Not really, but that is what oppoents of school choice would have you believe. Hat Tip to Coyote Blog for the subject of this rant.
Many times, I think, in this blog, I have advocated for a complete choice in education for parents and kids. The basis of my belief is that only through pure competition for education dollars will schools responde to the needs of their students. I have long illustrated my tendency by looking at the university system in the United States as proof that parents and children can find the school they want and serves their needs and wants. (and unfortuneatly that decision is often undermined by what they can afford).
I believe, and I think most people will agree, that the American university marketplace is the most effective educational system in the world. Between public and private, large and small, niche and generalists, east vs. west, north vs. south, specialities and excellences on every campus, we as a nation can find a higher edcuation institution to fit our needs. Schools compete for the tuition dollars of each student, rewarded when they woo students successfully and in doing so make every institution a little better.
Every year, parents and prospective students look at their educational wants and desires, the economics of their situation and other factors and determine, for themselves, what is the best college for them. If the model works for higher education, why can't that same system of choice work for elementary and secondary education?
The most common response and one found in the comments to the Coyote Blog post is
"some day we are going to have to get along and see ourselves are participating in the society. Walling ourselves off into camps where everyone can agree with each other does nothing to further dialog. "
This is the concept of a shared educational experience, that if all kids are in the same classroom, they will have a shared understanding and thus build a better society. But this is a fallacy because the shared educational experiecne is neither shared nor educational. Modern public schools are failing for the very reason that they are no longer providing an education. They fail because we as a society have no means of enforcing accountibility. If you want an example, look at how hard it is to fire a teacher for incompetence. You can barely get a teacher fired for child molestation let along for being a poor teacher.
But when the education money follows the student, from school to school, you get some accountibility. However, for that system to work, you have to give parents the absolute right to choose the school setting for their kids. Of course, educrats and the labor unions would fight such a right tooth and nail. But here is an example of what can happen with market accountibility:
New Zealand had an education system that was failing as well. It was failing about 30 percent of its children – especially those in lower socio-economic areas. We had put more and more money into education for 20 years, and achieved worse and worse results.
It cost us twice as much to get a poorer result than we did 20 years previously with much less money. So we decided to rethink what we were doing here as well. The first thing we did was to identify where the dollars were going that we were pouring into education. We hired international consultants (because we didn’t trust our own departments to do it), and they reported that for every dollar we were spending on education, 70 cents was being swallowed up by administration. Once we heard this, we immediately eliminated all of the Boards of Education in the country. Every single school came under the control of a board of trustees elected by the parents of the children at that school, and by nobody else. We gave schools a block of money based on the number of students that went to them, with no strings attached. At the same time, we told the parents that they had an absolute right to choose where their children would go to school. It is absolutely obnoxious to me that anybody would tell parents that they must send their children to a bad school. We converted 4,500 schools to this new system all on the same day.
But we went even further: We made it possible for privately owned schools to be funded in exactly the same way as publicly owned schools, giving parents the ability to spend their education dollars wherever they chose. Again, everybody predicted that there would be a major exodus of students from the public to the private schools, because the private schools showed an academic advantage of 14 to 15 percent. It didn’t happen, however, because the differential between schools disappeared in about 18-24 months. Why? Because all of a sudden teachers realized that if they lost their students, they would lose their funding; and if they lost their funding, they would lose their jobs. Eighty-five percent of our students went to public schools at the beginning of this process. That fell to only about 84 percent over the first year or so of our reforms. But three years later, 87 percent of the students were going to public schools. More importantly, we moved from being about 14 or 15 percent below our international peers to being about 14 or 15 percent above our international peers in terms of educational attainment. (Emphasis added).
See this link for the whole speech dealing with massive government reform in New Zealand.
Of course, in this country we have problems with federalism, namely Congress can't just outlaw school boards, but a state can. A state with a goverment with enough backbone can undertake exactly what happened in New Zealand. But the facts remain true in New Zealand as they would here, consumer choice and accountibility to the consumer produce results--period. If the product is bad, the product goes away.
This post stuck in a Beltway BackUp.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Statistics for Dummies
If you are looking for more confirmation that the people running the education system are generally in need of some additional basic education, here it is.
From the Washington Post, it appears as though many states are padding their numbers in the graduation rate category to comply with NCLB. North Carolina reported that 97% of its students graduated. But independent studies show that less than 2/3's of students actually get a diploma. How does the state explain the vast discrepancy? With this little gem:
"We know there's a problem of apples and oranges," said Janice Davis, North Carolina's acting superintendent of education. She said the state was changing its reporting system to try to get more meaningful data.
First, North Carolina needs to get a permanent superintendant of public education--not an acting one.
Second, you don't have a comparison problem, you have a crappy data problem. Fruit metaphors aside, here is how I, an average taxpayer, would calculate a graduation rate. You take the number of kids enrolling in the first year of high school, whether that is 9th or 10th grade (N). You do this statewide. You subtract out students who transfer out of state (TO). Add in those who transfer into the state (TI) and those who get held back for academic reasons (HB). Then count the number who actually graduated (G). Divide the second number by the first number to get your graduation rate. Thus the equation
G/(N+TI+HB-TO)=graduation rate. There is your meaningful data!! If you don't have this data you need to figure out a way to get the data--simple as that.
This is not hard math. But then again, I am just a taxpayer--with a J.D. I am clearly not educated enough to understand the fuzzy math of education departments claiming such ridiculous educational "victories."
But as one expert noted:
"As a nation, we spend 40 times as much money checking data on test scores as we do on whether students complete school," said Gary Oldfield, a Harvard University professor who recently completed a study of graduation rates in southern states. "Some of the data doesn't even pass the laugh test."
If true, a shocking statistic. But not all that surprising since I have noticed that schools spend a lot of money on unnecessary pursuits while ignoring important ones, like how many people actually get a diploma or teaching.
States' Graduation Data Criticized
From the Washington Post, it appears as though many states are padding their numbers in the graduation rate category to comply with NCLB. North Carolina reported that 97% of its students graduated. But independent studies show that less than 2/3's of students actually get a diploma. How does the state explain the vast discrepancy? With this little gem:
"We know there's a problem of apples and oranges," said Janice Davis, North Carolina's acting superintendent of education. She said the state was changing its reporting system to try to get more meaningful data.
First, North Carolina needs to get a permanent superintendant of public education--not an acting one.
Second, you don't have a comparison problem, you have a crappy data problem. Fruit metaphors aside, here is how I, an average taxpayer, would calculate a graduation rate. You take the number of kids enrolling in the first year of high school, whether that is 9th or 10th grade (N). You do this statewide. You subtract out students who transfer out of state (TO). Add in those who transfer into the state (TI) and those who get held back for academic reasons (HB). Then count the number who actually graduated (G). Divide the second number by the first number to get your graduation rate. Thus the equation
G/(N+TI+HB-TO)=graduation rate. There is your meaningful data!! If you don't have this data you need to figure out a way to get the data--simple as that.
This is not hard math. But then again, I am just a taxpayer--with a J.D. I am clearly not educated enough to understand the fuzzy math of education departments claiming such ridiculous educational "victories."
But as one expert noted:
"As a nation, we spend 40 times as much money checking data on test scores as we do on whether students complete school," said Gary Oldfield, a Harvard University professor who recently completed a study of graduation rates in southern states. "Some of the data doesn't even pass the laugh test."
If true, a shocking statistic. But not all that surprising since I have noticed that schools spend a lot of money on unnecessary pursuits while ignoring important ones, like how many people actually get a diploma or teaching.
States' Graduation Data Criticized
New York Daily News - City News - UFT-run school rings bell for 150 lucky kids
From the New York Daily News--a little contradiction in terms. It appears as though a teacher's union will be running a charter school in New York City. You read that right a TEACHER'S UNION will be running a charter school.
I wonder what will happen to the stance of teacher's unions if this particular charter school succeeds. One of my guesses will be, "see charter schools only work if they are run by a teacher's union. All other charter schools are worthless."
Interesting questions.
UFT-run school rings bell for 150 lucky kids
I wonder what will happen to the stance of teacher's unions if this particular charter school succeeds. One of my guesses will be, "see charter schools only work if they are run by a teacher's union. All other charter schools are worthless."
Interesting questions.
UFT-run school rings bell for 150 lucky kids
College Graduation Rates Among Athletes--a Proposal to Fix the Problem
For those who follow sports, you may have heard about the new collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and the players' union. One feature of the new CBA is that players have to be 19 to be eligible for the draft. The hope of course is that by raising the age of draft eligibility, there will be less recruitment of high school players. Whether that happens is an open question, but there are other issues involved.
On theory resulting from the NBA change is the the question of whether athletes will go to college for one year and then leave for the pros. In this regard, the NCAA has a vested interest in discouraging such behavior. One way they could discourage such activity, in all sports, is to change the way in which scholarships are handled. Admittedly, this idea is originally my father's but I have tried to develop on the idea.
The NCAA provides data on graduation statistics of student athletes compared to the student population as a whole. At first glance, just on general numbers it looks like students-athletes do better at graduating within SIX years. But if you review the data a little more, you see some disturbing numbers as well as some surprising numbers.
First, I just want to say that only 3 in 5 students as a whole graduate college within six years of first time enrollement. This bothers me for a number of reasons that are beyond this little article.
Next, fully 7 in 10 of female students athletes graduate--a full 10 percent higher than the average of the student body in general. This supports the general theory that more women are getting degrees than men even though there are fewer female student athletes in Division I colleges. Among female student athletes, the graduation rates for athletes is higher, in all sports in all categories than for the female student population as a whole. So at the very least, if you are a female athlete on an athletic scholarship, you are much more likely to use the scholarship for its intended purpose--getting an education.
Looking at some numbers for men though reveal the opposite story. More male students athletes fail to complete college in six years than the male population as a whole. The NCAA compiles statistics for male athletes in five catgories, baseball, basketball, cross-country/Track, football and everyone else. Only in other sports (61%) and track (60%) do the male athletes do better than the general population (57%). In football, the numbers a little worse, 55% graduate in six years compared to the general population of 57%. This may be the result of the physical demands of football and the NFL rule that a player must be a junior in college or at least three years out of high school to be eligible to play in the NFL rahter than any effort by the NCAA.
In baseball and basketball, the gradation rates are abyssmal. In baseball, only 46% of freshmen graduate. In basket ball only 44% of student athletes graduate in six years. Why? Well one reason, I believe is that there is no incentive for student athletes to remain in college when there are so many incentives to leave, i.e. lucrative contracts, endorsement deals, etc.
This trend, along with the trend of recruiting younger and younger players to play in the professional leauges--not developmental leagues, but full-fledged pro leagues, led to this idea. Make a college athletic scholarship a contract--a real enforceable contract--between the school and the athlete, complete with penalties for the breach of that contract.
Here's how the contract would work. The school agrees to provide an education to an athlete, complete with all the support for getting that education available to non-student athletes, including tutoring. The school agrees to waive tuition and board fees, essentially providing the education for free. The student agrees to compete for the glory of the school AND remain at the school for five years (four years of eligibility plus one year of red shirt status). As a student, the athlete must maintain what ever levels of academic achievement the school sets for the student body in general. Thus the school gets legal benefit and the student gets legal benefit and each gives something up.
The consequences of breach are this. For the school who fails to provide adeuqate resources for the athlete to complete his/her education, the school must continue to provide those services at no cost to the student, until the athlete has had a reasonable opportunity to complete the work for a degree. This is not a big deal, since for the most part schools are in the business of providing an education. Additionally, the chances of school's breach in this contract are very small and I can only forsee the cancellation of a sport or a recruiting violation causing suspension of a sport as the only grounds for breach.
For the athlete, the consequences are much more severe. If they leave the school, without graduating, to take a contract as a professional athlete within five years of leaving the school, they must repay the school all of the funds the school lost in supporting their education, namely all the tuition, room, board, fees that the school waived and any allowance given to the student for incidentals. This penalty would not apply to transfer students.
Big deal you say, the new student athlete can afford it out of any signing bonus. But it gets worse. The new professional athlete would forfeit 10 percent (pre-tax) of any signing bonus they receive plus 25 percent of all salary and bonuses they receive for each of the years in which they would have been in college. Thus if a player leaves after two years of college, they would forfeit 25 percent of their pay and bonuses (again, pre-tax) for three years.
Again, given that athletes may have a decade or more of a professional career, this doesn't seem too bad. But I want to make sure the league and, more importantly, the agents, get penalized as well. Thus the league and the player's agent would have to match--dollar for dollar--what the athlete gives up. All of the forfeited funds would go to the general scholarship fund for the school.
What, you may ask, motivates me to make such an unfair imposition on the student athlete. Here it is. By taking a scholarship--that student-athlete did not have to compete against the general student population for a space in the freshman class. Student athletes routinely are admitted into schools who, without the athletic ability of the athlete, would never have admitted them in the first place. SAT scores and GPAs in high school are routinely ignored for athletes--a troubling issue in itself.
As we all know, there are a finite number of spaces in a freshman class-some bigger than others. Thus if a student athlete is given a space, that means another deserving student, perhaps one who could have used the full scholarship given to most athletes, didn't get a spot and the penalties for leaving school early provide a means for the school to make good to those students denied admission or some others like them. The forfeiture of money makes the decision to leave school painful enough to re-think it. Because the penalty for not completing a scholarship contract does not accrue to the school, but it falls on the students denied admission.
For an athlete that leaves school early, the school gets that scholarship space back. But the student who didn't get admitted to allow an athlete to get in means doesn't get the benefit of the education the athlete squanders.
The NCAA owes a duty not only to the student athletes, but to students in general to make sure that althetes are really student-athletes, which in at least in some sports, is a complete misnomer.
On theory resulting from the NBA change is the the question of whether athletes will go to college for one year and then leave for the pros. In this regard, the NCAA has a vested interest in discouraging such behavior. One way they could discourage such activity, in all sports, is to change the way in which scholarships are handled. Admittedly, this idea is originally my father's but I have tried to develop on the idea.
The NCAA provides data on graduation statistics of student athletes compared to the student population as a whole. At first glance, just on general numbers it looks like students-athletes do better at graduating within SIX years. But if you review the data a little more, you see some disturbing numbers as well as some surprising numbers.
First, I just want to say that only 3 in 5 students as a whole graduate college within six years of first time enrollement. This bothers me for a number of reasons that are beyond this little article.
Next, fully 7 in 10 of female students athletes graduate--a full 10 percent higher than the average of the student body in general. This supports the general theory that more women are getting degrees than men even though there are fewer female student athletes in Division I colleges. Among female student athletes, the graduation rates for athletes is higher, in all sports in all categories than for the female student population as a whole. So at the very least, if you are a female athlete on an athletic scholarship, you are much more likely to use the scholarship for its intended purpose--getting an education.
Looking at some numbers for men though reveal the opposite story. More male students athletes fail to complete college in six years than the male population as a whole. The NCAA compiles statistics for male athletes in five catgories, baseball, basketball, cross-country/Track, football and everyone else. Only in other sports (61%) and track (60%) do the male athletes do better than the general population (57%). In football, the numbers a little worse, 55% graduate in six years compared to the general population of 57%. This may be the result of the physical demands of football and the NFL rule that a player must be a junior in college or at least three years out of high school to be eligible to play in the NFL rahter than any effort by the NCAA.
