Topic: General

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?

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.

Bush, McCain, and Prisoner Policy

Today’s Washington Post has an editorial entitled “Rush to Error.” The editorial says that Congress should not be pushed into approving the Bush-McCain accord with respect to the handling of prisoners. The Post is right.

The legal issues can get pretty complicated, but it may be useful to take a few steps back from the nitty-gritty to gain perspective. Last June, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in a case called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Court ruled that President Bush’s plan for trials before military tribunals was unlawful and that Common Article III of the Geneva Convention applied to all prisoners in U.S. custody. Thus, as a result of Hamdan, this is the status quo:

1. There will be no trials before special military tribunals.

2. The CIA “program” of secret arrests, secret detentions, and secret interrogation tactics is shut down.

3. There is a chance that there might be a war crimes prosecution someday because the War Crimes Act made it a crime to violate Common Article III of the Geneva Convention.

The Bush administration abhors the status quo and that is why it has been seeking legislation from the Congress in recent weeks. The proposed legislation will do at least three things:

1. It will revive a policy of trying persons before special military tribunals. (The Supreme Court ruling simply said that Bush could not set up the courts on his own authority).

2. It will, in effect, revive the CIA “program” of “alternative interrogation procedures.”

3. It will immunize past actions of government agents from criminal prosecution.

Given all this, the best thing that can happen is for Congress to simply adjourn.

Federal Voucher Advocates Ignore the Risks

Conservative school choice advocates seem almost unanimous in their desire for federal vouchers. Writing in National Review Online, the Fordham Foundation’s Michael Petrilli supports such a program on the grounds that it would save urban Catholic schools from insolvency. I couldn’t agree more that Catholic schools have been an invaluable educational lifeline for many families, and are eminently worth saving. But I am mystified by the right’s apparent lack of concern about the risks of federal school choice programs.

And I’m not just talking about the 10th Amendment’s proscription against federal education policymaking, which Bill Bennett and Rod Paige dismissed last week as “a naïve commitment to states’ rights.” I’m talking primarily about the sobering examples of national voucher programs in countries like the Netherlands and Sweden.

While these programs are superior, in many respects, to education monopolies such as our own, they suggest that federal voucher programs bring with them stifling federal regulation. In Sweden, the regulation was there from the start, while in the Netherlands it built up inexorably over time. There are no examples anywhere in the world of federal governments extending funding to private schools without also extending federal control – whether immediately or gradually. The end result is that independent schools lose their independence, and any hope for the rise of a truly competitive education industry is lost.

Why are conservatives ignoring this risk? Perhaps they no longer see federal regulatory encroachment as a risk at all. Many have specifically advocated increased federal intervention in the content of instruction (see this debate on federal standards between Michael Petrilli and Cato’s own Neal McCluskey, or Neal’s current piece in NRO).

There are alternatives. State level school choice policies are preferable to federal ones, and funding universal school choice with private dollars (through non-refundable tax credits) is preferable to doing it with government dollars. Short version of this argument here. Long version here.

It’s Getting Better All the Time (contd.)

The Washington Post has a 12-inch story on Tuesday with this headline:

Freshman from Arlington

Comes Down With Mumps 

Is that news? When I was a kid back in the benighted 60s, everyone got mumps. Why is it news today? Because now we have vaccines, and kids don’t get mumps any more. So it’s actually news when somebody gets “the mumps, a highly contagious viral disease.” Sounds bad when you put it that like that, but it seemed a standard part of growing up a generation ago.

According to this timeline, a vaccine was licensed in 1967, and an improved one in 1971. And since then, I guess, nobody gets mumps. Another reminder of why paying a high percentage of our income for medical care is not exactly a bad thing.