbia, has rejected a $1 billion offer for their consent to the construction of a natural gas processing facility that would service a nearby liquefied natural gas terminal. The group, which has about 3,600 members, would have received the equivalent of about $277,000 per person to allow the plant. The leader of the group explained their decision by saying, “Hopefully, the public will recognize that unanimous consensus in communities (and where unanimity is the exception) against a project where those communities are offered in excess of a billion dollars, sends an unequivocal message this is not a money issue: this is environmental and cultural.”

In normal market transactions, resources flow to those who value them the most regardless of who owns them initially. In this case, that would imply the decision to build the facility (whether now or in the future) does not depend on whether the Lax Kw’alaams Band or the gas company owns the land. Ownership simply determines who has to pay whom in order to develop the land or leave it undeveloped. If the gas company owned the land, they would not have to pay the tribe in order to develop the plant, but the tribe could purchase the land (or, at least, an anti-development easement) from the gas company in order to keep it undeveloped. If the tribe owns the land, the gas company would have to pay or the land would stay undeveloped. In both cases, development would occur if the gas company values the land more than the tribe.

That’s the general theory, but in this particular case the facts suggest that initial property rights do matter. In the case of the Lax Kw’alaams, the group places great value on keeping the land from being despoiled by a natural gas plant. A decade or so ago, the Canadian Supreme Court determined that tribes like the Lax Kw’alaams must be consulted and accommodated if projects cross their land. The tribe clearly has strong preferences for a pristine environment, and has made the choice to forgo a windfall to maintain it.

But what would have happened if the property rights belonged to someone else? If the party given the right had weaker environmental preferences, the terminal would likely be built; it’s doubtful the Lax Kw’alaams would win (or perhaps even enter) a bidding war with the gas company over control of the land. Because participants in environmental policy disputes “know” that property rights matter in this way, they fight politically over who has the current property rights rather than allow rights to exist and be traded.

Budget Caps? What Budget Caps?

This special post was written by Travis Evans, research associate in Cato’s Defense and Foreign Policy Studies Department.

House Republicans have found a way to circumvent those bothersome Budget Control Act (BCA) spending caps. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, brazenly stated that the $611.9 billion defense authorization bill, which was passed by the House today, adheres to the BCA cap on discretionary defense spending. How, you may be asking, is it possible to authorize $89 billion more than the caps and still adhere to them? Simple: funnel the money through a slush fund that is not beholden to the spending caps, in this case the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account.

Using the OCO account to supplement discretionary defense spending is so common nowadays that Chairman Thornberry explains the Republicans’ actions as if we should applaud him and his colleagues for saving the defense budget.

The caps are a concern, but we found a way to add to the Overseas Contingency account, so that we in the House budget and the defense bill on the floor right now meet exactly the amount the president has ask for.

You see what he did there? He is able to say that the Republicans are honoring the caps (the ones they agreed to in 2011) while giving the president the defense spending he requested. Clever. But maybe too clever. Congressional Democrats don’t seem to be persuaded. Even the president is opposed to the bill (albeit because of some particulars of the bill, not the topline spending amount).

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called the bill “disingenuous” and “dangerous,” stating that the “Republicans are trying to use war funding as a virtual slush fund for one part of the budget while letting the ax fall on everything else.” While I’m not in the habit of agreeing with Rep. Pelosi, she is right in this case.