In baseball and basketball, the gradation rates are abyssmal. In baseball, only 46% of freshmen graduate. In basket ball only 44% of student athletes graduate in six years. Why? Well one reason, I believe is that there is no incentive for student athletes to remain in college when there are so many incentives to leave, i.e. lucrative contracts, endorsement deals, etc.
This trend, along with the trend of recruiting younger and younger players to play in the professional leauges--not developmental leagues, but full-fledged pro leagues, led to this idea. Make a college athletic scholarship a contract--a real enforceable contract--between the school and the athlete, complete with penalties for the breach of that contract.
Here's how the contract would work. The school agrees to provide an education to an athlete, complete with all the support for getting that education available to non-student athletes, including tutoring. The school agrees to waive tuition and board fees, essentially providing the education for free. The student agrees to compete for the glory of the school AND remain at the school for five years (four years of eligibility plus one year of red shirt status). As a student, the athlete must maintain what ever levels of academic achievement the school sets for the student body in general. Thus the school gets legal benefit and the student gets legal benefit and each gives something up.
The consequences of breach are this. For the school who fails to provide adeuqate resources for the athlete to complete his/her education, the school must continue to provide those services at no cost to the student, until the athlete has had a reasonable opportunity to complete the work for a degree. This is not a big deal, since for the most part schools are in the business of providing an education. Additionally, the chances of school's breach in this contract are very small and I can only forsee the cancellation of a sport or a recruiting violation causing suspension of a sport as the only grounds for breach.
For the athlete, the consequences are much more severe. If they leave the school, without graduating, to take a contract as a professional athlete within five years of leaving the school, they must repay the school all of the funds the school lost in supporting their education, namely all the tuition, room, board, fees that the school waived and any allowance given to the student for incidentals. This penalty would not apply to transfer students.
Big deal you say, the new student athlete can afford it out of any signing bonus. But it gets worse. The new professional athlete would forfeit 10 percent (pre-tax) of any signing bonus they receive plus 25 percent of all salary and bonuses they receive for each of the years in which they would have been in college. Thus if a player leaves after two years of college, they would forfeit 25 percent of their pay and bonuses (again, pre-tax) for three years.
Again, given that athletes may have a decade or more of a professional career, this doesn't seem too bad. But I want to make sure the league and, more importantly, the agents, get penalized as well. Thus the league and the player's agent would have to match--dollar for dollar--what the athlete gives up. All of the forfeited funds would go to the general scholarship fund for the school.
What, you may ask, motivates me to make such an unfair imposition on the student athlete. Here it is. By taking a scholarship--that student-athlete did not have to compete against the general student population for a space in the freshman class. Student athletes routinely are admitted into schools who, without the athletic ability of the athlete, would never have admitted them in the first place. SAT scores and GPAs in high school are routinely ignored for athletes--a troubling issue in itself.
As we all know, there are a finite number of spaces in a freshman class-some bigger than others. Thus if a student athlete is given a space, that means another deserving student, perhaps one who could have used the full scholarship given to most athletes, didn't get a spot and the penalties for leaving school early provide a means for the school to make good to those students denied admission or some others like them. The forfeiture of money makes the decision to leave school painful enough to re-think it. Because the penalty for not completing a scholarship contract does not accrue to the school, but it falls on the students denied admission.
For an athlete that leaves school early, the school gets that scholarship space back. But the student who didn't get admitted to allow an athlete to get in means doesn't get the benefit of the education the athlete squanders.
The NCAA owes a duty not only to the student athletes, but to students in general to make sure that althetes are really student-athletes, which in at least in some sports, is a complete misnomer.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Kelo--Should Takings Cases rise beyond mere Rational Purpose
The Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London handed down yesterday has been widely criticized in the blogsphere. See here for blog links and here for some media links.
The decision has some interesting characteristics and possible politics behind it. See The Volokh Conspiracy for some interesting takes on the possibility that the more conservative side, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas may have started in the majority but with Kennedy moving to the Stevens opinion, making it the majority. Interesting, but beyond my point.
On reading the majority opinion by Justice Stevens, I am struck by the jump to the conclusion that the actions alleged by Mrs. Kelo and the petitioner are a public purpose. After describing the history of the use of the term public purpose as a substitute for public use (at least this definition did not arise in this case, which would have made the decision all the more outrageous), Justice Stevens says that the PROCESS by which the taking was promulgated rather than the content of the taking, made made New London's action a public use. (Note: The page numbers referred to here come from a print out from this link courtesy of Findlaw.com)
As Justice Stevens noted, "The Takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered redevelopment plan." 04-108, 5. Later in the opinion, Justice Stevens writes:
It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's property to Citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical cases posited by the petitioner can be confronted if and when they arise. Id., 7-8 (citations omitted). (Emphasis added.)
Admittedly, a direct one-to-one transfer outside of a redevelopment plan is not present in the case, but why does the mere fact that a lengthy planning a review process suddenly justify a taking? Taken to the next step, under what criteria would a taking be unjustified, if the plan was not carefully considered enough? How much is enough consideration? One year? Six months? This is a question left open by Justice Stevens reliance on the fact that the redevelopment plan was carefully considered and integrated.
But the facts of the case also undercut Justice Stevens contentions. The facts of the matter clearly indicate that the property is being taken for a one-to-one transfer. In the facts of the case, Justice Stevens noted that Parcel 3 of the New London plan would "contain at least 90,000 square feer of research and development office space" and that the parcel is located "immediately north of the Pfizer facility" nearby. A logical inference of the reference to Pfizer and the location of the parcel of land would indicate that pfizer would be using the space. Thus a one-to-one transfer, from petitioner to Pfizer. Even if Pfizer is not involved in the deal, some other private entity or entities would be, again a one-to-one transfer. But because the taking occurs within "an integrated development plan," this transfer it deemed acceptable by the court.
Approximately 1/3 of the land taken by New London under eminent domain was located in this land that would be used for the R&D facility. For this reason, the trial court refused to permit the taking. Further, "there is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happened to be located in the development area." In other words, the property was taken because the development was more valuable to the city and state as office space than someone's home.
Admittedly the Supreme Court must use the factual findings by the lower courts in formulating its opinion, but the conclusion that this activity by New London is a taking simply arrives without any factual justification. In addition to protection afforded to New London and others that so long as the taking is part of a considered and integrated development plan, the state or locality can just take land, Justice Stevens ignores the plain facts of this taking.
Despite the well considered plan, this taking is of the very kind that Justice Stevens say would raise a suspicion. The properties of Ms. Kelo and the petitioner was being taken because the city, in its considered wisdom, decided that the development plan would produce more tax revenue and thus benefit the city. I would argue that such a tax benefit is beyond what should be considered a valid public use--it is simply too remote a benefit.
Much of the development discussed in the city's plan would transfer land from the petitioner to other citizens (which included corporations and developers) for the very reason that the city has determined that Citizen B can do a better job using (read pay us more taxes) than citizen A. This is the very fact pattern that Justice Stevens noted would be suspicious and dismissed a hypothetical.
From the majority opinion, it appears as though the only protection a property owner would have would be the procedures undertaken by the taking authority. Thus a taking is valid if it is:
1. Rationally related to some governmental need,
2. Part of a integrated development plan, and
3. Subject to careful consideration by the government.
Rational Basis is Not Good Enough
Under the takings clause jurisprudence, the Court has proceeded from the review standard afforded to most economic legislation. The purpose of the state must be rationally related to the actions it took. The court is usually free to find a purpose, even absent a legislative declared one. But I would argue that a taking should be subject to a higher level of review. As pointed out by the Connecticut Supreme Court dissent, they believed that "the plan was intended to serve a valid public use, they would have found all the takings unconstitutional because the City had failed to adduce "clear and convincing evidence" that the economic benefits of the play would in fact come to pass." Kelo, at 4.
Like Justice Stevens, I don't the the reasoning of the Connecticut court is sound. Economic benefit to the City should not be a criterion for a valid taking. But I do believe a heightened standard of review is necessary. Individual property rights are being abridged here, rights that our Founders held dear (otherwise it would not have been in the Fifth Amendment). Yet, to abridge a fundamental right in this case, all the state has to do is show some rational relationship between the means and ends. This seems too low a standard and almost a rubber stamp of a taking by the courts, under just about any circumstance that would fit the test above.
Under a heightened level of review, a state or locality would have to show some IMPORTANT governmental need than cannot be attained WITHOUT the taking. The burden would be upon the government to prove that the purpose is important and cannot be accomplished without the taking of someone's property.
In other fundamental rights cases, the burden has been placed on the government to prove that a law accomplishes some important need. Free press, free speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, and other vital rights are protected by the Court from being abridged absent some important or compelling governmental need in most cases. But when it comes to takings under eminent domain, all that is needed is rational relationship.
It seems as though the Court has dropped the ball on what is important and what was enshrined as protected interests in the Bill of Rights. Taking a person's home merely because someone else can pay more taxes on that property than you is a violation of a most fundamental right, the right to be secure in one's own home.
Linked to Outside the Beltway
The decision has some interesting characteristics and possible politics behind it. See The Volokh Conspiracy for some interesting takes on the possibility that the more conservative side, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas may have started in the majority but with Kennedy moving to the Stevens opinion, making it the majority. Interesting, but beyond my point.
On reading the majority opinion by Justice Stevens, I am struck by the jump to the conclusion that the actions alleged by Mrs. Kelo and the petitioner are a public purpose. After describing the history of the use of the term public purpose as a substitute for public use (at least this definition did not arise in this case, which would have made the decision all the more outrageous), Justice Stevens says that the PROCESS by which the taking was promulgated rather than the content of the taking, made made New London's action a public use. (Note: The page numbers referred to here come from a print out from this link courtesy of Findlaw.com)
As Justice Stevens noted, "The Takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered redevelopment plan." 04-108, 5. Later in the opinion, Justice Stevens writes:
It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's property to Citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical cases posited by the petitioner can be confronted if and when they arise. Id., 7-8 (citations omitted). (Emphasis added.)
Admittedly, a direct one-to-one transfer outside of a redevelopment plan is not present in the case, but why does the mere fact that a lengthy planning a review process suddenly justify a taking? Taken to the next step, under what criteria would a taking be unjustified, if the plan was not carefully considered enough? How much is enough consideration? One year? Six months? This is a question left open by Justice Stevens reliance on the fact that the redevelopment plan was carefully considered and integrated.
But the facts of the case also undercut Justice Stevens contentions. The facts of the matter clearly indicate that the property is being taken for a one-to-one transfer. In the facts of the case, Justice Stevens noted that Parcel 3 of the New London plan would "contain at least 90,000 square feer of research and development office space" and that the parcel is located "immediately north of the Pfizer facility" nearby. A logical inference of the reference to Pfizer and the location of the parcel of land would indicate that pfizer would be using the space. Thus a one-to-one transfer, from petitioner to Pfizer. Even if Pfizer is not involved in the deal, some other private entity or entities would be, again a one-to-one transfer. But because the taking occurs within "an integrated development plan," this transfer it deemed acceptable by the court.
Approximately 1/3 of the land taken by New London under eminent domain was located in this land that would be used for the R&D facility. For this reason, the trial court refused to permit the taking. Further, "there is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happened to be located in the development area." In other words, the property was taken because the development was more valuable to the city and state as office space than someone's home.
Admittedly the Supreme Court must use the factual findings by the lower courts in formulating its opinion, but the conclusion that this activity by New London is a taking simply arrives without any factual justification. In addition to protection afforded to New London and others that so long as the taking is part of a considered and integrated development plan, the state or locality can just take land, Justice Stevens ignores the plain facts of this taking.
Despite the well considered plan, this taking is of the very kind that Justice Stevens say would raise a suspicion. The properties of Ms. Kelo and the petitioner was being taken because the city, in its considered wisdom, decided that the development plan would produce more tax revenue and thus benefit the city. I would argue that such a tax benefit is beyond what should be considered a valid public use--it is simply too remote a benefit.
Much of the development discussed in the city's plan would transfer land from the petitioner to other citizens (which included corporations and developers) for the very reason that the city has determined that Citizen B can do a better job using (read pay us more taxes) than citizen A. This is the very fact pattern that Justice Stevens noted would be suspicious and dismissed a hypothetical.
From the majority opinion, it appears as though the only protection a property owner would have would be the procedures undertaken by the taking authority. Thus a taking is valid if it is:
1. Rationally related to some governmental need,
2. Part of a integrated development plan, and
3. Subject to careful consideration by the government.
Rational Basis is Not Good Enough
Under the takings clause jurisprudence, the Court has proceeded from the review standard afforded to most economic legislation. The purpose of the state must be rationally related to the actions it took. The court is usually free to find a purpose, even absent a legislative declared one. But I would argue that a taking should be subject to a higher level of review. As pointed out by the Connecticut Supreme Court dissent, they believed that "the plan was intended to serve a valid public use, they would have found all the takings unconstitutional because the City had failed to adduce "clear and convincing evidence" that the economic benefits of the play would in fact come to pass." Kelo, at 4.
Like Justice Stevens, I don't the the reasoning of the Connecticut court is sound. Economic benefit to the City should not be a criterion for a valid taking. But I do believe a heightened standard of review is necessary. Individual property rights are being abridged here, rights that our Founders held dear (otherwise it would not have been in the Fifth Amendment). Yet, to abridge a fundamental right in this case, all the state has to do is show some rational relationship between the means and ends. This seems too low a standard and almost a rubber stamp of a taking by the courts, under just about any circumstance that would fit the test above.
Under a heightened level of review, a state or locality would have to show some IMPORTANT governmental need than cannot be attained WITHOUT the taking. The burden would be upon the government to prove that the purpose is important and cannot be accomplished without the taking of someone's property.
In other fundamental rights cases, the burden has been placed on the government to prove that a law accomplishes some important need. Free press, free speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, and other vital rights are protected by the Court from being abridged absent some important or compelling governmental need in most cases. But when it comes to takings under eminent domain, all that is needed is rational relationship.
It seems as though the Court has dropped the ball on what is important and what was enshrined as protected interests in the Bill of Rights. Taking a person's home merely because someone else can pay more taxes on that property than you is a violation of a most fundamental right, the right to be secure in one's own home.
Linked to Outside the Beltway
Tocqueville on Blogging Freedom
Here is a post by Allison Hayward, from the Skeptics Eye, neatly putting bloggers into a context understood by Alexis De Tocqueville, witing in Democracy in America, from 180 years ago. Mindblowing how history repeats itslef, even when dealing with modern technology. Hopefully someone will bring this to the attention of the FEC next week.
Hard to believe a dead French guy could shed light on blogging and politics. (One of his points also seems to explain our nation's pathological love of celebrity watching.)
Tocqueville on Blogging Freedom
Hard to believe a dead French guy could shed light on blogging and politics. (One of his points also seems to explain our nation's pathological love of celebrity watching.)
Tocqueville on Blogging Freedom
5 Teachers Get Free Rent At Troubled Md. Complex
Here is a interesting follow up to a previous post earlier this week about teachers not being able to afford housing.
The County Executive for Prince George's County Maryland, in an effort to clean up some dilapidated apartment complexes in the county, struck a deal with a developer to provide five apartments to teachers rent free. You heard me, rent free!!! There are of course, strings attached to the teachers living rent free, namely they have to staff a tutoring and help center at the complex and the rent free conditions lasts only as long as they remain teachers and the current developer owns the complex.
