In “Budgeting in Neverland,” James L. Payne explains that one of the major reasons federal policy is so irrational – and expensive – is that policymakers typically hear only from people who stand to gain from expanding federal expenditures and programs, while those who bear the costs – taxpayers – are almost never heard from.
Federal higher education policy illustrates this perfectly. Case in point: a Department of Education notice issued just last Friday to establish “negotiated rulemaking,” part of the process for revising federal regulations. Take a look at the groups the feds will permit to have representatives on various rulemaking committees, and you’ll see Payne’s problem in action:
The Department has identified the constituencies listed below as having interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the negotiated rulemaking process. The Department anticipates that individuals representing each of these constituencies will participate as members of one or more of the negotiated rulemaking committees. These constituencies are:
Students; Legal assistance organizations that represent students; Financial aid administrators at institutions of higher education; Business officers and bursars at institutions of higher education; Institutional servicers (including collection agencies); Trustees; State higher education executive officers; Business and industry;
Institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under Title III, Parts A and B and Title V of the HEA, which includes Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic‐Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian‐Serving Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in Title III of the HEA; Two‐year public institutions of higher education; Four‐year public institutions of higher education; Private, non‐profit institutions of higher education; Private, for profit institutions of higher education; Guaranty agencies and guaranty agency servicers (including collection agencies); Lenders, secondary markets, and loan servicers; and Accrediting Agencies.
In addition to these groups, the Department would like the following groups to be represented on the negotiating committee for the ACG and National SMART Grant program:
K‑12 public schools, including charter schools; Governors; Private schools and home schooled students; Registrars; Admissions officers; Parent organizations; and Organizations related to National SMART Grant majors.
The feds recognize numerous groups as having “interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the negotiated rulemaking process,” but the people who actually pay the federal bills are nowhere among them. It’s just another example of your – I mean, their – government at work.
In its 38th annual poll of the public’s attitudes toward education released yesterday, Phi Delta Kappan magazine makes the following statements:
- “Since 1991, the PDK/Gallup polls have approached [the school choice] issue with a question that measures approval of the voucher concept — ‘allowing parents and students to choose a private school to attend at public expense.’ ”
- “Support for vouchers started at 24% in 1993…”
- “Support for vouchers is declining and stands in the mid‐30% range.”
This representation of their own survey results on the subject is incomplete, disingenuous, misleading, and, in one instance, factually incorrect.
PDK actually started asking the American public about vouchers back in 1970, with a rather more informative question:
In some nations, the government allots a certain amount of money for each child for his or her education. The parents can then send the child to any public, parochial, or private school they choose. This is called the “voucher system.” Would you like to see such an idea adopted in this country?
Response to this question was initially somewhat unfavorable, but those answering favorably began outnumbering those opposed in 1981, and that pattern was never reversed. The last time PDK ever asked this question, in 1991, 50 percent of respondents were in favor while only 39 percent were opposed.
I guess PDK’s editors just didn’t happen to have those back issues of their magazine handy when writing up this year’s report — which is somewhat odd given that they are now all available on‐line…
That’s the misleading and disingenuous part. The factually incorrect part is that they confuse the starting year of their own newly revised question (see the bullet points above), suggesting that it was introduced in both 1991 and 1993. In reality, it was first administered in 1993. As noted above, they were still asking their original voucher question — the one whose existence they now fail to acknowledge — through 1991.
I like to think — in the spirit of Edgar Allen Poe’s “Telltale Heart” — that their guilty conscience over sweeping their earlier voucher question and its positive results under the rug caused them to slip up on their chronology for the new question.
Oh, and in case anyone’s wondering, if you change just a handful of words in PDK’s current voucher question, the results are almost exactly reversed. The public’s response goes from being 60 percent opposed (PDK/Gallup 2006) to 60 percent in favor (Harris, 2005). A hearty thanks to the Friedman Foundation for pointing that out.
As a final historical note on the original voucher question wording, it was asked one last time, to my knowledge, in 1992, though not for Phi Delta Kappan. The response in that year was that 70 percent of Americans favored school vouchers when informed that they already exist in other countries.
