Porkapalooza

February 11, 2009

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

I just got caught up reading the last 24 hours’ worth of Jim Geraghty over on NRO, and it’s a cornucopia of posts that relate directly to a variety of topics we’ve been discussing here on JPGB:

Jim: “Say, fellows . . . when the central argument that the president uses to defend $838 billion or so in new spending is a lie, isn’t that news? Shouldn’t that be something of a big deal?”

In case the president is interested, Jay has proposed an alternative to the stimulus, although he has also noted that even doing nothing would be better than a stimulus bill.

Which I take as evidence that even the bill’s supporters don’t expect it will have a stimulative effect on the economy, as we’ve discussed; they’re supporting it because it’s a forty-year wish list of liberal fantasies and payoffs.

By which time he hopes the economy will have turned around on its own, so that the improvement can be attributed to the “stimulus,” just like Jay has pointed out.

This slander was debunked within days of the collapse, as we’ve noted. The real reason it collapsed is because “infrastructure” spending goes where politics dictates, not where there are real needs for improved infrastructure. So more spending doesn’t produce improved results.

And speaking of how infrastructure spending is really spent…

Jim reminds us that the Post, even while admitting that Murtha was a profound embarrasment, endorsed him on grounds that he delivered “infrastructure” pork to his district.


Buildingpalooza

February 11, 2009

fancy-church  shack

An underfunded regular public school; a money-draining charter school

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

I can see that school buildings are going to be a big topic for us for the foreseeable future. There’s the feds’ desperate need to blow money on something, anything, in the “recovery” bill (they’re no longer even bothering to call it a “stimulus” bill, apparently). And Jay’s post on school construction last week generated some interesting conversation in the comment thread.

Then last week opponents of the bill had a lot of fun spotlighting its provision of $89 million for school construction in Milwaukee, despite the fact that Milwaukee has had major enrollment declines leading to lots of empty and “underused” buildings, its buildings are deemed to be in good condition, the city has no plans for any construction projects, and just last year it had a major scandal centering around the waste of tens of millions of dollars in construction funding.

But here’s something I don’t think anyone outside Milwaukee has highlighted yet. In the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s story on the funding, somebody at the paper (presumably a bemused editor) inserted the following subtitle above a section of the story:

What is “Construction”?

Somebody get Socrates on the line, because it’s a good question. As a commenter pointed out on Jay’s post last week, once money goes into the system, we can’t be sure what it really gets spent on. We know how much money was budgeted for “construction,” but typically there’s nobody checking to see what was actually bought with those “construction” funds.

Sure enough, the Journal Sentinel quotes a state Democratic spokesperson saying that all of that yummy yummy swag for “school construction” could legitimately be spent on “school modernization.”

Next month’s headline: “What is ‘School Modernization’?”

Do these sound like conditions under which the money will be spent wisely? And don’t kid yourself that Milwaukee is somehow a special exception, and the stimulus money is going to be well spent elsewhere.

Suppose you don’t believe the vast mountain of empirical research that Jay cited last week. Let’s just drop all that science into the toilet bowl and flush. Even so, can anyone believe that money will be well used when it’s handed over to a system that has no real transparency, much less effective oversight, never mind accountability for results – and that is run by people who also just happen to derive political power by diverting school funding into an enormous gravy train of featherbedding, pork, etc.?

If we’re dumb enough to hand over the money under those circumstances, why would they not divert it to the gravy train? I’m amazed the schools in the government monopoly system aren’t even worse than they are.

But wait. There’s yet another school building story on the horizon. This one broke out in the edreformblogosphere just yesterday.

stlouisarch

They built it with surplus “school construction” money

Like Milwaukee and pretty much every other city, St. Louis has long-term declining enrollment, but that didn’t stop it from pouring tons of money into school construction over the past few decades. Now St. Louis has a bunch of empty school buildings it needs to unload, so it’s going to sell them off.

But not everyone is allowed to bid on the empty school buildings. Joanne Jacobs puts it succinctly: “The school board has banned sales of buildings to liquor stores, landfills, distilleries, sex shops and charter schools.”