This is an interesting development both in terms of helping teachers find homes near the schools in which they teach, but also in the effort to build a better community (which was, in part, the point of my previous post). I know that in the past, police officers were often given significantly reduced or free rent to live in troubled apartment complexes, but this is the first time I have heard of the benefit being offered to teachers. Apparently I am not the only one, and there is some criticism:
"Some call the deal unheard of. With annual salaries just over $40,000, the five teachers essentially are receiving an after-tax housing bonus of more than $12,000 a year. Indefinitely."
Now to debunk the bonus part. These teachers must "tutor neighborhood children." Surely the benefits of the teachers tutoring neighborhood children is a valuable exchange for the $12,000 a year subsidy. Currently, several teachers don't even live in the state!! The teacher profiled for the article lived across the river in Virginia in a studio apartment for herself, her husband and her daughter. I think that the county is getting a deal on this.
In reference to my post earlier this week about building a community, these teachers will be living about a half mile from their school, in the same neighborhood and apartment complex as most of their students!! Talk about a community!
"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has helped nearly 1,000 educators buy government-owned homes at half-price in Maryland, Virginia and the District through "Teacher Next Door."
But housing prices being what they are, it seems that most teachers (and there are certainly more than 1,000in the area) certainly could use some help. While I am generally not a big fan of Prince George's County government, this bold step is a positive one. I don't think it is a silver bullet, but getting teachers into the community they serve will only help the community and the education of the kids. In a county which consistently ranks near the bottom of state achievement scores, any step forward is a good one.
I don't think that rent-free is going to work for a lot of school districts, but certainly reduced rent or reduced home prices can help bring qualified teachers into a blighted neighborhood and turn it around.
By the way, the deal between the county and the complex owner provided for 10 rent free apartments in teh 930-unit complex originally for the police. The county asked that five of the ten be given to teachers at the local elementary school and the other five still go to cops. It looks like everyone could win in the crime ridden neighborhood.
5 Teachers Get Free Rent At Troubled Md. Complex
The County Executive for Prince George's County Maryland, in an effort to clean up some dilapidated apartment complexes in the county, struck a deal with a developer to provide five apartments to teachers rent free. You heard me, rent free!!! There are of course, strings attached to the teachers living rent free, namely they have to staff a tutoring and help center at the complex and the rent free conditions lasts only as long as they remain teachers and the current developer owns the complex.
This is an interesting development both in terms of helping teachers find homes near the schools in which they teach, but also in the effort to build a better community (which was, in part, the point of my previous post). I know that in the past, police officers were often given significantly reduced or free rent to live in troubled apartment complexes, but this is the first time I have heard of the benefit being offered to teachers. Apparently I am not the only one, and there is some criticism:
"Some call the deal unheard of. With annual salaries just over $40,000, the five teachers essentially are receiving an after-tax housing bonus of more than $12,000 a year. Indefinitely."
Now to debunk the bonus part. These teachers must "tutor neighborhood children." Surely the benefits of the teachers tutoring neighborhood children is a valuable exchange for the $12,000 a year subsidy. Currently, several teachers don't even live in the state!! The teacher profiled for the article lived across the river in Virginia in a studio apartment for herself, her husband and her daughter. I think that the county is getting a deal on this.
In reference to my post earlier this week about building a community, these teachers will be living about a half mile from their school, in the same neighborhood and apartment complex as most of their students!! Talk about a community!
"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has helped nearly 1,000 educators buy government-owned homes at half-price in Maryland, Virginia and the District through "Teacher Next Door."
But housing prices being what they are, it seems that most teachers (and there are certainly more than 1,000in the area) certainly could use some help. While I am generally not a big fan of Prince George's County government, this bold step is a positive one. I don't think it is a silver bullet, but getting teachers into the community they serve will only help the community and the education of the kids. In a county which consistently ranks near the bottom of state achievement scores, any step forward is a good one.
I don't think that rent-free is going to work for a lot of school districts, but certainly reduced rent or reduced home prices can help bring qualified teachers into a blighted neighborhood and turn it around.
By the way, the deal between the county and the complex owner provided for 10 rent free apartments in teh 930-unit complex originally for the police. The county asked that five of the ten be given to teachers at the local elementary school and the other five still go to cops. It looks like everyone could win in the crime ridden neighborhood.
5 Teachers Get Free Rent At Troubled Md. Complex
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Technology and Political Operations
Quick disclaimer: I am employed as a PAC consultant at Vocus, a company mentioned in this article.
The article linked below from Personal Democracy Forum does talk about the use of software to manage political action committees. A helpful tool to be sure, but as one person in the article commented, there are tools for different functions. Companies should take care that they are using technology for the right reason, not merely because they think they should.
To be honest, in nearly 10 years of political activity, I have noticed that government relations and lobbying fall into one of two traps. First trap, people believe that a technologies tool, like Vocus GR5 or other tools will suddenly help them do their job better. Second trap, fearing technology, some groups shun it, using technology only when forced to by regulatory needs. Both traps are dangerous but surprisingly lead to the same end, a government relations program that is too expensive and not effective.
technology is a wonderful tool in the political realm. It can and does speed communications, it can manage vast sums of data and can make analysis of that data more effective and easily understood. Technology acts as a force multiplier, it is not a substitute for force. Failing to understand what technology can do for a government relations effort is the first trap. Many organizations believe and think, "Wow, we just spent $30,000 on a new software packages--we should be rocking now!" The problem is they don't.
As I said, technology is a force multiplier, a good software tool or a fabulous website do nothing for your organization if you fail to first develop a solid plan and program. The most successful government relations operations have a solid grassroots, PAC and lobbying organization in place. They have developed a strategy for going forward, a strategy that will, if successful achieve their legislative and lobbying goals. They have a clear message, they have clear targets and a clear understanding of the resources, both financial and human, available to them. Once a plan is developed, they look at the technology tools available to them and integrate the technology into their plan--they don't substitute technology for a plan.
A great deal of skull sweat needs to be expended to have a solid programs underlying your technological efforts. A fantastic grassroots software (like the aforementioned Vocus GR5 or DDC product) is a $30,000 investment wasted if there is no grassroots program in place or even in development. In short this trap fails to grasp that government relations is a business about people and relationships. Technology does not replace the human element.
The second trap is what happens when some government relations experts either instinctively understand they need good programs and thus don't buy a software thinking it just a gimmick or they fear the technology.
This second trap illustrates the classic misunderstanding that technology is a hindrance in human relationships. Failing to understand how technology can be a force multiplier means that this second victim spends far too much time in efforts that are not productive. They lobby where they don't need to, they try to activate a grassroots network hopelessly out of touch. They lack the data to analyze and thus expend effort trying to collect institutional and personal knowledge in an endless series of meetings. Those who are unwilling to accept technology as an aid, spend more money and effort tilting at windmills.
The first trap expends money foolishly on technology in the hope that the technology will magically enable their programs. The second trap spends money spinning their wheels in a endless loop of ignorance.
Technology supports proper government relations efforts without having to re-invent the wheel. Some business processes are affected, but the cumulative effect of those changes is small when compared the impact those changes make. For example, if your government relations software enables you to track lobbying meetings, phone calls and emails with legislators and staffers, you can compile that information on a weekly or daily basis for disseminating. Plus you can revisit the data later, analyze, see what works and what does not. But in order for that software to work, you have to get people using it. In short, you have to train people.
Imagine this scenario. You are a lobbyist for a large corporation. Before your daily round of meetings on the Hill, you collect a profile of each office you are visiting. You can find out how many contacts you have made to that office on your issues, including which staffer was contacted, what white papers and talking points you have given to the office, along with the number of employees in that district, the names of key employees in that district, how much your PAC has given in the past three elections, and the number of times constituents have contacted that office. All of this on one or two pages for each office. That is the power of data.
While you can have all the data in the world at your fingertips, you can't succeed without a good message and a good message is the one thing a good software program can't provide. Technology is a tool, a force multiplier, but it is no substitute for good skull sweat. Technology just allows the skull sweat to be expended on matters of greater import.
Software Helps PACs Track Never-Ending Cash Flow Personal Democracy Forum
The article linked below from Personal Democracy Forum does talk about the use of software to manage political action committees. A helpful tool to be sure, but as one person in the article commented, there are tools for different functions. Companies should take care that they are using technology for the right reason, not merely because they think they should.
To be honest, in nearly 10 years of political activity, I have noticed that government relations and lobbying fall into one of two traps. First trap, people believe that a technologies tool, like Vocus GR5 or other tools will suddenly help them do their job better. Second trap, fearing technology, some groups shun it, using technology only when forced to by regulatory needs. Both traps are dangerous but surprisingly lead to the same end, a government relations program that is too expensive and not effective.
technology is a wonderful tool in the political realm. It can and does speed communications, it can manage vast sums of data and can make analysis of that data more effective and easily understood. Technology acts as a force multiplier, it is not a substitute for force. Failing to understand what technology can do for a government relations effort is the first trap. Many organizations believe and think, "Wow, we just spent $30,000 on a new software packages--we should be rocking now!" The problem is they don't.
As I said, technology is a force multiplier, a good software tool or a fabulous website do nothing for your organization if you fail to first develop a solid plan and program. The most successful government relations operations have a solid grassroots, PAC and lobbying organization in place. They have developed a strategy for going forward, a strategy that will, if successful achieve their legislative and lobbying goals. They have a clear message, they have clear targets and a clear understanding of the resources, both financial and human, available to them. Once a plan is developed, they look at the technology tools available to them and integrate the technology into their plan--they don't substitute technology for a plan.
A great deal of skull sweat needs to be expended to have a solid programs underlying your technological efforts. A fantastic grassroots software (like the aforementioned Vocus GR5 or DDC product) is a $30,000 investment wasted if there is no grassroots program in place or even in development. In short this trap fails to grasp that government relations is a business about people and relationships. Technology does not replace the human element.
The second trap is what happens when some government relations experts either instinctively understand they need good programs and thus don't buy a software thinking it just a gimmick or they fear the technology.
This second trap illustrates the classic misunderstanding that technology is a hindrance in human relationships. Failing to understand how technology can be a force multiplier means that this second victim spends far too much time in efforts that are not productive. They lobby where they don't need to, they try to activate a grassroots network hopelessly out of touch. They lack the data to analyze and thus expend effort trying to collect institutional and personal knowledge in an endless series of meetings. Those who are unwilling to accept technology as an aid, spend more money and effort tilting at windmills.
The first trap expends money foolishly on technology in the hope that the technology will magically enable their programs. The second trap spends money spinning their wheels in a endless loop of ignorance.
Technology supports proper government relations efforts without having to re-invent the wheel. Some business processes are affected, but the cumulative effect of those changes is small when compared the impact those changes make. For example, if your government relations software enables you to track lobbying meetings, phone calls and emails with legislators and staffers, you can compile that information on a weekly or daily basis for disseminating. Plus you can revisit the data later, analyze, see what works and what does not. But in order for that software to work, you have to get people using it. In short, you have to train people.
Imagine this scenario. You are a lobbyist for a large corporation. Before your daily round of meetings on the Hill, you collect a profile of each office you are visiting. You can find out how many contacts you have made to that office on your issues, including which staffer was contacted, what white papers and talking points you have given to the office, along with the number of employees in that district, the names of key employees in that district, how much your PAC has given in the past three elections, and the number of times constituents have contacted that office. All of this on one or two pages for each office. That is the power of data.
While you can have all the data in the world at your fingertips, you can't succeed without a good message and a good message is the one thing a good software program can't provide. Technology is a tool, a force multiplier, but it is no substitute for good skull sweat. Technology just allows the skull sweat to be expended on matters of greater import.
Software Helps PACs Track Never-Ending Cash Flow Personal Democracy Forum
Senate Panel: Former Lobbyist, Partner Pocketed $6.5M From Tribe
From the Washington Post--it just get uglier and uglier surrounding Jack Abramoff. But the blame may be on Congress. You see Congress writes the laws surrounding the regulation of lobbying Congress. Tougher lobbying laws would be a good idea--perhpas even the instituing of a code of ethics, similar to the Professional Responsiblity rules of the legal profession, of which neither Abramoff or Scanlon were members of, despite working for a law firm.
Senate Panel: Former Lobbyist, Partner Pocketed $6.5M From Tribe
Senate Panel: Former Lobbyist, Partner Pocketed $6.5M From Tribe
Drafting the Poor--Not really!!
An article in the Chicago Tribune takes a typical leftist viewpoint of military recruiting. To set the stage, the Trib go one part of it right, even if they put the blame in the wrong place.
"President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act requires school districts to provide military recruiters with student phone numbers and addresses or risk losing millions in federal funds. Parents or students 18 and over can "opt out" by submitting a written request to keep the information private."
First, NCLB was passed with massive support from both sides of the aisle. To call it President Bush's law is wrong. Did he propose it, yes, but Congress still has to pass it. Once again the liberal MSM can't seem to get basic civics right. However, they are right, as a condition of receiving federal funds, high schools have to make available addresses and contact information on high school seniors. Of course this has been standard practice for a while--it is just now made explicit in the law.
Now to the merits of the article. The fact that the military is using every means possible to recruit people should not be all that surprising, given that the military is falling short of its recrtuiting goals on a consistent basis. The accusation that more minorities may be signing up for the military as a part of the recruitment effort is more a consequence of result that total design. There has been a long history of those who are poor or of lower socio-economic status joining the military. The military, depsite its rigors, is one of the few organizations closest to a merticracy than any other I know of. The military rewards competence and hard work. Many enlisted servicemen and women obtain bachelor's degrees (paid for in large part by the military) while serving on active duty. That degree may have been otherwise unavailalbe to the poor.
Why would the poor take this route, because their families and their communties failed to provide them a proper education. But that is another rant.
Invoking class warfare language, Democrats are getting upset:
"They're not going to all the schools. They're going to the schools where they figure the kids will have less chance to go to college," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). "It's an insidious kind of draft, quite frankly."
The United States military has not had a draft in roughly 30 years. Even today, the military is an all volunteer force. No one forces these kids to enlist. The fact that they do is their choice. But once again, how would the Democrats feel with a draft. I personally don't think it is a bad idea, but it would never be supported in the modern political circles. All of the country, 18 year olds make all kinds of "adult decisions" including the decision to engage in unprotected sex and become pregnant, why can't they make this decision to serve their country. The Answer, Democrats know better than you and thus only we can make the decision for you. Hogwash.
To be sure, there is a problem with the racial profile of the modern military. There are more blacks and hispanics in the military, particularly in combat arms, than the general popultation. This does lead to reasonable concerns about who shoulders the burden for protecting the nation. But in the end, we still have a volunteer military and some people will volunteer and others won't--that is just the facts.
Finally, I love this other little dig at the military--completely off point of the article.
In the urban blight of North Philadelphia, Joshua Gordy said the lure of college money led him to join the Army Reserve at age 17. He said recruiters at his high school told him he could earn $35,000 for college.That hasn't happened. Gordy, a 20-year-old reservist, said he apparently failed to send in the right paperwork in time. He hopes to enroll in community college this fall.
