Walmart Shareholder Meeting 2009

June 5, 2009

I just returned from another excellent Walmart shareholder meeting.  Ben Stiller was the mc.  Michael Jordan gave some inspirational words.  Miley Cyrus, Kris Allen,  and Smokey Robinson performed.  And earlier in the week I saw Sugarland, Brad Paisley, Foreigner, and Daughtry perform at free events leading up to the meeting.  It’s been another great week of entertainment in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

And of course, the meeting discussed Walmart’s business, including its financial results and values as an organization.  On that topic I’ll just repeat what I wrote after last year’s meeting: “They presented impressive evidence and compelling anecdotes of how Walmart saves money for families of modest means and, in doing so, improves people’s lives….  It struck me that if Walmart were a government program, designed to provide basic goods to low-income families at reduced prices, it would be lauded as a great success on the order of the New Deal or the Marshall Plan.  Books would be written about how it worked so well.  Conferences would be organized to sing its praises.  But because someone is actually making a profit while serving low-income families, somehow the whole thing is ruined.  It’s as if social progress can only be made if taxpayers lose money.”  If you want to see more along these lines, check this out.

At this year’s meeting my puzzlement about why people vilify Walmart only continues to grow.  This made me think about how the enemies one chooses says a lot about who one is.  Why do some people choose to focus their energies attacking Walmart while ignoring or even embracing others who more clearly violate their principles?

Let’s take as an example President Obama.  He has clearly chosen Walmart as an enemy.  Obama declared that he “won’t shop” at Walmart.  And during the campaign he participated in a conference call organized by the anti-Walmart advocates, WakeUpWalMart.  According to USA Today Obama said: “‘I think the battle to engage Wal-Mart and force them to examine their own corporate values and what their policies and approaches are to their workers and how they are going to be good corporate citizens, I think, is absolutely vital,’ Obama said, adding he was proud of WakeUpWalMart’s work.”

So how does Obama feel about Iran, whose values and policies must be much more objectionable to Obama than Walmart’s?  In his speech yesterday Obama said about Iran: “There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.”  And earlier in the week Obama said: “what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations.”  During the campaign, Obama stressed that he would “be willing as president to meet with the Iranian leader.”

Let’s see if I have this right.  Obama wouldn’t go to a Walmart and thinks the “battle” against Walmart is “vital.”  But he’s willing to meet with holocaust-denying Iranian leader,  Ahmadinejad, without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect keeping in mind their legitimate aspirations.

I fully believe that Obama strenuously opposes Iran’s illiberal policies.  The problem is not that he is ignorant of how Iran more clearly threatens his own principles than does Walmart.  The problem is that he approaches Walmart like an enemy while approaching Iran like a friend. 

Who you choose as an enemy says a lot about your own values and priorities.

(edited to add Kris Allen)

2 Comments | politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

What Is Competition?

June 5, 2009

Monopoly - Pennybags

He’s done such a good job with your schools,
now he’s going to run your health care!

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Mike Petrilli notes that Barack Obama and Paul Krugman are using the language of “competition” to mask Obama’s ambitions for a government takeover of the health care sector.

Krugman writes:

The “public option,” if it materializes, will be just that – an option Americans can choose. And the reason for providing this option was clearly laid out in Mr. Obama’s letter: It will give Americans “a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest.

Mike responds:

You mean just like creating charter schools will give Americans “a better range of choices, make the education system more competitive, and keep the teachers unions honest”?

So in education, where the government is the major player, we’re trying to create competition via the private sector. But in health care, where the private sector is still a major player, we’re trying to create competition via the public sector?

Weird.

Mike, “weird” is not the word you’re looking for. Try “wrong.”

In health insurance, as in education, there’s no “market” deserving the name. But the way the government eliminates the market is slightly different. In education, government destroys the market by providing the service for “free” (of course you pay for it in your taxes, but it’s free at the point of service), making it impossible for anyone to compete; other providers are stuck serving niche markets. Whereas in health care government uses the tax code to force almost everyone to get insurance through their employers, which also eliminates the market, but more sneakily.

It’s as though government told you that from now on, your employer gets to pick one restaurant for you, and from now on you’re only allowed to eat out at that restaurant. They’d say that it’s a free market – because, hey, the restaurants are privately owned and there are multiple options available!

So it’s not surprising if the health sector and the education sector seem similar. Both are government-controlled command economies. The difference is, in the health sector you have these huge privately owned companies acting as rent-seekers, siphoning off tons of money and getting away with it because government has abolished the market forces that ordinarily weed out leeches – as Matt once explained to our Sith apprentice Leo. Whereas in the education sector, the rent-seeker siphoning off tons of money is the government itself.