Read that again: Liquor stores, landfills, distilleries, sex shops and charter schools.

Not much more to say, is there? Charters are the one sector of the government-owned education system that is 1) growing fast, 2) willing to take on the most disadvantaged, toughest-to-teach kids, and 3) producing improved results, and they do it with less money – especially less construction money! – than the regular system. But they aren’t allowed to buy – not take for free, but buy, as in purchase at market value, by paying actual money – the city’s empty buildings.

drive-thru-liquorlandfill

distilleryPT006149

Some typical St. Louis charter schools

I’m with Matt – if the system’s defenders don’t realize they’re destroying millions of children’s lives in order to funnel money to a corrupt gravy train, it’s only because they don’t want to know.


Research Round-Up

February 10, 2009

The U.S. Department of Education released a study on how alternatively certified teachers affect student achievement.  The bottom line is that they find: “students of teachers who chose to enter teaching through an alternative route did not perform statistically different from students of teachers who chose a traditional route to teaching.  This finding was the same for those programs that required comparatively many as well as few hours of coursework. However, among those alternative route teachers who reported taking coursework while teaching, their students performed lower than their traditional counterparts.” 

I’m sure that the headlines will be:  “Alternative Certification Fails to Improve Student Achievement.”  But they will have it backwards.  The real headline should be: “Years of Teacher Education Coursework Yields No Benefits for Student Achievement.”

Besides, the real question is whether the alternatively certified teachers are better than the traditional certified teachers districts would have hired if they were constrained to hire only certified teachers.

And in other research news, the forthcoming issue of Education Next has an article by Paul Peterson and Matthew Chingos comparing student achievement in Philadelphia’s for-profit managed schools versus district-managed schools.  The find: “the effect of for-profit management of schools is positive relative to district schools, with math impacts being statistically significant. Over the last six years, students learned each year an average of 25 percent of a standard deviation more in math — roughly 60 percent of a year’s worth of learning — than they would have had the school been under district management. In reading, the estimated average annual impact of for-profit management is a positive 10 percent of a standard deviation — approximately 36 percent of a year’s worth of reading. Only the math differences are statistically significant, however.”


What is Required to be Part of the Black Caucus?

February 10, 2009

This story comes out of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.  I think it raises all sorts of interesting questions about identity politics, but I don’t have the answers.  So, I’ll just reproduce portions below to see what folks think.

“Rep. Richard Carroll of North Little Rock, Arkansas’ only Green Party legislator, asked to be a member of the Arkansas Black Legislative Caucus but was rejected because he’s white….  Asked about it after the meeting, Carroll said he wanted to be a member, but that caucus leaders told him that caucus bylaws require that members be black.

Caucus Chairman Rep. Nancy Duffy Blount, D-Marianna, likened the situation to a man wanting to be part of the Legislative Women’s Caucus. ‘With men, there are some things that men can understand and share and there are some things they can’t because they’re not women,’ Blount said. ‘Same thing here…’

Carroll, 52, said he wanted to be a caucus member to better represent and understand the views of his constituents. He said he could ask his wife, who is black, for her thoughts, but that she would only be one person.

‘You have to be an elected legislator and you have to be black,’ Blount said…. The latest bylaws for the caucus on file at the Bureau of Legislative Research give no race requirement for membership. It says that the membership ‘shall consist of any current member of the Arkansas General Assembly who pays an annual membership.’ But the bureau staff didn’t know whether those bylaws were current. Blount said she didn’t know either but she thought they had been changed to include a race requirement. She said she doesn’t have a copy of the bylaws but based her understanding of the membership requirements on ‘common sense’ and from what caucus vice chairman, Sen. Tracy Steele, D-North Little Rock, told her the bylaws said. Steele later said he had ‘no idea’ what the bylaws said about membership. …

Carroll wondered how the caucus ‘defines black,’ whether you needed to be a ‘certain percentage’ black. Blount said, ‘If you say you are an African-American, we don’t go back and do a historical search. We just go on whatever they say they are.’