The implcation with this segment is that the military cheated him out of his college money. The fact is that this kid didn't fill out his paperwork properly. The military is big on taking responsibility for your actions. If Gordy failed to fill out his paperwork in a timely fashion, that fault does not belong to the military, but to the soldier. To qualify for many benefits, including college funds, the soldier has to take an affirmative step to do so. To be sure, I know the Army gave this kid the money ( I got the forms when I was in--as did my brother), but the Army doesn't make you fill them out on time--that is a personal choice.
But the Trib couldn't help but take another cheap shot at the military.
An Insidious Form of Draft
Linked to Outside the Beltway.
"President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act requires school districts to provide military recruiters with student phone numbers and addresses or risk losing millions in federal funds. Parents or students 18 and over can "opt out" by submitting a written request to keep the information private."
First, NCLB was passed with massive support from both sides of the aisle. To call it President Bush's law is wrong. Did he propose it, yes, but Congress still has to pass it. Once again the liberal MSM can't seem to get basic civics right. However, they are right, as a condition of receiving federal funds, high schools have to make available addresses and contact information on high school seniors. Of course this has been standard practice for a while--it is just now made explicit in the law.
Now to the merits of the article. The fact that the military is using every means possible to recruit people should not be all that surprising, given that the military is falling short of its recrtuiting goals on a consistent basis. The accusation that more minorities may be signing up for the military as a part of the recruitment effort is more a consequence of result that total design. There has been a long history of those who are poor or of lower socio-economic status joining the military. The military, depsite its rigors, is one of the few organizations closest to a merticracy than any other I know of. The military rewards competence and hard work. Many enlisted servicemen and women obtain bachelor's degrees (paid for in large part by the military) while serving on active duty. That degree may have been otherwise unavailalbe to the poor.
Why would the poor take this route, because their families and their communties failed to provide them a proper education. But that is another rant.
Invoking class warfare language, Democrats are getting upset:
"They're not going to all the schools. They're going to the schools where they figure the kids will have less chance to go to college," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). "It's an insidious kind of draft, quite frankly."
The United States military has not had a draft in roughly 30 years. Even today, the military is an all volunteer force. No one forces these kids to enlist. The fact that they do is their choice. But once again, how would the Democrats feel with a draft. I personally don't think it is a bad idea, but it would never be supported in the modern political circles. All of the country, 18 year olds make all kinds of "adult decisions" including the decision to engage in unprotected sex and become pregnant, why can't they make this decision to serve their country. The Answer, Democrats know better than you and thus only we can make the decision for you. Hogwash.
To be sure, there is a problem with the racial profile of the modern military. There are more blacks and hispanics in the military, particularly in combat arms, than the general popultation. This does lead to reasonable concerns about who shoulders the burden for protecting the nation. But in the end, we still have a volunteer military and some people will volunteer and others won't--that is just the facts.
Finally, I love this other little dig at the military--completely off point of the article.
In the urban blight of North Philadelphia, Joshua Gordy said the lure of college money led him to join the Army Reserve at age 17. He said recruiters at his high school told him he could earn $35,000 for college.That hasn't happened. Gordy, a 20-year-old reservist, said he apparently failed to send in the right paperwork in time. He hopes to enroll in community college this fall.
The implcation with this segment is that the military cheated him out of his college money. The fact is that this kid didn't fill out his paperwork properly. The military is big on taking responsibility for your actions. If Gordy failed to fill out his paperwork in a timely fashion, that fault does not belong to the military, but to the soldier. To qualify for many benefits, including college funds, the soldier has to take an affirmative step to do so. To be sure, I know the Army gave this kid the money ( I got the forms when I was in--as did my brother), but the Army doesn't make you fill them out on time--that is a personal choice.
But the Trib couldn't help but take another cheap shot at the military.
An Insidious Form of Draft
Linked to Outside the Beltway.
A New Supreme and Election Law Possiblities
Prof. Hasen has an admittedly parochial viewpoint on the the potential for a Supreme Court appointment, looking at one of the much discussed favorites and how it would impact the discrete area of election law decision from the Supreme Court. As Prof. Hasen notes, "This little parochial exercise in my area of the law is meant to prove a simple point: Whoever comes next on the Supreme Court will have a great deal of power, with a chance to change and influence the law in many areas that most Americans don’t even think about. That’s true even if a non-controversial candidate of the same political orientation is confirmed to replace a retiring Justice."
Of course, the Bush Adminstration wants to nominate someone who is reliably conservative on big ticket, high-profile moral issues, but do they really care about how such a nominee would rule on issues related to say ERISA or HIPAA. I don't really think so. It is difficult to find anyone, other than a syncophant, to agree with every policy position of the White House. In addition, the courts often have to deal with some pretty cutting edge issues, issues that go beyond what an Administration may be screening for. For example, I don't think the Eisenhower Administration screened Earl Warren for issues related to political gerrymandering (Baker v. Carr)--a case that arguably shifted the political dynamics in this country, or other cases of the civil rights era that fundamentally shifted the way we as Americans view the Bill of Rights. While Eisenhower may have been disappointed in Warren's performance, there is simply no way to screen for such matters.
I suppose my point is similar to that of Prof. Hasen. You cannot screen for positions on many issues. You have to pick and choose what is important to you. The Court will hear new issues all the time and you just have to live with the possiblity of a little uncertainty. So too will the Senate and the American people--it is the nature of an independent judiciary.
Of course, the Bush Adminstration wants to nominate someone who is reliably conservative on big ticket, high-profile moral issues, but do they really care about how such a nominee would rule on issues related to say ERISA or HIPAA. I don't really think so. It is difficult to find anyone, other than a syncophant, to agree with every policy position of the White House. In addition, the courts often have to deal with some pretty cutting edge issues, issues that go beyond what an Administration may be screening for. For example, I don't think the Eisenhower Administration screened Earl Warren for issues related to political gerrymandering (Baker v. Carr)--a case that arguably shifted the political dynamics in this country, or other cases of the civil rights era that fundamentally shifted the way we as Americans view the Bill of Rights. While Eisenhower may have been disappointed in Warren's performance, there is simply no way to screen for such matters.
I suppose my point is similar to that of Prof. Hasen. You cannot screen for positions on many issues. You have to pick and choose what is important to you. The Court will hear new issues all the time and you just have to live with the possiblity of a little uncertainty. So too will the Senate and the American people--it is the nature of an independent judiciary.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Power of Empowerment In Politics
The link below, (hat tip to the Carnival of the Capitalists) speaks about the marketing power of empowered employees. As a political operative, I have found that many of the principles of marketing apply equally well when dealing with politics. In particular, I have found that empowered employees also makes for a powerful political force when a company is looking to make some sort of impact in the political arena as well as the business arena.
Allow me to set the stage. Frequently, when dealing with the government relations executives of a large corporation, I will ask if they have any grassroots political programs in place. Probably 80 percent of the time the answer is "no" or "not really" (which is the functional equivalent of no.) Other times, I will hear a description of a program that is so centrally controlled by the government relations staff that their program is nothing more than a series of relucatant employees mouthing the same words with no conviction. The resulting "program" is as ineffective as having no program.
One of the premier business political organizations, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC) has long espoused the power of employee's being educated about political issues. "Polls show that the more employees hear from their companies about political subjects, the more they approve of and want the information – and the more inclined they are to participate in the election process." This is because companies have a ready made supply of political activists, "a group of people with a shared, personal stake in the candidates and policies that impact your jobs and industry." BIPAC's Prosperity Project aims to help business, of all sizes, get involved in politics and get their employees involved in politics.
But here is the problem that most businesses face--fear. Businesses, including my clients, fear losing control of their people and the message. They fear someone "going off the reservation" and saying something not approved of by the company. Meaning, they don't want to empower their employees to speak to and about the issues affecting the company and that person's own job. So the people who have the most to gain from helping the company--the employees--have the least power to effect a change in governmental policy or politics. But it is employees, people on the ground with a direct stake in the outcome of a policymaking effort who are a company's most important weapon in the political and business arena.
In recent years, politics has been dominated by what I call the "air war," the preparation and dissemination of broadcast messages, commercials and other similar methodologies. But even now, not enough political operatives have grasped the lesson inherent in successful armies. You simply don't win a war in the air. You have to have people on the ground, voters, who go in and seize control of issues on a personal level. Thus, a company can spend millions of dollars on television ads, but an underfunded non-profit can succeed by mobilizing people through email campaigns that cost next to nothing. If you are a company and you follow only an "air war" strategy, you may win on some issues occaisionally, but over time, your performance will be sub-par--you will lose more times than you win.
Like empowering your employees to promote your brand, companies should empower their employees to promote your company to lawmakers. By educating your employees about political issues that effect your company (and their livelihood) you create a powerful army to carry your message. That army can take on any issue of importance to your company and carry the fight to the very people who can make a difference--lawmakers. A lawmaker can ignore a TV ad, but it is hard to ignore hundreds or thousands of letters from constituents.
So the challenge for business, of all sizes, is to not only empower your employees to promote your company to customers in a business sense, but also empower your employees to promote your company to policy makers. In the end you create a regulatory and legal environment more friendly to your business and businesses in general.
Joseph's Marketing Blog: The Power of Empowerment
Allow me to set the stage. Frequently, when dealing with the government relations executives of a large corporation, I will ask if they have any grassroots political programs in place. Probably 80 percent of the time the answer is "no" or "not really" (which is the functional equivalent of no.) Other times, I will hear a description of a program that is so centrally controlled by the government relations staff that their program is nothing more than a series of relucatant employees mouthing the same words with no conviction. The resulting "program" is as ineffective as having no program.
One of the premier business political organizations, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC) has long espoused the power of employee's being educated about political issues. "Polls show that the more employees hear from their companies about political subjects, the more they approve of and want the information – and the more inclined they are to participate in the election process." This is because companies have a ready made supply of political activists, "a group of people with a shared, personal stake in the candidates and policies that impact your jobs and industry." BIPAC's Prosperity Project aims to help business, of all sizes, get involved in politics and get their employees involved in politics.
But here is the problem that most businesses face--fear. Businesses, including my clients, fear losing control of their people and the message. They fear someone "going off the reservation" and saying something not approved of by the company. Meaning, they don't want to empower their employees to speak to and about the issues affecting the company and that person's own job. So the people who have the most to gain from helping the company--the employees--have the least power to effect a change in governmental policy or politics. But it is employees, people on the ground with a direct stake in the outcome of a policymaking effort who are a company's most important weapon in the political and business arena.
In recent years, politics has been dominated by what I call the "air war," the preparation and dissemination of broadcast messages, commercials and other similar methodologies. But even now, not enough political operatives have grasped the lesson inherent in successful armies. You simply don't win a war in the air. You have to have people on the ground, voters, who go in and seize control of issues on a personal level. Thus, a company can spend millions of dollars on television ads, but an underfunded non-profit can succeed by mobilizing people through email campaigns that cost next to nothing. If you are a company and you follow only an "air war" strategy, you may win on some issues occaisionally, but over time, your performance will be sub-par--you will lose more times than you win.
Like empowering your employees to promote your brand, companies should empower their employees to promote your company to lawmakers. By educating your employees about political issues that effect your company (and their livelihood) you create a powerful army to carry your message. That army can take on any issue of importance to your company and carry the fight to the very people who can make a difference--lawmakers. A lawmaker can ignore a TV ad, but it is hard to ignore hundreds or thousands of letters from constituents.
So the challenge for business, of all sizes, is to not only empower your employees to promote your company to customers in a business sense, but also empower your employees to promote your company to policy makers. In the end you create a regulatory and legal environment more friendly to your business and businesses in general.
Joseph's Marketing Blog: The Power of Empowerment
FEC Could Face Massive Turnover at the Top
With FEC Commissioner Brad Smith announcing his resignation from the FEC, we could see some action on the campaign finance front soon. Smith, a Republican, had been a professor of law and wanted to return to teaching.
But that leaves some interesting issues facing the President and the Senate. Traditionally, commissioners have been replaced in pairs, i.e. one Democrat and one Republican at a time. Two commissioners have been serving in since their terms expired two years ago.
The problem with Smith leaving and the expired terms (still being filled by the previous appointees under the law permitting them to remain in place until a successor is appointed), is that the FEC could see as many a four new appointees this summer. This assumes of course that Democrats and Republicans could come up with a pair of nominees each. With four new Commissioners, it is possible that the Commission could go a whole new way in its regulatory effort. We could be looking at a Commission that tries to take more of a hands off approach to one dedicated to reform--what ever defintion to place on that term. But the idea of 2/3 of the commission being new presents an interesting scenario for the reform community and those who oppose "reform."
The question is whether the appointment of new commissioners will bring about a public assessment by the Senate and Congress in general about the propriety and policy behind the relation of campaign finance. It could be an interesting series of hearings to say the least.
FEC Could Face Massive Turnover at the Top
But that leaves some interesting issues facing the President and the Senate. Traditionally, commissioners have been replaced in pairs, i.e. one Democrat and one Republican at a time. Two commissioners have been serving in since their terms expired two years ago.
The problem with Smith leaving and the expired terms (still being filled by the previous appointees under the law permitting them to remain in place until a successor is appointed), is that the FEC could see as many a four new appointees this summer. This assumes of course that Democrats and Republicans could come up with a pair of nominees each. With four new Commissioners, it is possible that the Commission could go a whole new way in its regulatory effort. We could be looking at a Commission that tries to take more of a hands off approach to one dedicated to reform--what ever defintion to place on that term. But the idea of 2/3 of the commission being new presents an interesting scenario for the reform community and those who oppose "reform."
The question is whether the appointment of new commissioners will bring about a public assessment by the Senate and Congress in general about the propriety and policy behind the relation of campaign finance. It could be an interesting series of hearings to say the least.
FEC Could Face Massive Turnover at the Top
Conservative groups to spend over $20M on Supreme Court
Here is an older article on the impending battle between interest groups on the potential Supreme Court vacancies. With the Supreme Court set to end its business calendar for hte year soon, it could be a long, hot, ugly summer in the Senate and on the airwaves.
Conservative groups to spend over $20M on Supreme Court
Conservative groups to spend over $20M on Supreme Court
Trusting the Legislatures More and the Culture of Rights
While the headline makes it seem different, the link below to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that more and more Americans are wanting the legislatures to start making more policy, particularly on so-called "moral issues" than the courts. This may seem surprising, particularly to Democrats who have long looked to the courts as a way to guarantee rights. It now appears that the strategy is back firing.
While Evangelical Republicans probably do look at "activist judges" as the downfall of American morality, the problems extends much further back. Starting in the 1950's in particular, people, led principally by Democrats, began turning to the Court to vindicate certain rights. Now some of the rights guaranteed by decisions of the Supreme Court are just, such as equal education, one-peron-one-vote, etc. But other decisions have led to a great deal of polarization like Roe v. Wade. But the nationalization of American politics, in part throught a more active Congress and in part through the use of the courts to bring about social change, means that most Americans came to believe that we have all sorts of "rights" such as the "right" to an abortion or the "right" to privacy.
What most people describe as "rights" are actually liberties. Rights are the subject of government guarantees. For example, people have the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, meaning the government has an affirmative duty to prevent such incidents. However, other matters, such as abortion, is a liberty. Liberties are freedoms we enjoy that are generally, but not required to be, free from government interference. Moreover, many liberties that we enjoy are actually privileges granted by the government.
