If the season's got you thinking cynically about politics and politicians, TCM has the movies for you. It's running a series all this month called "American Politics on Film." You've missed classics like "A Face in the Crowd," but there's still time to catch "All the King's Men" this Thursday night, about a Southern reformer who becomes corrupted by power, and "All the President's Men" on Friday night, about an ambitious Westerner who was probably corrupt long before he got power. Also on Friday night: "Advise and Consent" and "Seven Days in May," made from the great political novels of the 50s and 60s. Whatever happened to great political novels, anyway?
For movies about freedom, click here.
Without picking a winner in last night’s debate, it’s fair to say that Mitt Romney avoided the sort of conspicuous gaffs that can sink a campaign. He may well become the next president of the United States. Would that be a good thing for American schoolchildren?
Yesterday, I faulted an op-ed the Governor wrote for consisting chiefly of vagaries---but perhaps that’s not such a bad thing. Given that the federal government has spent roughly $2 trillion on k-12 education since 1965 and achieved none of its objectives, a president who talks much but does less would be a decided improvement.
But there are a few specifics in Romney’s education white paper... and some of them are deeply disconcerting. Immediately after stressing that “states and localities are best-positioned to reform their education systems” the document reverses course and declares that “the federal government cannot ignore the troubled state of American K-12 education,” and “is uniquely positioned to provide financial support for the education of our neediest students and to require states and districts to tell the truth about how their schools and students are performing.”
Certainly the federal government should not ignore America’s educational woes, having contributed to many of them for over half a century. But the subsequent claims are untrue and do not follow from the first. It is simply false that federal government funding is “uniquely positioned” to improve the education of the neediest students. In fact, one of the flagship federal programs for helping these students, Head Start, has been proven to have no lasting benefits by the federal government’s own research. More broadly, there appears to be no link between federal K-12 spending patterns and the student achievement gaps by socio-economic status or race. Nor is there any evidence that the federal oversight introduced by the No Child Left Behind law (the “telling the truth” referred to above) improved achievement overall or narrowed the gaps.
On the day of the second presidential debate, I had the pleasure of participating in a panel discussion at debate-host Hofstra University. The topic was "defusing the student loan debt bomb," and I was the lone voice calling for an end to inflation-fueling federal student aid. My co-panelists were Tamara Draut of the think tank Demos, Above the Law blog co-editor Elie Mystal, and U.S. PIRG's Ed Mierzwinski.
I had perhaps the best interaction with Mystal, with whom I had interesting chats throughout the day. Mystal's response to my proposal was basically that poor and minority students need help, and phasing out federal aid would disproportionately hurt them. It was an argument with which I could sympathize, and it made more sense than just proclaiming "college education is a public good and should basically be free." Unfortunately, writing on his blog post-debate, Mystal said that my "view makes a certain kind of sense" but nonetheless smacks of "the classic, Republican 'f**k 'em' approach that disproportionately screws the poor and minorities."
Um, ouch. Ascribing callousness or cruelty to either me or Republicans because we don't like the negative effects of aid is, frankly, precisely why we can't have a reasoned debate about these things. Maybe I'm an exceptionally gifted multi-tasker, or maybe I've just contemplated some important logic and facts, but I can be against mega-inflation without being indifferent to the poor. Indeed, quite the opposite.
As I mentioned yesterday, this is Free Speech Week.
Today we are highlighting Cato’s work in the area of campaign finance reform.
- “Let’s Not Give Politicians the Power to Decide What We Can Say about Them,” by Douglas Johnson and Mike Beard
- John Samples offers thoughts on mandated disclosure and freedom of speech in his Cato Unbound article, “Speech for Me, But not for Thee,” November 18th, 2010
- “Campaign Finance Proposals That Deter Speech Are Bad,” Posted by Ilya Shapiro, July 25, 2012
- “Citizens United Redux: The First Amendment Vindicated?,” Policy Forum, Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Join us Monday, October 22nd at 8:45 PM ET for live commentary during the third and final presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The debate this time will focus on foreign policy, covering these topics:
- America’s role in the world
- Our longest war — Afghanistan and Pakistan
- Red Lines — Israel and Iran
- The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism — I
- The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism — II
- The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World
Tweet questions during the debate to the live blog participants below:
- David Boaz, Executive Vice President (@David_Boaz)
- Gene Healy, Vice President (@GeneHealy)
- Christopher A. Preble, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies (@CAPreble)
- Simon Lester, Trade Policy Analyst (@SNLester)
- Bill Watson, Trade Policy Analyst (@KW_Watson)
The advisers who introduced Mitt Romney to the idea that he should spend at least 4 percent of GDP on the Pentagon's budget are busy clarifying what he means. But "their comments," conclude Bloomberg's Gopal Ratnam and Tony Capaccio:
only add to the uncertainty about how much a President Romney might add to the Pentagon’s budget and when, what the additional spending would buy other than more warships and how he’d propose to pay for what analysts say may be as much as $2 trillion in added spending while also whittling down the federal deficit as he’s promised.
Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon comptroller in George W. Bush's administration, told Ratnam and Capaccio that Romney's 4 percent promise is a goal that "is not going to be achieved overnight or perhaps even by the end of the first term." How quickly Romney reaches his 4 percent target, Zakheim explained at an event last week organized by the group Military Reporters & Editors, "will very much depend on the state of the economy and very much depends on the offsets you’ll be able to find within the defense budget," but he affirmed that "Every effort will be made to ramp up as soon as possible."
Differing assumptions about the pace of Romney's increase explain the continued confusion surrounding his 4 percent plan. Zakheim had earlier claimed that the $2 trillion estimate cited by Obama "is essentially an assumption that we go to 4 percent of GDP from the get-go." The Romney campaign, he explained, doesn’t intend to "come in with a massive supplemental" to the current budget to boost defense spending.
Others, including vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, have criticized the $2 trillion figure, but have failed to offer their own estimate of the likely costs of Romney's promise. In particular, Romney supporters have singled out an analysis by Travis Sharp of the Center for New American Security (CNAS), and have accused Sharp and CNAS of running cover for Obama. In earlier remarks to reporters, Zakheim asserted that the $2 trillion was concocted by Democrats, for shock value, and that it should therefore be taken with a grain of salt.
As to the question of how the additional Pentagon spending would be paid for, James Carafano at the Heritage Foundation shared some ideas with Ratnam and Capaccio. Romney may be able to reach the 4 percent of GDP goal by the end of the first term and still cut deficits as he has promised "with two caveats," Carafano explained. Romney would have to get "tax reform done and address long-term entitlement spending."
Slowly but surely, we are starting to understand Romney's promise. And who said presidential campaigns were a waste of time?
A few clarifications are still in order, however.
The President and Governor Romney have dueling op‐eds in Time Magazine that are nominally about higher education. Neither really is. Governor Romney’s piece, in fact, doesn’t seem to be about anything at all, its vagueness evoking Isaac Asimov’s Lord Dorwin. The President’s piece does offer a few concretes, but mostly about K‑12 and entirely wrongheaded. On the principle that bad specifics are worse than no specifics at all, let’s start with President Obama. He writes:
We know that a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by more than $250,000. A great teacher can change the trajectory of a child’s life. That’s why, even as we faced one of the worst economic crises in history, I fought to keep teachers in the classroom.
The President conflates the quantity of teachers with their quality. At best, these two factors are uncorrelated. At worst — in those few states and districts which pay teachers based on performance — the two factors are negatively correlated: employing more teachers leaves less money to pay suitable salaries to excellent ones.
We have already doubled the public school workforce over the past 40 years despite having only 8.5% more students today than we did in 1970. Put another way, employment has grown 11 times faster than enrollment. What good did it do? See the charts here. After hiring 3 million additional public school employees — two million of them teachers or teachers’ aides — student performance at the end of high school is essentially flat. The cost of this public school employment bloat is about $210 billion annually — roughly double the combined state budget shortfalls for 2012.
The President knows all this, but can safely assume that most American voters don’t. Thanks to decades of misreporting by the media, most Americans think public school class sizes have been growing and spending has been declining, when in fact the complete opposite is true.
Next, President Obama claims to have spurred states “to raise standards for teaching and learning.” Even if we grant the President’s unjustified assumption that high government standards improve student performance, he is ignoring the reality that his administration’s policy of conditionally waiving requirements of the federal NCLB law have caused some states to lower their standards. A recent and notorious case is Florida, which, thanks to an Obama administration NCLB waiver, has introduced new standards for educational achievement by race and ethnicity: black students will be held to a lower standard than Hispanics, who will be held to a lower standard than whites, who will be held to a lower standard than Asians. Had this happened under a previous administration, the national media would have assailed it as institutional racism and pilloried the President for pursuing the policy that precipitated it.
In a sensible world, each and every child would be helped and encouraged to fulfill his or her individual potential. Children are not interchangeable widgets to be sorted by color — or, for that matter, by age. Proclivity to learn differs not only between kids, but even within them, from one subject to the next.
We live at a time when it is easy to tailor instruction to each child, individually; grouping them — when group instruction is advantageous — based on where they are in the material in each subject, not purely on their age or some other arbitrary measure. The Jesuits started doing this in 1599, for heaven’s sake, we should certainly be doing it in 2012.
Indeed, the private tutoring sector already functions this way all over the world, because it seeks to provide the most educational value for parents’ dollars. Such individually‐tailored instruction is unlikely to ever dominate the government‐run approach to schooling championed by President Obama.