Another caucus member, Sen. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, said Carroll’s interest in the caucus is ‘commendable’ but ‘since it’s called the ‘black caucus’ he can’t be a member. It is a caucus defined as being black. All discrimination is not bad. You can discriminate about whether you are going to drink four beers or 10 beers. I would say that’s good discrimination. “‘ Elliott said excluding whites is a legitimate form of discrimination because black legislators need to join with others of ‘common cause.’

Carroll said he didn’t see it as a discrimination either.  ‘It’s just that that’s their bylaws,’ he said.

It’s only a matter of time until there is a dispute over membership in the Gay Caucus.  How will we tell?


You Mean Wal-Mart Isn’t Evil?

February 9, 2009

 

(Don’t blame me for the lousy photo-shopping.  Eduwonkette did it.  But I told her it made me look like David Byrne in his giant suit.  Pretty cool!)

David Kinkade at the Arkansas Project alerted us to this piece by Charles Platt, a writer at Wired Magazine, on his experience going “undercover” to work for Wal-Mart.  Platt writes:

” I found myself reaching an inescapable conclusion. Low wages are not a Wal-Mart problem. They are an industry-wide problem, afflicting all unskilled entry-level jobs, and the reason should be obvious.

In our free-enterprise system, employees are valued largely in terms of what they can do. This is why teenagers fresh out of high school often go to vocational training institutes to become auto mechanics or electricians. They understand a basic principle that seems to elude social commentators, politicians and union organizers. If you want better pay, you need to learn skills that are in demand.

The blunt tools of legislation or union power can force a corporation to pay higher wages, but if employees don’t create an equal amount of additional value, there’s no net gain. All other factors remaining equal, the store will have to charge higher prices for its merchandise, and its competitive position will suffer.

This is Economics 101, but no one wants to believe it, because it tells us that a legislative or unionized quick-fix is not going to work in the long term. If you want people to be wealthier, they have to create additional wealth.

To my mind, the real scandal is not that a large corporation doesn’t pay people more. The scandal is that so many people have so little economic value. Despite (or because of) a free public school system, millions of teenagers enter the work force without marketable skills. So why would anyone expect them to be well paid?

In fact, the deal at Wal-Mart is better than at many other employers. The company states that its regular full-time hourly associates in the US average $10.86 per hour, while the mean hourly wage for retail sales associates in department stores generally is $8.67. The federal minimum wage is $6.55 per hour. Also every Wal-Mart employee gets a 10% store discount, while an additional 4% of wages go into profit-sharing and 401(k) plans.”

He then concludes:

“Based on my experience (admittedly, only at one location) I reached a conclusion which is utterly opposed to almost everything ever written about Wal-Mart. I came to regard it as one of the all-time enlightened American employers, right up there with IBM in the 1960s.”

So, the path to higher worker wages is improved education, not unionization?  Luckily the unions do so much to help improve education that I guess we are in great shape!


Mistaken AJC Voucher Editorial Held Accountable

February 9, 2009

 

One of the great things about these here inter-web thingies is their ability to hold newspapers accountable when they make mistakes.  And the editorial by Maureen Downey that the Atlanta Journal Constitution ran last week on vouchers was very much mistaken.  In it Downey  claimed “in the handful of states that have conducted experiments with vouchers, the results contradict claims of improvement by Johnson and other voucher advocates… Yet, in return for zero impact, Johnson proposes to dismantle public education in Georgia.”  She also described “vouchers as a threat to the bedrock American belief that public education is critical to the health of the democracy and should not be sacrificed to political agendas.” 

To support her overwrought claims she cites a newspaper article on Ohio’s voucher program, studies of the voucher programs in DC and Milwaukee conducted by my colleague Pat  Wolf, and a review of the literature by Barrow and Rouse.  Unfortunately she cites all of them selectively or misinterprets their findings as showing “zero impact.”  Fortunately, Pat Wolf noticed her incorrect interpretation of his work and sent a letter, which the AJC ran today.