The survey reported on below discusses three issues dealing with morality or having moral overtones, the death penalty, gay marriage, and abortion. I want to leave the issue of the death penalty off the table for this discussion because there appears to be an fairly clear majority of Americans (57%) who want the courts to be heavily involved in that issue and because it is not really an issue related to rights, as they are perceived by most Americans. Yet the issues of abortion and gay marriage are those that people, one one side or another refer to as a "right" and all of them do so incorrectly.
Those supporting the concept of gay marriage may have a valid equal protection of the laws argument, but there is no actual right to marriage, contrary to what many people believe. Marriage is a privilege, regulated in part by the state. There is a reason why you have to, generally, obtain a license to get married. By getting married certain legal consequences flow from the legal act of marriage, consequences largely related to property and personal interests. Many of those interests can be guaranteed by other legal mechanisms like wills, powers of attorney and other such instruments, but the marriage license and the marriage certificate are a short cut, done for administrative convenience.
The so-called "right to marriage" is actually a guarantee by the courts that the state shall not imperissible burden the liberty of someone to marry. That does not mean the state cannot erect certain barriers to obtaining a license, including, if the state legislature so chooses, a requirement that marriage between a man and a woman. Now, before you blast me for being hypocritical, the state legislature is one of the arbiters of the health, welfare and morals of their population. Thus if the state legislature, in their collective wisdom, responding to the will of their constituents believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, that is the nature of the political process. If you do not like the policy enacted by the legislature, the proper forum for having your greivance redressed is the legislature, not the courts. When gay activists turned to the Massachussets Supreme Court for a right to marry, many other states responded by enacting either statutes or state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
The Washington Post poll finds that most Americans think the legislature or direct democracy are the proper fora for undertaking such policy making regarding marriage. And they are right. Regardless of your historical or moral view of the history of marriage or your religious beliefs regarding marriage, the institution of marriage is fundamentally a liberty afforded to individuals--not a right to be guaranteed by the state. The state may prohibit marriage by minors, or between family members too closely related, etc. However, those minors and too closely related family members have a justifiable claim for other true rights.
Likewise, the "right" to an abortion is actually more a liberty, subject to the interests of the state. As currently formulated, abortion is, more or less, available in the first trimester. Thus a woman is a liberty to terminate her pregnancy should she choose to do so. However, her liberty becomes subject to state interest as her pregnancy matures. The state is not violating her "rights" when it says that a woman cannot get an abortion past a certain, somewhat arbitrary point in time. Rather the state is asserting its interests over those of the woman.
Of course the state may impose its interests above the actual rights of others, but the legal barrier to doing so is quite high. Whereas, when it comes to liberties, the barrier is not necessarily as high.
When looked at through the lens of rights vs. liberties, many Americans believe that the state legislatures should be setting policy on a number of fundamental liberties (and privileges) we enjoy. The legislature remains the proper legal and political forum for the definition of many of the liberties we enjoy. As social norms evolve, the liberties we enjoy evolve as well. I have no doubt that as we as a nation evolve, society's attitude toward gay marriage will also change.
However, in the meantime, as the poll suggests, we need to look more to our legislatures for policy making, rather than asking the courts to do so. Of course, the legislatures need to step up and make policy and stop punting to the courts, but that is the subject of another rant.
Evangelical Republicans Trust States on Social Issues
While Evangelical Republicans probably do look at "activist judges" as the downfall of American morality, the problems extends much further back. Starting in the 1950's in particular, people, led principally by Democrats, began turning to the Court to vindicate certain rights. Now some of the rights guaranteed by decisions of the Supreme Court are just, such as equal education, one-peron-one-vote, etc. But other decisions have led to a great deal of polarization like Roe v. Wade. But the nationalization of American politics, in part throught a more active Congress and in part through the use of the courts to bring about social change, means that most Americans came to believe that we have all sorts of "rights" such as the "right" to an abortion or the "right" to privacy.
What most people describe as "rights" are actually liberties. Rights are the subject of government guarantees. For example, people have the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, meaning the government has an affirmative duty to prevent such incidents. However, other matters, such as abortion, is a liberty. Liberties are freedoms we enjoy that are generally, but not required to be, free from government interference. Moreover, many liberties that we enjoy are actually privileges granted by the government.
The survey reported on below discusses three issues dealing with morality or having moral overtones, the death penalty, gay marriage, and abortion. I want to leave the issue of the death penalty off the table for this discussion because there appears to be an fairly clear majority of Americans (57%) who want the courts to be heavily involved in that issue and because it is not really an issue related to rights, as they are perceived by most Americans. Yet the issues of abortion and gay marriage are those that people, one one side or another refer to as a "right" and all of them do so incorrectly.
Those supporting the concept of gay marriage may have a valid equal protection of the laws argument, but there is no actual right to marriage, contrary to what many people believe. Marriage is a privilege, regulated in part by the state. There is a reason why you have to, generally, obtain a license to get married. By getting married certain legal consequences flow from the legal act of marriage, consequences largely related to property and personal interests. Many of those interests can be guaranteed by other legal mechanisms like wills, powers of attorney and other such instruments, but the marriage license and the marriage certificate are a short cut, done for administrative convenience.
The so-called "right to marriage" is actually a guarantee by the courts that the state shall not imperissible burden the liberty of someone to marry. That does not mean the state cannot erect certain barriers to obtaining a license, including, if the state legislature so chooses, a requirement that marriage between a man and a woman. Now, before you blast me for being hypocritical, the state legislature is one of the arbiters of the health, welfare and morals of their population. Thus if the state legislature, in their collective wisdom, responding to the will of their constituents believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, that is the nature of the political process. If you do not like the policy enacted by the legislature, the proper forum for having your greivance redressed is the legislature, not the courts. When gay activists turned to the Massachussets Supreme Court for a right to marry, many other states responded by enacting either statutes or state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
The Washington Post poll finds that most Americans think the legislature or direct democracy are the proper fora for undertaking such policy making regarding marriage. And they are right. Regardless of your historical or moral view of the history of marriage or your religious beliefs regarding marriage, the institution of marriage is fundamentally a liberty afforded to individuals--not a right to be guaranteed by the state. The state may prohibit marriage by minors, or between family members too closely related, etc. However, those minors and too closely related family members have a justifiable claim for other true rights.
Likewise, the "right" to an abortion is actually more a liberty, subject to the interests of the state. As currently formulated, abortion is, more or less, available in the first trimester. Thus a woman is a liberty to terminate her pregnancy should she choose to do so. However, her liberty becomes subject to state interest as her pregnancy matures. The state is not violating her "rights" when it says that a woman cannot get an abortion past a certain, somewhat arbitrary point in time. Rather the state is asserting its interests over those of the woman.
Of course the state may impose its interests above the actual rights of others, but the legal barrier to doing so is quite high. Whereas, when it comes to liberties, the barrier is not necessarily as high.
When looked at through the lens of rights vs. liberties, many Americans believe that the state legislatures should be setting policy on a number of fundamental liberties (and privileges) we enjoy. The legislature remains the proper legal and political forum for the definition of many of the liberties we enjoy. As social norms evolve, the liberties we enjoy evolve as well. I have no doubt that as we as a nation evolve, society's attitude toward gay marriage will also change.
However, in the meantime, as the poll suggests, we need to look more to our legislatures for policy making, rather than asking the courts to do so. Of course, the legislatures need to step up and make policy and stop punting to the courts, but that is the subject of another rant.
Evangelical Republicans Trust States on Social Issues
Teachers, Housing and the Impact on Community
It seems that, at least in the DC area, teachers can't afford homes. If one subscribes to the Hillary Clinton theory, that it takes a village to raise and educate a child, what is the impact when one of the key actor's in a child's education doesn't live in the village? What if the person, in this case a teacher, can't live in the village because they can't afford a house in the village? Is the education of the child compromised? I believe the answer is yes because there is not enough of a community connection between parents, students and teachers.
By homes, I mean either a townhouse or an actual single-family home. Sociologists will tell you that in order for a person to feel as though they belong to a community there must be some sense of roots, or connection within the community. One of the primary methods by which people put down roots or build connections with a community is by owning a home.
Teachers play a significant role in our community, but when the teachers of our children are not accessible outside of the school, it presents difficulties, both for the families and the teachers, to develop a relationship outside of school. If you are wondering what I mean, take an example from my own childhood. As a kid, my teachers lived in the same middle-class neighborhood as I did. I played soccer with their kids, we saw some of them at church and my parents knew my teachers socially outside of school. What all this meant is that teachers were a physical part of the community where I went to school. The connections outside of the school meant that teachers, students and the parents had a basis from which to communicate that was not predicated on the parent-teacher-student relationship. In short, although not necessarily friends, at least there was a common understanding between my parents and my teachers. Even though my parents may have been too busy for regular parent-teacher conferences in a formal setting, informal conferences sprung up at church, at the soccer fields, and other community events.
However, in far too many cities across the country, where the connection between teacher and families is already too tenuous, the relationship is becoming more so--all because teachers cannot afford to live in the places where they teach. Particularly in larger cities and suburban areas, teachers are forced by poor salaries to live in areas far from their schools, meaning a punishing commute both ways. Since teachers are not seen outside of the school setting, there is no common understanding or common viewpoint between parents and teachers. Parents don't respect the teacher because they feel the teacher doesn't understand their kids or their situation. Teachers can't understand their students because they live so far away, outside of the teacher's living environment, and away from interactions withing the community. So the only time parents and teachers see each other is in the framework of the school. Such an arrangement does not make either the parents or hte teachers feel as though they are part of a community with a role in the education or rearing of kids. They feel more like merchants or service providers, operating at arm's length, with a tenously connected goal.
As housing prices increase, teacher's (and many others) cannot afford homes in the communities they serve. While I can offer no solution for the problem of increased housing prices, and it is unlikely that communities can easily force teachers to live where they teach (at least not without substantial differences in pay among teachers in a state), the problem does present a tough scenario.
Housing Costs Pushing Teachers Far From School
By homes, I mean either a townhouse or an actual single-family home. Sociologists will tell you that in order for a person to feel as though they belong to a community there must be some sense of roots, or connection within the community. One of the primary methods by which people put down roots or build connections with a community is by owning a home.
Teachers play a significant role in our community, but when the teachers of our children are not accessible outside of the school, it presents difficulties, both for the families and the teachers, to develop a relationship outside of school. If you are wondering what I mean, take an example from my own childhood. As a kid, my teachers lived in the same middle-class neighborhood as I did. I played soccer with their kids, we saw some of them at church and my parents knew my teachers socially outside of school. What all this meant is that teachers were a physical part of the community where I went to school. The connections outside of the school meant that teachers, students and the parents had a basis from which to communicate that was not predicated on the parent-teacher-student relationship. In short, although not necessarily friends, at least there was a common understanding between my parents and my teachers. Even though my parents may have been too busy for regular parent-teacher conferences in a formal setting, informal conferences sprung up at church, at the soccer fields, and other community events.
However, in far too many cities across the country, where the connection between teacher and families is already too tenuous, the relationship is becoming more so--all because teachers cannot afford to live in the places where they teach. Particularly in larger cities and suburban areas, teachers are forced by poor salaries to live in areas far from their schools, meaning a punishing commute both ways. Since teachers are not seen outside of the school setting, there is no common understanding or common viewpoint between parents and teachers. Parents don't respect the teacher because they feel the teacher doesn't understand their kids or their situation. Teachers can't understand their students because they live so far away, outside of the teacher's living environment, and away from interactions withing the community. So the only time parents and teachers see each other is in the framework of the school. Such an arrangement does not make either the parents or hte teachers feel as though they are part of a community with a role in the education or rearing of kids. They feel more like merchants or service providers, operating at arm's length, with a tenously connected goal.
As housing prices increase, teacher's (and many others) cannot afford homes in the communities they serve. While I can offer no solution for the problem of increased housing prices, and it is unlikely that communities can easily force teachers to live where they teach (at least not without substantial differences in pay among teachers in a state), the problem does present a tough scenario.
Housing Costs Pushing Teachers Far From School
Thursday, June 16, 2005
This Week's Listen: Return 2 Zero
For the most part, over the past couple of weeks, I have been listening to bar review lectures on CD in my car, in my office, in my house, yadda, yadda, yadda. But on vacation last week, in Disney I heard this band for the second time. Return 2 Zero opens the Beauty and the Beast Show at Disney/MGM Studios. With a young daughter, the show was a must. Performing as "Four for a Dollar" this a capella group provides about 15 mintues of entertainment before the show and they do a great job. This year, I decided to buy their CD--at Disney prices--Wow!!
Now a capella singing may take a little getting used to, after all, the only music is provided by the singing of the band. But if done well, and these guys do it well, the music is terrific and surprisingly quite easy to listen to. If you need an introduction to a capella, this is a good disk to get.
This disk is great!! Most of the songs are covers of easy listening standards, like "How Sweet It Is" and "Happy Together" but what makes these covers so great is the complex arrangments of the singers. In addition to the standard finger-snapping for rhythm you get in most a capella groups, Return 2 Zero also utilizes vocal beat box rhytms interspersed with backing vocals to create some fantastic harmonies and counterpoints that I think a lot of a capella groups fail to use.
So here are the favorites:
"Fly Like an Eagle." I have always loved this Steve Miller Band classic and R2Z does a great job with this cover. As an added bonus, with a capella, I finally learned some of the lyrics I always got wrong in the SMB version.
"December 1963 (Oh What a Night)" Taking a classic dance tune, recording it a capella and still making it danceable is, in my mind a tremendous feat. R2Z does a fantastic job with the arrangement, making this my favorite track on the disk.
"Moondance"--Return 2 Zero's take on this Van Morrison classic is itself a classic of harmonies and melodies.
"I'm Alright" I can never hear this Kenny Loggins classic without seeing the "Caddyshack" gopher dancing in my head. I still get the gopher in my head, but he dances a slightly different jig now.
Now a capella singing may take a little getting used to, after all, the only music is provided by the singing of the band. But if done well, and these guys do it well, the music is terrific and surprisingly quite easy to listen to. If you need an introduction to a capella, this is a good disk to get.
This disk is great!! Most of the songs are covers of easy listening standards, like "How Sweet It Is" and "Happy Together" but what makes these covers so great is the complex arrangments of the singers. In addition to the standard finger-snapping for rhythm you get in most a capella groups, Return 2 Zero also utilizes vocal beat box rhytms interspersed with backing vocals to create some fantastic harmonies and counterpoints that I think a lot of a capella groups fail to use.
So here are the favorites:
"Fly Like an Eagle." I have always loved this Steve Miller Band classic and R2Z does a great job with this cover. As an added bonus, with a capella, I finally learned some of the lyrics I always got wrong in the SMB version.
"December 1963 (Oh What a Night)" Taking a classic dance tune, recording it a capella and still making it danceable is, in my mind a tremendous feat. R2Z does a fantastic job with the arrangement, making this my favorite track on the disk.
"Moondance"--Return 2 Zero's take on this Van Morrison classic is itself a classic of harmonies and melodies.
"I'm Alright" I can never hear this Kenny Loggins classic without seeing the "Caddyshack" gopher dancing in my head. I still get the gopher in my head, but he dances a slightly different jig now.
Reducing the Medicaid Drag
Wow, it is about time. Currently, many states spend more on the medicaid program than any other single budget item, in many cases well in excess of education, police and public safety spending combined.