How surprised should we be that an advocacy organization for the public school monopoly is reluctant to tell Americans about the competition and parental choice that exist in other nations?
The new president of Canada’s National Medical Association is an outspoken advocate of greater privatization of Canada’s national health care system. Dr. Brian Day, who was elected at the organizations annual meeting on Tuesday, operates a private‐pay medical clinic in technical violation of Canada’s single‐payer health care laws. Last year, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec’s prohibition on private payment for health care, and implying that other similar restrictions in other provinces were similarly unconstitutional. However, the prohibition remains on the books in Vancouver where Dr. Day runs his clinic. Dr. Day points to the long waiting lists and patient suffering under Canada’s system and says, “A state‐run monopoly is not the best way to run anything, let alone a health care system.”
Canadian journalists and observers say that Day’s election is the latest manifestation of a Canadian unhappiness with their government‐controlled system. Maybe they know something that advocates of a single‐payer system in this country don’t?
How well are Mexican immigrants and their offspring assimilating?
In his contribution to this month’s discussion at Cato Unbound, University of Texas economist Stephen J. Trejo lays out the latest findings. According to Trejo:
Mexican Americans are not too far off the path of intergenerational assimilation traveled by previous waves of European immigrants. During their first few generations in the United States, Mexican‐American families experience substantial economic and social mobility, and their actual progress is probably even greater than what we see in available data.
However, a slow rate of educational attainment remains a “critical problem” that may delay the full integration of Mexican Americans. But, Trejo says, the evidence suggests that Mexican Americans will eventually assimilate as fully as the once‐disdained Italian Americans.
Ars Technica — a wonderful publication with brief, informative, and interesting pieces on technology — is showing a little sloppliness in covering the broadband competition issue. The question whether there is sufficient competition in the provision of broadband Internet service underlies the debate about "net neutrality" — whether there should be public utility regulation of broadband.
Discussing FTC chair Deborah Majoras’ speech at the PFF Aspen Summit, an Ars reporter casually observes, “[M]arket forces really do not exist when it comes to broadband.” That’s at least overstatement. A little more caution would be good given the centrality of the issue.
To show the existence of a duopoly (which is not inherently a competition-free situation), the report links to an earlier Ars piece interpreting a study as showing “not much” competition between DSL and cable. But that conclusion goes only to price competition. And it’s a little overstated, too.
The actual study, from a group called Kagan Research, seems to show that DSL is the low-cost option (and getting lower), while cable is the high-bandwidth option (getting higher in bandwidth while dropping in cost more slowly). That diminishes head-to-head price(-only) competition because each is focused on a different niche. But they’re still in competition.
Remember when the Republicans would advocate smaller government and less federal spending?
Freshmen members were typically the most vocal proponents of limited government, as they often brought optimism and a strong ideology to Capitol Hill. After time, some of these GOP ideologues tended to succumb to the culture of Washington and lose their moorings. But this process usually took years.
Lately this phenomenon appears to be happening much more rapidly. Speaking about the recent explosion of pork-barrel spending, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) noted, “We’ve developed a culture, unfortunately, over a number of years where incoming freshmen are conditioned to believe that this is the only way to get reelected.”
Now, it seems even candidates for Congress are talking like inside-the-Beltway porkers. In a hotly contested race for an open congressional seat in Illinois, a “fiscally conservative” Republican is pledging to bring home the bacon if elected.
In researching government budgets, I come across dubious spending projects all the time, but one recent example struck me as particularly idiotic and unjust.
The title of a recent press release from New York governor George Pataki says it all: “GOVERNOR ANNOUNCES $500,000 IN GRANTS AVAILABLE FOR NEW YORK WINERIES TO IMPROVE THEIR WEBSITES.”
So, New York is taxing the hard‐earned wages of truck drivers and retail clerks and giving it to well‐heeled winery owners and web services companies?
Come on Americans, wake up. Far too much of what our federal, state, and local governments do these days is just pure theft.