The Obama/Krugman proposal isn’t about creating competition for private health insurers. That’s a smokescreen. It’s simply the first step toward making the command economy in the health sector more like the command economy in the education sector.

9 Comments | competitive effects | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Fifteen Years of Pulp Fiction

June 5, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

This year marks the 15th anniversary of Pulp Fiction. I can’t believe it either.

Pulp Fiction was a pop-culture phenomenon, not only resurrecting the career of John Travolta, but elevating the careers of several others, especially the brilliant Samuel L. Jackson.

I’ve met people who were repulsed by the grisly violence, foul language and drug use of the film. I’ve encountered others who claim that Resevoir Dogs is a better film (nonsense). Others like the film for the grisly violence, foul language and drug use, but I don’t believe they actually appreciate the film to the fullest.

You see, I believe that despite all of the hipster post-modern lingo, heart stabbing injections, Deliverance references, etc. that Pulp Fiction is actually a film about redemption.

Tarrantino used two main devices to tell this story: a fake Bible quote and non-linear storytelling.

Samuel L. Jackson’s hitman character Jules recites a manufactured version of Ezekiel 25:17 before killing people:

Along the way, Jules experiences what he regards as a miracle and decides to abandon the life of a hit man to “walk the earth” in a way that has echoes of the lillies of the field. Vincent Vega, Jules’ partner in crime ridicules him for choosing to become a bum.

The brilliance of the non-linear story telling is that the viewer knows that Vincent will soon be bleeding to death in a bathtub after being shot multiple times. We don’t know what happens to Jules, but we do know what happens to Vincent. The wages of sin, in other words, are death.

This becomes all the more clear when Ringo attempts to rob Jules in the diner:

Jules is trying real hard to be the shepard, and whatever happens to him, it’s better than what happens to Vincent.

This is how I interpreted Pulp Fiction, and I was relieved to see the Thomas Hibbs offer that the film can be interpreted in this way in his brilliant book Shows About Nothing: Nihlism in Popular Culture from the Exorcist to Seinfeld.

Tarrantino seems to be an unlikely source for a covert religious allegory, but there it is, hidden in plain sight.

 

5 Comments | Pass the Popcorn | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

Twin Editorials on Milwaukee Vouchers

June 4, 2009

Weasley Twins

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

This morning the Wall Street Journal and National Review Online both take on the covert effort to destroy Milwaukee vouchers by political subterfuge.

From the Journal:

Because the 20-year-old program polls above 60% with voters, and even higher among minorities, killing it outright would be unpopular. Instead, Democratic Governor Jim Doyle wants to reduce funding and pass “reforms” designed to regulate the program to death. The goal is to discourage private schools from enrolling voucher students and thus force kids to return to unionized public schools.

From NRO:

Last week, the legislature’s Joint Finance Committee approved a series of auditing, accrediting, and instructional requirements that will force successful voucher schools to shift resources away from classrooms and into administration. Several schools will have to comply with new bilingual-education mandates, even though many immigrant parents choose those schools precisely because they emphasize the rapid acquisition of English instead of native-language maintenance.

Both editorials also mention looming cuts in funding for vouchers, even though the program saves huge taxpayer dollars and the bloated government schools are getting increases in funding. Both editorials cite Robert Costrell’s calculation that the difference between private school efficiency and public school bloat has saved taxpayers $180 million – though only NRO mentions Costrell by name.

And NRO also gets a gold star for this:

Researchers say that the program is beginning to show systemic effects. In other words, it doesn’t merely help its participants. It also gives a lift to non-voucher students because the pressure of competition has forced public schools to improve.

C’mon, Wall Street Journal, get on the ball!

6 Comments | politics, vouchers | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Barry Goldwater Jr. on Glen Beck

June 4, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Barry Goldwater Jr. is one of the most colorful people I’ve ever been lucky enough to get to know. Barry recently appeared on Glen Beck to discuss the awful state of the Republican Party:

At some point, I’ll have to rant at length about the Big Government Conservative project and the attempt to build a “permanent majority” with money out of your pocket. That was a great electoral strategy for FDR or LBJ, not so much for a right of center coalition.

By the way, how’s that permanent majority thing working out?