Medicaid insures more than 50 million low-income people, pays for more than one-third of births and finances care for two-thirds of nursing home residents. The cost of the program, financed jointly by the federal government and the states, shot up 63 percent in the last five years and now exceeds $300 billion a year. (emphasis added).
The fact that the National Governor's Association has come up with a unified plan to present to Congress is a great testament to the need for such changes to the program in the face of the bitter partisanship in today's times. Of course that partisanship and class warfare were on display during the Congressional hearings. Here are a couple of the gems:
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, asked Mr. Warner, "Why are you so timid?" in seeking federal financial help. Mr. Waxman said Congress would not have to squeeze savings from Medicaid if it had not approved "tax cuts for billionaires." ... Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, said the governors' proposals would "shift costs to the poorest and most vulnerable citizens."
Class warfare language at its best.
Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the senior Democrat on the Finance Committee, said he feared that higher co-payments would deter people from seeking the medical care that they needed.
Okay, time for some myth dispellment. One of the current problems with medical care in this country is over-utilization, i.e. people going for medical treatment for the slightest ailment, a cough, a sneeze and other little problems that 30 years ago people treated at home or monitored to see if it lasted for more than a couple of days. Today, we get a cough and we go to the doctor. We get a cold and we go to the doctor. This behavior extends to all people of all levels of socio-economic status. I find it difficult to believe that anyone, even the poorest American would deny themselves medical care for a real need because of a $3 or $5 dollar co-payment. Perhaps they will stop going to the doctor every week, but I doubt they will stop going all-together.
Here is another little class-warfare stupidity.
Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, said, "These proposals will add to the ranks of the uninsured."
First of all, the people receiving Medicaid are usually uninsured--that is why they get Medicaid, because they are too poor or not employed enough to qualify for traditional insurance. Medicaid IS THE insurer of last resort. Thus, we will not be adding to the ranks of the uninsured, they are already there. Second, the proposal is not aimed a kicking anyone out of Medicaid, merely asking them to do what millions of other American taxpayers already do, namely foot some of the bill for their medical care. America's poor (and I might add illegal immigrants) cost the taxpayers, well over $300 billion a year. I am not suggesting we not provide the service, but if everyone has to pay a portion of their healtcare bill, there may be a decrease in the utilization of health services that come for free to medicaid recipeints.
Finally, there is the problem of short memory among Democrats. In 1996, when the welfare laws were overhauled (under a Democratic president), there were predictions of governor's slashing benefits and throwing people to the wolves. That didn't happen and Governor "Huckabee recalled that skeptics had made dire predictions about the 1996 welfare law, but that states did not slash benefits, as many Democrats in Congress had feared."
Medicaid is a massive drain on state finances and a huge burden on government as a whole, both federal and state. With exploding price tags, even when medical services are not charged full price, Medicaid is costly and only going to become more so as people age and need more nursing home care. I applaud the Governor's for stepping and having the courage to say--"We have a problem and we need your help." The partisanship was put aside by the governors, but Congress can't seem to get past it.
The fact of the matter remains that a crisis is looming and has been looming for a while. The Governors face three difficult problems. First, they must get Congress to authorize changes in Medicaid law--a process not unlike herding cats. Second, Governors must rein in costs and over-utilization of health care among their citizens--again not a easy thing to do when most people believe that high quality health care is a right--not a happenstance. Third, Governors without changes, governors of both parties will have to go back to their taxpayers (of which --almost by definition, anyone on Medicaid is NOT a taxpayer) and say, "we need more money so we can provide health care to everyone--so we are going to either raise your taxes or cut other services." A statement sure to get them booted out of office.
Linked to Outside the Beltway
Governors' Group Proposes Medicaid Curbs
Medicaid insures more than 50 million low-income people, pays for more than one-third of births and finances care for two-thirds of nursing home residents. The cost of the program, financed jointly by the federal government and the states, shot up 63 percent in the last five years and now exceeds $300 billion a year. (emphasis added).
The fact that the National Governor's Association has come up with a unified plan to present to Congress is a great testament to the need for such changes to the program in the face of the bitter partisanship in today's times. Of course that partisanship and class warfare were on display during the Congressional hearings. Here are a couple of the gems:
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, asked Mr. Warner, "Why are you so timid?" in seeking federal financial help. Mr. Waxman said Congress would not have to squeeze savings from Medicaid if it had not approved "tax cuts for billionaires." ... Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, said the governors' proposals would "shift costs to the poorest and most vulnerable citizens."
Class warfare language at its best.
Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the senior Democrat on the Finance Committee, said he feared that higher co-payments would deter people from seeking the medical care that they needed.
Okay, time for some myth dispellment. One of the current problems with medical care in this country is over-utilization, i.e. people going for medical treatment for the slightest ailment, a cough, a sneeze and other little problems that 30 years ago people treated at home or monitored to see if it lasted for more than a couple of days. Today, we get a cough and we go to the doctor. We get a cold and we go to the doctor. This behavior extends to all people of all levels of socio-economic status. I find it difficult to believe that anyone, even the poorest American would deny themselves medical care for a real need because of a $3 or $5 dollar co-payment. Perhaps they will stop going to the doctor every week, but I doubt they will stop going all-together.
Here is another little class-warfare stupidity.
Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, said, "These proposals will add to the ranks of the uninsured."
First of all, the people receiving Medicaid are usually uninsured--that is why they get Medicaid, because they are too poor or not employed enough to qualify for traditional insurance. Medicaid IS THE insurer of last resort. Thus, we will not be adding to the ranks of the uninsured, they are already there. Second, the proposal is not aimed a kicking anyone out of Medicaid, merely asking them to do what millions of other American taxpayers already do, namely foot some of the bill for their medical care. America's poor (and I might add illegal immigrants) cost the taxpayers, well over $300 billion a year. I am not suggesting we not provide the service, but if everyone has to pay a portion of their healtcare bill, there may be a decrease in the utilization of health services that come for free to medicaid recipeints.
Finally, there is the problem of short memory among Democrats. In 1996, when the welfare laws were overhauled (under a Democratic president), there were predictions of governor's slashing benefits and throwing people to the wolves. That didn't happen and Governor "Huckabee recalled that skeptics had made dire predictions about the 1996 welfare law, but that states did not slash benefits, as many Democrats in Congress had feared."
Medicaid is a massive drain on state finances and a huge burden on government as a whole, both federal and state. With exploding price tags, even when medical services are not charged full price, Medicaid is costly and only going to become more so as people age and need more nursing home care. I applaud the Governor's for stepping and having the courage to say--"We have a problem and we need your help." The partisanship was put aside by the governors, but Congress can't seem to get past it.
The fact of the matter remains that a crisis is looming and has been looming for a while. The Governors face three difficult problems. First, they must get Congress to authorize changes in Medicaid law--a process not unlike herding cats. Second, Governors must rein in costs and over-utilization of health care among their citizens--again not a easy thing to do when most people believe that high quality health care is a right--not a happenstance. Third, Governors without changes, governors of both parties will have to go back to their taxpayers (of which --almost by definition, anyone on Medicaid is NOT a taxpayer) and say, "we need more money so we can provide health care to everyone--so we are going to either raise your taxes or cut other services." A statement sure to get them booted out of office.
Linked to Outside the Beltway
Governors' Group Proposes Medicaid Curbs
Dems cheer House poll
This from The Hill newspaper, but also found at Roll Call. The Democrats have release (sort of) a poll that shows a number of GOPincumbents who are vulnerable in next year's election. Now the election, for those of you without easy access to a calendar is nearly 18 months away. There is no reason to believe that these incumbents won't be able to repair their image.
Of course, right now the Dems need all the help they can get. Yet at the same time, having a vulnerable incumbent is only part of the battle. You also need to have a viable challenger, which is harder to achieve.
Also, if the Dems are so proud of vulnerable Republicans, why not release the names....Oh, I know why, if you release the names, the GOP will start to shore them up--making their defeat harder to achieve, as if it is not hard enough already to knock off an incumbent.
Polls like these are practically useless. Yet, the release of such news for the Dems is being treated as if it were a message from on high that the Dems will take over the house next year. As I have said many time before, without a message, you got nothing but dreams.
Dems cheer House poll
Of course, right now the Dems need all the help they can get. Yet at the same time, having a vulnerable incumbent is only part of the battle. You also need to have a viable challenger, which is harder to achieve.
Also, if the Dems are so proud of vulnerable Republicans, why not release the names....Oh, I know why, if you release the names, the GOP will start to shore them up--making their defeat harder to achieve, as if it is not hard enough already to knock off an incumbent.
Polls like these are practically useless. Yet, the release of such news for the Dems is being treated as if it were a message from on high that the Dems will take over the house next year. As I have said many time before, without a message, you got nothing but dreams.
Dems cheer House poll
Schools Chief in Yonkers Is Indicted
Why is it some people think they can lie about a few things and get away with it? The thing is, this guy might have gotten fired for the civil violation of bad hiring, but the cover-up is likely to send him to jail.
Also, during the investigation, did this guy not think that they were going to talk to the kid he hired? Stupidity abounds in the educracy!!
Schools Chief in Yonkers Is Indicted - New York Times
Also, during the investigation, did this guy not think that they were going to talk to the kid he hired? Stupidity abounds in the educracy!!
Schools Chief in Yonkers Is Indicted - New York Times
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Citizen Children of Illegal Immigrants
This article from the Washington Times points to, but fails to develop further, a growing issue in the immigration realm, a growing population of children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. Big deal you say--well it is, because these children born in the U.S. are by operation of where they are born, American citizens. That is the law.
This presents an amazing difficulty for us because by law and common sense, we can't deport citizens. If we deport their parents--the state will then have to provide care for these "deportation orphans." The story does point to what will happen in a few years. These kids will be able to petition the government to have their families, who currently have no legal status, granted status--possibly even citizenship.
This presents yet another alarming problem in the immigration policy of the Bush Administration. While the guest worker matter appears solid in many respects, what will we do with the guest worker who is pregnant or the husband of a pregnant woman who comes here to have the child. We now have a family that is all but guaranteed to stay here.
So what solutions present themselves to me. First, we could do nothing, which is probably what will happen since many people lack the gall and gumption to do something. Second, we can not treat teh children of illegal immigrants as citizens. Here is a primary difference between a child born to legal vs. illegal immigrants. I have no problem granting birthright citizenship to the child of legal immigrants. The parents of such a child may or may not avail themselves of their child's status, but that is beside the point, they are here legally and should have the benefit of hte protection of our laws.
On the other hand, illegal immigrants should not be afforded the protections of the laws they flagrantly disregard. A child born in teh United States to illegal immigrants should NOT, under any circumstances be granted birthright citizenship. To grant such a status encourages further illegal activity compounded by the subsequent petitions for the family for a legal status. Illegal immigrant children should be deported along with their parents.
Now I know that some people will read this and say, how cruel. You are a heartless cro-magnon with no soul. Perhaps, but I also believe that as a nation our biggest security threat is not terrorists from teh sky, but terrorists walking across our borders. Illegal immigration must be stopped and taking away the biggest incentive for immigrants to come here, namely the birth of the so-called "anchor" child, will help stem the flow and reduce the cost on me, the taxpayer.
So if that makes me cruel so be it, but it is my country and I say if you are here illegally you should be immediately deported. It is so easy to come to this country legally, and if you do so, I will be the first person in line to shake you hand, say congratulations and good luck in our country. Otherwise, stay the hell out!!!
'Anchors' in third of alien families
This presents an amazing difficulty for us because by law and common sense, we can't deport citizens. If we deport their parents--the state will then have to provide care for these "deportation orphans." The story does point to what will happen in a few years. These kids will be able to petition the government to have their families, who currently have no legal status, granted status--possibly even citizenship.
This presents yet another alarming problem in the immigration policy of the Bush Administration. While the guest worker matter appears solid in many respects, what will we do with the guest worker who is pregnant or the husband of a pregnant woman who comes here to have the child. We now have a family that is all but guaranteed to stay here.
So what solutions present themselves to me. First, we could do nothing, which is probably what will happen since many people lack the gall and gumption to do something. Second, we can not treat teh children of illegal immigrants as citizens. Here is a primary difference between a child born to legal vs. illegal immigrants. I have no problem granting birthright citizenship to the child of legal immigrants. The parents of such a child may or may not avail themselves of their child's status, but that is beside the point, they are here legally and should have the benefit of hte protection of our laws.
On the other hand, illegal immigrants should not be afforded the protections of the laws they flagrantly disregard. A child born in teh United States to illegal immigrants should NOT, under any circumstances be granted birthright citizenship. To grant such a status encourages further illegal activity compounded by the subsequent petitions for the family for a legal status. Illegal immigrant children should be deported along with their parents.
Now I know that some people will read this and say, how cruel. You are a heartless cro-magnon with no soul. Perhaps, but I also believe that as a nation our biggest security threat is not terrorists from teh sky, but terrorists walking across our borders. Illegal immigration must be stopped and taking away the biggest incentive for immigrants to come here, namely the birth of the so-called "anchor" child, will help stem the flow and reduce the cost on me, the taxpayer.
So if that makes me cruel so be it, but it is my country and I say if you are here illegally you should be immediately deported. It is so easy to come to this country legally, and if you do so, I will be the first person in line to shake you hand, say congratulations and good luck in our country. Otherwise, stay the hell out!!!
'Anchors' in third of alien families
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Grades for Effort a Disservice to Kids and Society
Below is a link to a Washington Post Article on the practices some teachers have for increasing grades based on a student's effort, supplementing or perhaps even replacing what the student gets for the actual achievement or fullfillment of the assignment. One teacher noted,
"Grades from assignments indirectly measure effort," he said. "I tell students that as long as they keep up with projects and homework and make an honest effort on tests and quizzes, they won't fail," he said.
But what if the child does not know or understand any of the material he or she is expected to know? Is not the point of an education to provide the skills and knowledge one needs to be a productive member of society? What happens on the necessary standardized tests that measure necessary knowledge? The testing board cannot measure effort on the exam. The result is likely to be a bunch of students with good grades for effort in class, but poor scores on the tests. So what is the best service to the child? To be sure, the ethic of working hard and following through on assignments is a valuable skill in life, but a child needs to learn something more.
Better grades for showing up and turning in homework, they said, keep students from doing what is necessary to master the material.
First, unless I am mistaken, children and their parents are under a legal obligation to be in school unless there is some valid and reasonable excuse. Thus, "showing up" should not be a graded criteria--it is a duty that must be fulfilled. Second, turning in homework is part of the assignment. I can prepare a report for a client, but unless I give that report to the client I have not fulfilled my duty to them. Similarly, a student shouldn't get credit for turning in graded homework--you have to turn it in to get the credit!!
I find it shocking that teachers feel that giving partial credit for even turning in the homework is necessary. If homework is part of the graded criteria for passage, the homework must be done. It really is as simple as that.
One teacher sums up my opinion well:
"One of life's tough lessons is trying hard and failing. It does no kid anywhere any good to give grades based on trying hard or behaving nicely because sooner or later they hit the wall of not having the knowledge the grade implied."