But letters are limited in length and less salient than the editorials they attempt to correct.  In the old days when newspapers were the only game in town, it was very difficult to hold newspapers accountable for editorials that were factually inaccurate.  They might have run letters, like the one Pat Wolf submitted, but they wouldn’t even have to do that if they didn’t want to.

With the inter-webs we not only have Pat Wolf’s letter in the AJC, we can also circulate it by posting it on blogs, like I just did.  And we can add additional material, for which there would have been no space in the letters section.  So let me add that here is a complete list of random-assignment studies of the effects of vouchers on students who use themHere is a summary of the effect of vouchers on the public school system.  And here is random-assignment research on the effect of charter schools on participants.  And if she thinks choice destroys democracy, here is a review of that literature showing that she is mistaken about that as well.

If Maureen Downey and the Atlanta Journal Constitution want to say that evidence shows “zero impact” from vouchers, then they have to explain away all of this evidence.  And if they don’t want to justify their claims in the pages of their paper, we can hold them accountable on the web.

(edited for typos)


Does your economy have performance issues?

February 6, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Nicely done by the Reason Foundation…


Get Lost 9

February 6, 2009

(Spoiler Alert!)

Another great episode, but not too much new was revealed that could not have already been guessed. 

1) Jin is alive, but not having seen him die, we could have guessed that he’d be back.  In addition, having him alive will make Sun’s efforts at revenge more tragic. 

2) Miles has been on the island before and is probably Pierre Chang’s (Marvin Candle’s) son, who was the baby we saw with him when the record skipped in the season opener. 

3) Ben was the one sending lawyers to take Aaron from Kate, probably to push her into returning with Aaron to the island to keep him.

The introduction of younger Danielle and the French scientists suggests that much of this season will be consumed with “back-filling” the plot.  That is, we are going to fill in the story of how various, previously minor, characters are actually significant parts of the plot in the past.  Now that we’ve seen the younger Widmore and the younger Danielle, I bet we are going to learn about how Widmore was forced from the island and why some are allied with him and some with Ben.

I’m also pretty sure that “Ellie,” the woman who held Daniel Faraday at gunpoint as he went to dismantle “Jughead,” the H-bomb, is a younger Ms. Hawking.  And Ms. Hawking is Daniel Faraday’s mom.  You can see the evidence for this theory here.

I think Lost will be governed by Terminator Rules, where the future cannot be changed despite efforts to do so.  And with an H-bomb on the island I fear that the end is that the island is destroyed by it.  People are trying to “save the island” by changing time, but it will be doomed.  And we’ll have one big time loop where “Adam and Eve” (who may be Aaron and Ji Yeon, Sun and Jin’s baby) loop back to the start of the island in time from near it’s end.

I do have some questions about Jin and Danielle.  Had they met in the future?  If so, did Danielle remember that she had met Jin in the past?  Is it possible that we aren’t playing by Terminator Rules and Jin’s encounter with Danielle in the past is something that didn’t happen previously?  Has the string of time been changed?

Also, Brian has suggested a theory that the water bottle in the canoe is going to be very significant.  Perhaps the people in the canoe are members of the Oceanic 6 unknowingly (?) shooting at their former fellow castaways.  Or maybe they are intentionally doing so to stop them from something horrible that they are about to do.  As we back-fill we are going to see these same episodes from different perspectives.


Munchausen by Proxyocracy

February 4, 2009

I See Bankrupt People!

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Byron Schlomach and I had fun co-authoring this piece for the Goldwater Institute:

The supernatural thriller “The Sixth Sense” features a young boy who assists the ghost of a young girl in exposing her mother as her murderer. The mother, suffering from an uncommon mental disorder known as “Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome” had slowly poisoned her daughter to death.

While actual Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MBPS) is very rare, something much like it is sadly all too common in American policy-making.

MBPS involves a caregiver deliberately making another person sick. The caregiver may exaggerate, fabricate, or even induce symptoms. The perpetrator achieves a twisted satisfaction from deceptively gaining the attention and sympathy of doctors and others. Because the caregiver appears to be so caring and attentive, often no one suspects any wrongdoing.

