Appearing on Fox News last night, Cato scholar Neal McCluskey weighed in on Obama’s upcoming address to students:

The Washington Post reports on the results of a survey of federal agencies on their hiring needs conducted by the Partnership for Public Service:

The federal government needs to hire more than 270,000 workers for ‘mission-critical’ jobs over the next three years… Mission-critical jobs are those positions identified by the agencies as being essential for carrying out their services. The study estimates that the federal government will need to hire nearly 600,000 people for all positions over President Obama’s four years — increasing the current workforce by nearly one-third.

Given the mind-set of most government managers I’ve encountered, I’m a little surprised they didn’t define all 600,000 as “mission critical.” But 270,000 or 600,000, that’s a lot more folks living at the expense of the economically productive class of people in this country called taxpayers.

According to the Post:

The nation’s unsettled economy and high unemployment rate may ease the government’s task, as workers turn to the federal sector for job security and good benefits.

As my colleague Chris Edwards has been pointing out, the average federal employee is doing quite well in comparison to the average private sector employee when it comes to compensation. See here, here, and here.

But here’s the line that made my skin crawl:

It [federal government] has to win the war for talent in order to win the multiple wars it’s fighting for the American people,’ said Max Stier, president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, the think tank that conducted the survey of 35 federal agencies, representing nearly 99 percent of the federal workforce.

I could be wrong but I don’t think Stier is referring to Afghanistan and Iraq, so what are these “wars” for the American people? Is he talking about the government’s counterproductive “war” on poverty? Its failed “war” on drugs? Its “war” on [insert societal ill here]? There’s a war going on alright: it’s the federal government’s war against the productive men and women out there who have the fruits of their efforts gobbled up by that Leviathan on the Potomac. The last thing the economy needs are the best and brightest this country has to offer wasting their abilities in some bureaucracy when they could be out starting businesses, creating new technologies, etc., etc. As Chris Edwards likes to point out, would we rather Bill Gates had put his talents to work at the U.S. Department of Commerce?

Heh, great photoshop work from the folks at the Voice for School Choice in SC.

I’ll be speaking for the Freedom and Free Societies Program at Cornell University next Thursday, September 10. Details here.

I’ll also be speaking at Vanderbilt and in Nashville on September 29. Details to come.

NRO points out that, after criticism from pundits and the blogosphere, the Obama administration has revised its suggested curriculum activities tied to his speech to schoolchildren next Tuesday. Originally, the Department of Education’s “Menu of Activities” recommended that elementary school children “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” The new guidance suggests that students should write letters about realizing their own education goals.

It’s a relief to see the administration redress the Orwellian undertone of its original curriculum guidance. But the real problem isn’t what the president or the education department have to SAY. The problem is what they are actually doing.

If the president really wants to improve academic achievement and raise graduation rates, why did he kill the federal private school choice program in Washington DC? His own education department reports that this program significantly raises students’ academic achievement, and it’s doing so at one quarter the cost of the city’s public schools. Several scientific studies also show that private schools significantly raise the high school graduation rate over the level of public schools, especially for inner-city African American students who are at a high risk of dropping out. And that holds true even when the public and private school students being compared come from similar families.

Instead of just telling kids to get good grades and stay in school, president Obama should support policies that are proven to achieve those goals. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. president.

Since Neal McCluskey and I weighed in on the president’s planned address to public school students this morning, we’ve been getting a whole lot of calls and e‑mails from parents who aren’t too keen on the prospect. They’ve been asking us how to let their school districts know that they don’t feel comfortable with the president as “Educator in Chief.”

If you’re in the same boat, here’s how to contact your district officials and (politely, of course) voice your opinion. Go to this school district search page at the Department of Education and type in the name of your district and the state that it’s in. Click the button and it will display your district’s telephone number.

I’m sure the president would approve of helping parents to become more actively involved in their own children’s education.

• Convicted pedophile in the United Kingdom given taxpayer-funded Viagra through the National Health Service.

• Cato senior fellow Tom Palmer filing a lawsuit to legally carry firearms in Washington D.C.

• How it all came crashing down: The causes of the financial crisis.

• A few things you should know to better understand the elections in Afghanistan.

• Podcast: How some on the right-wing are doing everything they can to defend torture. Let’s just call them “enhanced justification techniques.”