This is true. I have found in my experiences at the university and post-graduate world that many students' first failure in a graded exercise comes at these levels--usually on high stakes mid-term or final exams. At the upper levels of education, unlike high school, there is little personal connection between the professor/teaching assistant and the student. The college professor grades on mastery and understanding of the subject--something new to many students who used to get by on effort. Thus, students whose grades were inflated by grading for effort, fail in their mastery of the material, getting poor grades and not understanding why. The reason they fail to understand lies solely in the fact that their teachers and parents failed them. The adults in their life did not hold them accountable for learning what they were supposed to know, resulting in a failure as a young adult--for the first time.
In the end, what we are seeing in this debate about grading for effort is, itself, an extension of the debate about self-esteem among young people. By coddling these kids we have created a class of youth who do not know or understand failure as a natural course of events in education. They have no skills to assess the lessons of a failure and lack the ability to apply lessons learned in failure to avoid such failures in the future. Not learning the skill of analyzing failure or mistake in high school, means they lack to the ability to do so in college or the working world--a failure far greater in impact than anything a child is likely to suffer in school.
Where Some Give Credit, Others Say It's Not Due
"Grades from assignments indirectly measure effort," he said. "I tell students that as long as they keep up with projects and homework and make an honest effort on tests and quizzes, they won't fail," he said.
But what if the child does not know or understand any of the material he or she is expected to know? Is not the point of an education to provide the skills and knowledge one needs to be a productive member of society? What happens on the necessary standardized tests that measure necessary knowledge? The testing board cannot measure effort on the exam. The result is likely to be a bunch of students with good grades for effort in class, but poor scores on the tests. So what is the best service to the child? To be sure, the ethic of working hard and following through on assignments is a valuable skill in life, but a child needs to learn something more.
Better grades for showing up and turning in homework, they said, keep students from doing what is necessary to master the material.
First, unless I am mistaken, children and their parents are under a legal obligation to be in school unless there is some valid and reasonable excuse. Thus, "showing up" should not be a graded criteria--it is a duty that must be fulfilled. Second, turning in homework is part of the assignment. I can prepare a report for a client, but unless I give that report to the client I have not fulfilled my duty to them. Similarly, a student shouldn't get credit for turning in graded homework--you have to turn it in to get the credit!!
I find it shocking that teachers feel that giving partial credit for even turning in the homework is necessary. If homework is part of the graded criteria for passage, the homework must be done. It really is as simple as that.
One teacher sums up my opinion well:
"One of life's tough lessons is trying hard and failing. It does no kid anywhere any good to give grades based on trying hard or behaving nicely because sooner or later they hit the wall of not having the knowledge the grade implied."
This is true. I have found in my experiences at the university and post-graduate world that many students' first failure in a graded exercise comes at these levels--usually on high stakes mid-term or final exams. At the upper levels of education, unlike high school, there is little personal connection between the professor/teaching assistant and the student. The college professor grades on mastery and understanding of the subject--something new to many students who used to get by on effort. Thus, students whose grades were inflated by grading for effort, fail in their mastery of the material, getting poor grades and not understanding why. The reason they fail to understand lies solely in the fact that their teachers and parents failed them. The adults in their life did not hold them accountable for learning what they were supposed to know, resulting in a failure as a young adult--for the first time.
In the end, what we are seeing in this debate about grading for effort is, itself, an extension of the debate about self-esteem among young people. By coddling these kids we have created a class of youth who do not know or understand failure as a natural course of events in education. They have no skills to assess the lessons of a failure and lack the ability to apply lessons learned in failure to avoid such failures in the future. Not learning the skill of analyzing failure or mistake in high school, means they lack to the ability to do so in college or the working world--a failure far greater in impact than anything a child is likely to suffer in school.
Where Some Give Credit, Others Say It's Not Due
I'm Baaaack!
Back from vacation at the Happiest place on Earth and their cruise line. I had a great time and came up with a couple of observations about Disney.
Apparently Disney World and theme parks in general are the one place on earth where you can wear the most rediculous and ugly t-shirts possible, with some of the most outlandish slogans and be considered appropriate. Unfortunately, yours truly did not come up with any photos of such T-shirts, but they are out there. Go to a theme park and see for yourself.
Next, with very warm weather in Orlando (in June--go figure), many women felt more comfortable wearing bikini tops to the park. On principle I don't object as I like to look at beautiful women in an admiring way. My issue is why do the women you want to see in a bikini top choose not to wear them and those you don't want to see in a bikini insist on wearing them. Multiple shudders on some accounts.
The person in the Disney marketing department who came up with the Disney Princesses marketing plan should be awarded the equivalent of a Nobel Prize for commercial genius. Take half a dozen cartoon characters, some who are 40 plus years old, package them as a group and voila, you have an instant marketing machine. My daughter (who is three) was but merely one of the hundres of little girls (and teenagers) who would stand in line for hours for photos, autographs and the opportunity to meet the Princesses. Absolute freaking genius--if not a little expensive in the pocketbook.
In relation to the last observation--when did Tinkerbell get promoted to princesshood? Sometimes she is there, sometimes not? Which is it and how does a fairy get a promotion?
Why is it at the Disney parks, you can get strollers for kids during the day, but the time you really need one, at the end of hte day, you have to carry your sleeping child to the bus stop back to the hotel--and wait for 30 mintes with a heavy kid in your arms. But when you child is awake, you wait only 3 minutes for a bus?
Finally, a couple of practical observations:
That is all, we now return you to normal blogging.
Apparently Disney World and theme parks in general are the one place on earth where you can wear the most rediculous and ugly t-shirts possible, with some of the most outlandish slogans and be considered appropriate. Unfortunately, yours truly did not come up with any photos of such T-shirts, but they are out there. Go to a theme park and see for yourself.
Next, with very warm weather in Orlando (in June--go figure), many women felt more comfortable wearing bikini tops to the park. On principle I don't object as I like to look at beautiful women in an admiring way. My issue is why do the women you want to see in a bikini top choose not to wear them and those you don't want to see in a bikini insist on wearing them. Multiple shudders on some accounts.
The person in the Disney marketing department who came up with the Disney Princesses marketing plan should be awarded the equivalent of a Nobel Prize for commercial genius. Take half a dozen cartoon characters, some who are 40 plus years old, package them as a group and voila, you have an instant marketing machine. My daughter (who is three) was but merely one of the hundres of little girls (and teenagers) who would stand in line for hours for photos, autographs and the opportunity to meet the Princesses. Absolute freaking genius--if not a little expensive in the pocketbook.
In relation to the last observation--when did Tinkerbell get promoted to princesshood? Sometimes she is there, sometimes not? Which is it and how does a fairy get a promotion?
Why is it at the Disney parks, you can get strollers for kids during the day, but the time you really need one, at the end of hte day, you have to carry your sleeping child to the bus stop back to the hotel--and wait for 30 mintes with a heavy kid in your arms. But when you child is awake, you wait only 3 minutes for a bus?
Finally, a couple of practical observations:
- Waterproof sunscreen? No such thing if you spend more than 30 seconds in the water--it is gone, bye bye, hello sunburn.
- You can get brutally sunburned on a overcast day. Just ask my lobster...., er, wife.
- Getting the top of your feet sunburned sucks--big time.
- If you are pregnant and susceptible to seasickness on cruises, the anti-nausea pill for pregnant women costs $30 a pill.
That is all, we now return you to normal blogging.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Dean Accuses Bush of Not Protecting Pensions
Pulling out the partisan gloves without the facts. Granted, pension funds are experiencing a great many problems, but it is too easy to blame the current administration. The fact of the matter is, no matter who occupies the White House, this is a problem. The costs of a defined benefit plan, like many pensions, are so expensive that they are cost-prohibitive today--which is why 401(k) plans, a defined contribution plan, is so popular.
Old economy companies, like United Airlines, are facing serious shortfalls in pension funding, often because the companies would raid the funds to help pay for short term needs, fully expecting, usually in good faith, that they would be able to repay the fund. Of course the repayment did not occur.
Public pension funds facing shortfalls are more a function of mismanagement and too high expectations rahter than federal government policies. If you don't believe, take a look at what happened in San Diego. The practice of promising massive pensions to government workers is going to have to change. It is far better to pay them a higher salary on the front end (and tax them on it) than to promise a massive benefit upon retirement.
Of course, Dean needs to have some sort of message to pound on in order to get notices. But, once again, please look carefully at the story and the message. There is not one kernal of an idea to fix the problem in all of Dean's rantings. If you want to fix the system and have a real debate about this, or any, issue, come to the table with an idea, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
Dean Accuses Bush of Not Protecting Pensions
Old economy companies, like United Airlines, are facing serious shortfalls in pension funding, often because the companies would raid the funds to help pay for short term needs, fully expecting, usually in good faith, that they would be able to repay the fund. Of course the repayment did not occur.
Public pension funds facing shortfalls are more a function of mismanagement and too high expectations rahter than federal government policies. If you don't believe, take a look at what happened in San Diego. The practice of promising massive pensions to government workers is going to have to change. It is far better to pay them a higher salary on the front end (and tax them on it) than to promise a massive benefit upon retirement.
Of course, Dean needs to have some sort of message to pound on in order to get notices. But, once again, please look carefully at the story and the message. There is not one kernal of an idea to fix the problem in all of Dean's rantings. If you want to fix the system and have a real debate about this, or any, issue, come to the table with an idea, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
Dean Accuses Bush of Not Protecting Pensions
Going on Vacation
Blogging will be extreme light, if there is any at all over the next week or so. I am going on my post graduation vaction!!!.
See ya!!
See ya!!
Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
It was only a matter of time before this information came out. Of course anyone with half a brain could have figured out that Abramoff didn't work with just Republicans. It simply doesn't work like that, he had to work both sides of the aisle.
Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Thursday, June 02, 2005
MoveOn Targets 7 GOP Members
Roll Call is reporting on efforts by the MoveOn PAC and MoveOn.org attacking severn GOP incumbents in hopes of tying them to Tom DeLay and his ethics problems. One can see overtones of the success 1994 GOP revolution strategy in this effort by MoveOn, but there are some different conditions than in 1993 and 1994.
First, Tom DeLay's ethics issues, while considerable in some respects are really no different than many other Members. True, his aides in TRMPAC have been held liable in some violations of Texas campaign finance law, and DeLay has a suspect relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramhoff. But then again, Nancy Pelosi was fined by the FEC for attempting to explicitly circumvent rules on campaign contributions. A number of members, including several prominent Democrats have close ties to Abramhoff.
No, DeLay's ethical problems, while significant do not rise to the problems of the Democratic leadership in 1992. Keep in mind that DeLay's problems are generally DeLay's and no one elses--at least he is no more guilty of ethical lapses than any other Member of Congress. On the other hand in 1992, there were widespread abuses of privilege among Democrats--Remember the House bank scandal, with dozens of lawmakers floating thousands of dollars worth of checks.
The legislative climate also does not favor Democrats. True, Bush has the Social Security issue that could drag down his party in 2006, but not nearly as bad as the health care debacle in 1993-1994. In 1993-1994, the message about health care was that government could do it better, in the face of evidence to the contrary. In 2005, Bush is looking to change Social Security--by giving more control to people rather than the government, a propostion most people respond to, even if they lack the ability to understand it. Bush is not proposing to destroy the institution, as flawed as Social Security may be, rather he is looking to alter it. Clinton sought to dismantle a broken system completely rather than try to repair the system.
Finally, there is the matter of message. Right now, MoveOn and the Democrats have an anti-message--they oppose anything the GOP does. In 1994, the GOP has a message, a unified, easy to understand 10 point message that anyone could understand. So far, the only thing Democrats can say is that the President's Social Security plan is bad, but they have to alternative of their own.
For a short period of time, a party can get away with being anti-majority. But that period is finite and will rarely, if ever, carry the electoral day. As long as the GOP stays active and defining the issue debate, the Democrats will try to rely on their anti-message, but that won't work.
Finally, there is the list of targeted members the MoveOn is going after: Reps. Chris Chocola (Ind.), Melissa Hart (Pa.), Marilyn Musgrave (Colo.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Rob Simmons (Conn.), Mike Sodrel (Ind.) and Heather Wilson (N.M.). None of these members, while they have received support from DeLay, have particularly close ties to DeLay. Did they vote for DeLay to be the Majority Leader--yes, but that vote is as much about respect for what DeLay has done in the past and seniority as anything else.
Once again, a message is lacking in the Democratic effort. Democrats face a problem with this ad attack. The fact is that most people hate Congress (look at its dismally low approval ratings), but love their Congressman. Hart in particular, is quite popular in her swing district and has been such for a while. There is no imperative for voters to fall in line with Democratic thinking. Most people think that Members of Congress are corrupt anyway (except their Congressman of course) so calling DeLay unscrupulous does nothing. Tying a these Members to DeLay will do little, particularly 18 months out from the next election.
MoveOn is thus wasting $150,000.
With DeLay in Its Sights, MoveOn Targets 7 GOP Members
First, Tom DeLay's ethics issues, while considerable in some respects are really no different than many other Members. True, his aides in TRMPAC have been held liable in some violations of Texas campaign finance law, and DeLay has a suspect relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramhoff. But then again, Nancy Pelosi was fined by the FEC for attempting to explicitly circumvent rules on campaign contributions. A number of members, including several prominent Democrats have close ties to Abramhoff.
No, DeLay's ethical problems, while significant do not rise to the problems of the Democratic leadership in 1992. Keep in mind that DeLay's problems are generally DeLay's and no one elses--at least he is no more guilty of ethical lapses than any other Member of Congress. On the other hand in 1992, there were widespread abuses of privilege among Democrats--Remember the House bank scandal, with dozens of lawmakers floating thousands of dollars worth of checks.
The legislative climate also does not favor Democrats. True, Bush has the Social Security issue that could drag down his party in 2006, but not nearly as bad as the health care debacle in 1993-1994. In 1993-1994, the message about health care was that government could do it better, in the face of evidence to the contrary. In 2005, Bush is looking to change Social Security--by giving more control to people rather than the government, a propostion most people respond to, even if they lack the ability to understand it. Bush is not proposing to destroy the institution, as flawed as Social Security may be, rather he is looking to alter it. Clinton sought to dismantle a broken system completely rather than try to repair the system.
Finally, there is the matter of message. Right now, MoveOn and the Democrats have an anti-message--they oppose anything the GOP does. In 1994, the GOP has a message, a unified, easy to understand 10 point message that anyone could understand. So far, the only thing Democrats can say is that the President's Social Security plan is bad, but they have to alternative of their own.
For a short period of time, a party can get away with being anti-majority. But that period is finite and will rarely, if ever, carry the electoral day. As long as the GOP stays active and defining the issue debate, the Democrats will try to rely on their anti-message, but that won't work.
Finally, there is the list of targeted members the MoveOn is going after: Reps. Chris Chocola (Ind.), Melissa Hart (Pa.), Marilyn Musgrave (Colo.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Rob Simmons (Conn.), Mike Sodrel (Ind.) and Heather Wilson (N.M.). None of these members, while they have received support from DeLay, have particularly close ties to DeLay. Did they vote for DeLay to be the Majority Leader--yes, but that vote is as much about respect for what DeLay has done in the past and seniority as anything else.
Once again, a message is lacking in the Democratic effort. Democrats face a problem with this ad attack. The fact is that most people hate Congress (look at its dismally low approval ratings), but love their Congressman. Hart in particular, is quite popular in her swing district and has been such for a while. There is no imperative for voters to fall in line with Democratic thinking. Most people think that Members of Congress are corrupt anyway (except their Congressman of course) so calling DeLay unscrupulous does nothing. Tying a these Members to DeLay will do little, particularly 18 months out from the next election.