In politics, many of our longstanding, serious policy problems are similarly inflicted upon us by our alleged caregivers. Two obvious examples of this political slow-poisoning: runaway costs in heath care and higher education. Simply put, government policies have spun heath care and higher education costs out of control.

These damaging cycles of cost inflation are the direct result of the MBPS-like policies administered by the federal government. When citizens raise concerns that health care or a college degree are financially out of reach for many, politicians show their compassion by administering more of the bad medicine that created the problems in the first place.

Consider health care. The problem is people can’t afford it. Although history shows medical care prices do not inevitably rise, medical inflation more than doubled general inflation from 1960 to 2006. If medical prices had not raced ahead of general inflation, health care would represent 7% of the American economy rather than the current 16% and growing. While many politicians want to make the availability of health insurance the issue, the real issue is that medical care is becoming increasingly less affordable, reducing accessibility.

Americans went from paying the lion’s share of medical costs ourselves to depending on government (Medicare and Medicaid) and employer-provided health insurance to pay for us. Consequently, price has become no object and we have become uninformed and unwise shoppers for medical care. Providers have become wasteful, often taking advantage of this distorted market, competing on a non-price basis.

All of this has occurred because government tax policy has encouraged employers to pay us in health benefits instead of cash. Add Medicare and Medicaid bureaucracy to the mix, and you’ve got a perfect prescription for out-of-control costs and increasingly reduced accessibility.

What are politicians offering as a solution? The Obama administration offers more of what got us here in the first place: expanded insurance, expanded market regulation, expanded Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP. As we pay even less out-of-pocket, medical prices will only get higher and medical services will only get more expensive and less accessible.

Amazingly, higher education costs have been rising at a rate even faster than medical cost inflation. Since 1982, the average cost of college tuition and fees has increased by 439% while median family income increased by a mere 147%. Think of it as compound interest for putting college financially out of reach and/or crushing families with debt.

Again, President Obama has proposed more of the same: a $4,000 tax credit for higher education expenses. Sounds great, but based on decades of bitter experience we have every reason to believe that if Obama’s tax credit plan passes, universities would simply hike their tuitions and fees. Congress has been chasing its own tail on college affordability for decades: while providing ever-increasing subsidies, costs continue to go up, so it repeats the process again and again.

Please- no more Congressional medicine!

Obama’s policy plans will simply add more fuel to the fire, leaving our very serious affordability problems in higher education and health care unaddressed. This is not change that we can believe in, but more of the same.

Like the MBPS abuser, politicians often come across as compassionate as they indulge their pathologies. If our politicians suffer from MBPS, we suffer our own sort of insanity in allowing ourselves to be victimized by it year after year. Our form of insanity could be referred to as Battered Taxpayer Syndrome, and it is time to call a halt to it.

It is a fallacy for the public to judge our leaders by their stated intentions, rather than the results of their decisions. Why is health care so expensive in the United States? Why the crushing debt for college educations of no greater worth than those obtained decades earlier at far less cost? Sadly, it’s because of federal policies whose follies have been repeatedly reinforced.

Rather than Munchausen by Proxy politicians, we need leaders who will follow the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.


Jay Praises the Stimulus!

February 4, 2009

billy-bragg-talking-with-the-taxman

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Don’t miss Jay’s article on NRO this morning praising the stimulus bill – that is, celebrating the fact that the stimulus isn’t even worse than it actually is.

As Jay reminds us, the Democrats made big promises about expanding preschool. The enormous slab of edu-pork in the stimulus bill could easily have been designed to lay the groundwork for fulfilling those promises, but it doesn’t:

Of course, if this money isn’t really going to help children learn, it would be best if we didn’t spend it at all. But Congress seems determined to burn giant piles of cash in the hopes that its warm glow will stimulate us. Given the circumstances, it’s some consolation that the current education stimulus won’t force us to burn larger and larger piles of cash forever into the future.

Burning large piles of cash, eh? Hmm. Sounds familiar.