MoveOn is thus wasting $150,000.
With DeLay in Its Sights, MoveOn Targets 7 GOP Members
The Bush Effect for Blacks
It has been a while since I posted something so blatantly partisan as to fully identify my political leanings, but here we go. In this post on Blogs for Bush, I read this post about Ken Mehlman and the RNC's attempt to reach out to minority voters--particularly black voters.
One must realize, historically, blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican in the years before the New Deal. It was only during that massive realignment did black voters, when they were allowed to vote, began voting Democratic, in large part due to the efforts of FDR and the welfare state created by the New Deal. But after 70 years of the Democrats assuming the black vote was theirs, we may be on the cusp of a new realignment. I am not talking about the next election cycle or even by 2010, but I believe the black vote may once again be in play in the near future.
Here is why. First, there is a growing black middle class, a socio-economic cohort who is not beholden to the Democratic party for their success. These are people who obtained an education--fought for it tooth and nail, essentially pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and, more importantly, have passed that legacy onto their children. This middle class is beginning to realize that the welfare state policies favored by the Democratic party no longer aid them and in fact impede the ability of their peers to succeed. At the same time, this black middle class, often socially conservative or at the very least fiscally conservative, have come to realize that the opportunities afforded them by the current administration's policies are leading to an expanded range of opportunity.
Second, President Bush has done something few Republican Presidential candidates have ever been able to do--he increased his share, both in terms of percentage and raw number of voters, among the black vote. In 2000, Bush received less than 10% of the black vote. In 2004, he increased his black vote by 2%. A modest gain to be sure, but in terms of raw voters, he greatly increased his share due to the increased turnout.
During 2004, Democrats made a push to increase turnout in the black community, but failed to provide any answers to the issues the black community considered so important--education, security, crime, etc. The only answer they got was more money promised them. But the Democrats have failed to realize that the minority communities have seen trillions of dollars spent on programs aimed to help them, but have seen no successes on a wide basis. Consequently, they are becoming disillusioned with the promise of more money, more programs. The GOP offered something different--opportunity and results. Consequently black voters are more willing and will continue to be more willing to support the GOP.
Third, and importantly, there is less and less a deep rooted connection to the successes of black leaders in 60's. The legacy of Dr. King and his contemporaries is, without a doubt, permanent. Blacks have attained political--if not social and economic--equality. But nearly 40 years after the successes of the 60's, the current generation of blacks--who are coming into their own--does not feel the deep rooted connection to the politics of the past. They are looking for their own solutions and as the 60's become more and more an era of the past, modern blacks will seek their own solutions to their problems, without feeling beholden to the strategy and tactics of earlier times or the "betrayal" of their heritage. They are making their own way and that way is not necessarily with the Democratic party.
Finally, instead of lip service about inclusion and diversity, this administration has put its money where its mouth is. This administration is the most racially diverse group of leaders ever assembled in American history. There are women, Asians, Hispanics, blacks and other minorities present in his Cabinet, in his advisors and in his judicial nominees. One cannot argue that President Bush has held any person back on account of his or her background and one could argue that President Bush has done more to advance minority opportunity at the highest levels of government than any President in history. Certainly it is obvious that President Bush has appointed the first black Secretary of State and the first female black Secretary of State. Condi Rice is the highest ranking woman of African descent ever in American history. She is but four places away from the Presidency. This President has nominated blacks, while conservative, to the courts, to the Cabinet and to other positions.
In fact, Bush's record of diversity is better than and Democrat, including President Clinton. The black community realizes this and responds to the notion that so long as the nominee agrees with Bush's general outlook, their race, background and history mean almost nothing. Furthermore, you can't argue with success, and Bush has been successful. It would be easy to ascribe political overtones to Bush's choices, but the consistency with which his administration seeks out, finds and nominates people with a consistent ideological viewpoint counters any argument that Bush is nominating minorities just to score points. Minorities, indeed everyone, can see the consistency, even if they don't agree with the results on ideological grounds--this administration may be the first true meritocracy in terms of appointments. The meritocracy appeals to black voters because it proves that if you work hard, you can achieve much.
The fact that the RNC is reaching out to black voters should not be a surprise because the audience is receptive. As the 60's generation fades away and the Generation X of blacks attains their majority and asserts their preferences, I think we will see the black vote become a competitive arena for Republicans, further reducing the Democrats to a minority party without the support of minorities.
Blogs for Bush: The Bush Effect
One must realize, historically, blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican in the years before the New Deal. It was only during that massive realignment did black voters, when they were allowed to vote, began voting Democratic, in large part due to the efforts of FDR and the welfare state created by the New Deal. But after 70 years of the Democrats assuming the black vote was theirs, we may be on the cusp of a new realignment. I am not talking about the next election cycle or even by 2010, but I believe the black vote may once again be in play in the near future.
Here is why. First, there is a growing black middle class, a socio-economic cohort who is not beholden to the Democratic party for their success. These are people who obtained an education--fought for it tooth and nail, essentially pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and, more importantly, have passed that legacy onto their children. This middle class is beginning to realize that the welfare state policies favored by the Democratic party no longer aid them and in fact impede the ability of their peers to succeed. At the same time, this black middle class, often socially conservative or at the very least fiscally conservative, have come to realize that the opportunities afforded them by the current administration's policies are leading to an expanded range of opportunity.
Second, President Bush has done something few Republican Presidential candidates have ever been able to do--he increased his share, both in terms of percentage and raw number of voters, among the black vote. In 2000, Bush received less than 10% of the black vote. In 2004, he increased his black vote by 2%. A modest gain to be sure, but in terms of raw voters, he greatly increased his share due to the increased turnout.
During 2004, Democrats made a push to increase turnout in the black community, but failed to provide any answers to the issues the black community considered so important--education, security, crime, etc. The only answer they got was more money promised them. But the Democrats have failed to realize that the minority communities have seen trillions of dollars spent on programs aimed to help them, but have seen no successes on a wide basis. Consequently, they are becoming disillusioned with the promise of more money, more programs. The GOP offered something different--opportunity and results. Consequently black voters are more willing and will continue to be more willing to support the GOP.
Third, and importantly, there is less and less a deep rooted connection to the successes of black leaders in 60's. The legacy of Dr. King and his contemporaries is, without a doubt, permanent. Blacks have attained political--if not social and economic--equality. But nearly 40 years after the successes of the 60's, the current generation of blacks--who are coming into their own--does not feel the deep rooted connection to the politics of the past. They are looking for their own solutions and as the 60's become more and more an era of the past, modern blacks will seek their own solutions to their problems, without feeling beholden to the strategy and tactics of earlier times or the "betrayal" of their heritage. They are making their own way and that way is not necessarily with the Democratic party.
Finally, instead of lip service about inclusion and diversity, this administration has put its money where its mouth is. This administration is the most racially diverse group of leaders ever assembled in American history. There are women, Asians, Hispanics, blacks and other minorities present in his Cabinet, in his advisors and in his judicial nominees. One cannot argue that President Bush has held any person back on account of his or her background and one could argue that President Bush has done more to advance minority opportunity at the highest levels of government than any President in history. Certainly it is obvious that President Bush has appointed the first black Secretary of State and the first female black Secretary of State. Condi Rice is the highest ranking woman of African descent ever in American history. She is but four places away from the Presidency. This President has nominated blacks, while conservative, to the courts, to the Cabinet and to other positions.
In fact, Bush's record of diversity is better than and Democrat, including President Clinton. The black community realizes this and responds to the notion that so long as the nominee agrees with Bush's general outlook, their race, background and history mean almost nothing. Furthermore, you can't argue with success, and Bush has been successful. It would be easy to ascribe political overtones to Bush's choices, but the consistency with which his administration seeks out, finds and nominates people with a consistent ideological viewpoint counters any argument that Bush is nominating minorities just to score points. Minorities, indeed everyone, can see the consistency, even if they don't agree with the results on ideological grounds--this administration may be the first true meritocracy in terms of appointments. The meritocracy appeals to black voters because it proves that if you work hard, you can achieve much.
The fact that the RNC is reaching out to black voters should not be a surprise because the audience is receptive. As the 60's generation fades away and the Generation X of blacks attains their majority and asserts their preferences, I think we will see the black vote become a competitive arena for Republicans, further reducing the Democrats to a minority party without the support of minorities.
Blogs for Bush: The Bush Effect
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Demand Side Campaign Finance Regulation
Most of the efforts to control campaign spending have been on the supply side, regulating the amount of money coming into a campaign. But, as this writer believes, if you eliminate the need for so much money, then you don't need to raise money.
I like the idea of limiting how much television stations can charge for advertsing, but I don't necessarily think the conclusion is proper. If a campaign does not spend money on advertising, it will spend the money elsewhere--there is always a need for more money in a campaign--whehter it is spent on more bumper stickers, more mailings or more GOTV efforts, the money will get spent.
Still--not a bad idea.
RULES OF THE GAME: A Different Tack For Campaign Finance Reform (05/30/2005)
I like the idea of limiting how much television stations can charge for advertsing, but I don't necessarily think the conclusion is proper. If a campaign does not spend money on advertising, it will spend the money elsewhere--there is always a need for more money in a campaign--whehter it is spent on more bumper stickers, more mailings or more GOTV efforts, the money will get spent.
Still--not a bad idea.
RULES OF THE GAME: A Different Tack For Campaign Finance Reform (05/30/2005)
Stop The Blackmail � 65% Solution and Lesson from New Zealand
So much to choose from here, it is hard to write about only one thing.
The 65% solution has been proposed in a number of places, most prominently in California by Sen. Tom McClintock (see my post on this). But that is not what caught my attention was this list:
The 65% solution has been proposed in a number of places, most prominently in California by Sen. Tom McClintock (see my post on this). But that is not what caught my attention was this list:
Give specialized instruction for the hard of hearing, the blind, and the neurologically impaired in the “least restrictive environment”.- Teach gifted students
- Conduct eye testing
- Give inoculations
- Provide pregnancy counseling
- Instill morals, ethics, and values while avoiding any mention of religion
- Search for and exclude all items defined as weapons
- Help students develop political awareness and know-how
- Dispense surplus milk and other commodities
- Perform job placement, provide career information and develop work skills
- Provide counseling and psychological services for grief and conflict assistance
- Assist with bilingual language development and assistance in translation for non-English speaking students
- Counsel delinquents
- Provide transportation
- Follow due process
- Protect student privacy
- Provide computer literacy
- Eliminate sexual discrimination and harassment for students and staff
- Prohibit smoking anywhere on school grounds
- Assist in bladder control
- Develop the ability to reason
- Provide suicide counseling
- Maintain birth information and age certification data
- Close school for selected ethnic and national holidays
- Maintain often extremely costly programs to manage or remove asbestos, lead and pesticides – including notices to the community.
- Foster integration
- Ensure civil rights and racial tolerance
- Detect and report child abuse
- Eradicate head lice, scabies and other diseases
- Assist in charity fundraising
- Serve hot lunch and breakfast
- Develop an appreciation of other people and cultures
- Build patriotism and loyalty to the ideals of democracy
- Build respect for the worth and dignity of the individual
- Involve parents in the creation and review of student discipline policies
- Promote an understanding of the heritage of our country
- Train all staff and provide protection from blood-borne diseases
- Provide individual tutors for students who are hospitalized or recovering at home
- Abide by conflicting state and federal accounting standards
- Develop curiosity and a thirst for learning
- Develop skills in the use of leisure time
- Build a feeling of self-worth or self-respect
- Meet all life safety code provision for school facilities
- Retain student records for 60 years
- Administer ISAT and IGAP tests in accordance with ever-changing rules
- Account to the penny for the spending of federal funds
- Pay for criminal background investigations for all staff
Those task that I don't think schools should be doing are in Red. Now don't get me wrong, some of these services should be performed, including safety of facilities and similar matters, but they should not be provided by schools and should not be part of the school budget. Many of these "parenting" requirements result from the abdication of parents for their duty to raise, care for, and discipline their children. I find it incredibly shocking that Illinois schools must perform these functions.
I will take some time to read about the New Zealand lesson, but the little tease we got in the posting provides some incredible guidance.
Stop The Blackmail--65% Solution and Lesson from New Zealand
Privatization Failure In PA
The story below points to a couple of issues. It looks like Edison Schools will be leaving Chester PA schools, in part because they didn't get paid.
One of the many problems educrats have about private firms like Edison being involved in schools is that companies like this actually expect to be paid for their services, just like any other vendor. When school boards routinely spend money in a frivolous fashion, ignoring basic concpets like adhereing to a budget or hiring competent accountants and financial professionals, it is no wonder companies like Edison get frustrated and then blamed for leaving.
According to the story, it turned out that the district's poor accounting concealed a $35 million budget deficit. District officials said recently that without an immediate loan to pay teachers, the system would have just $9 left in the bank.
These are the people responsible for educating our children about financial basics and they hide a $35 million dollar deficit!!! One does not lose $35 million in a mathematical mistake, $35 sure, maybe even $35,000, but $35,000,000--that is a lot of zeroes to misplace.
Because Edison is a for-profit company, it is in the business of providing education for a fee. They have to show income to their Board and their shareholders. For-profit companies expect to be paid--on time-- and when they don't they often find out that the reason they don't get paid is due to financial incompetence of the school board. Had Edison not left Chester, it is entirely possible that this $35 million dollar lie would not have been found out--at least until teacher's paychecks started bouncing.
Of course the other question is how on earth a school board gets $35 million in debt is a good question to ask.
Edison Schools Leaving Chester, Pa.
One of the many problems educrats have about private firms like Edison being involved in schools is that companies like this actually expect to be paid for their services, just like any other vendor. When school boards routinely spend money in a frivolous fashion, ignoring basic concpets like adhereing to a budget or hiring competent accountants and financial professionals, it is no wonder companies like Edison get frustrated and then blamed for leaving.
According to the story, it turned out that the district's poor accounting concealed a $35 million budget deficit. District officials said recently that without an immediate loan to pay teachers, the system would have just $9 left in the bank.
These are the people responsible for educating our children about financial basics and they hide a $35 million dollar deficit!!! One does not lose $35 million in a mathematical mistake, $35 sure, maybe even $35,000, but $35,000,000--that is a lot of zeroes to misplace.
Because Edison is a for-profit company, it is in the business of providing education for a fee. They have to show income to their Board and their shareholders. For-profit companies expect to be paid--on time-- and when they don't they often find out that the reason they don't get paid is due to financial incompetence of the school board. Had Edison not left Chester, it is entirely possible that this $35 million dollar lie would not have been found out--at least until teacher's paychecks started bouncing.
Of course the other question is how on earth a school board gets $35 million in debt is a good question to ask.
Edison Schools Leaving Chester, Pa.
Self-dealing on pensions - Sacbee.com
Assuming these charges stick, it looks like this will be the first is a series of prosecutions for self-dealing among pension trustees. I cannot believe the audacity of these people and the sheer ignorance of everyone they dealt with, believing they will not get caught.
Opinion - Editorial: Self-dealing on pensions - sacbee.com
Opinion - Editorial: Self-dealing on pensions - sacbee.com
Carnival of Education Is Open
Head over to the Education Wonks for this week's Carnival of Education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)