Leave a Comment » | politics | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

Was He Stupid or Lying? Durbin-Blagojevich Edition

June 3, 2009

Durbin

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

A while back, noting Sen. Dick Durbin’s flagrantly false statements about the DC voucher study – he said the study didn’t show voucher students outperformed the control group, which is entirely true except for the fact that it did show voucher students outperforming the control group – Jay asked “is he stupid or lying?”

“Of course,” he added, “when it comes to an Illinois pol, one doesn’t have to choose. He could be both.”

Not long ago, when Sen. Durbin made similarly misleading (though now more carefully weaseled) statements in USA Today, Jay remarked, “I’m beginning to lean toward the lying end.”

The first sign of a good scientist is that he adjusts his theory in response to new data!

Well here’s another new datum to factor into our “stupid or lying” calculus. The AP reports that Durbin offered to help Rod Blagojevich make a deal for Barack Obama’s Senate seat. Take it away, AP (emphasis added):

CHICAGO (AP) – Just two weeks before his arrest on corruption charges, then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich floated a plan to nominate to the U.S. Senate the daughter of his biggest political rival in return for concessions on his pet projects, people familiar with the plan told The Associated Press.
 
Blagojevich told fellow Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin he was thinking of naming Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to the seat vacated when Barack Obama won the presidential election, according to two Durbin aides who spoke on condition of anonymity…
 
The aides said the concessions Blagojevich wanted in return were progress on capital spending projects and a health care bill that were stalled in the Legislature…
 
According to the Senate aides, Durbin was delighted to hear that Blagojevich was thinking of naming Madigan to the seat. He believed she would be a popular figure in Illinois and stood perhaps the best chance of holding the seat against a Republican.
 
Durbin volunteered to call the attorney general or the speaker to get the ball rolling and possibly broker an agreement, the aides said.

When the AP came calling about the story, Durbin’s office offered no comment.

Moe Lane of Red State comments: “This would only be a bombshell if it had been unexpected…Senator Dick Durbin has had since November some very significant corroborating evidence that Governor Rod Blagojevich really was corruptly auctioning off a Senate seat.  This is information that would have been very helpful when it came to the timing of Blagojevich’s impeachment, seating Burris, and/or fixing the entire problem with a special election.  And yet, Durbin did or said nothing. I don’t wonder why.  Then again, I know enough about this story to know that the Senator hadn’t realized that his talks with Blagojevich were being recorded.”

Lane highlights the implication that Durbin knew about Blago’s corruption all along, and kept vital information under his hat during the crisis. And Illinois-based politicians betraying the public trust by keeping vital information out of public circulation during a crisis does seem to be emerging as a meme in the DC voucher story.

But doesn’t it seem more important that AP is reporting Durbin offered to help broker the deal?

Yes, what Durbin offered to help arrange was not a bribe to be paid directly to Blago. It was conessions on Blago’s pet projects, including “capital spending projects.” Yet that’s bad enough, isn’t it? I’m aware that people take alliances and rivalries into account when they make these kinds of appointments. But isn’t it something else entirely to arrange a quid-pro-quo transaction of legislative votes for nominations?

And if you insist that there must be a personal bribe involved before we can say it’s wrong, let me ask you: given what we know about Blago, what kind of odds would you give that he wasn’t going to wet his beak on any of those “capital spending projects”? And doesn’t that make Durbin complicit? Or just how dumb are you willing to say Durbin is?

HT Moe Lane, via Jim Geraghty

3 Comments | politics, vouchers | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Did a “Massachusetts Miracle” actually happen?

June 2, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

There was fierce posting last week here and at Flypaper on the Massachusetts Miracle and what role the unions did or did not do in thwarting said miracle. The question I’ll raise: does MA’s improvement deserve the title of miracle?

MA has the highest NAEP scores in the country, and they’ve improved in recent years, so they don’t have anything to be ashamed of when it comes to education reform. Superficially, they outshine everyone.

However, MA is also a very wealthy and fairly homogenous state.  NAEP lists their free and reduced lunch eligible students at 28.9% (which is low) and their percentage of Anglo children at 72.9% which is pretty high. Spending per pupil is listed at over $12,000 per pupil.

My favorite education reform state, Florida, spends less and has a far more demographically challenging K-12 demographic profile. And…they’ve made much more progress with difficult to educate students.

FL MA 1

Looking at progress among the most difficult to educate students gives us a good view of which state has made the most progress. This effectively controls for MA being wealthy and pale. Figures 1 and 2 present data from the 4th grade reading exam.

Among free and reduced lunch eligible Hispanics, Florida has made a great deal more progress than MA- 16 point improvement in MA, a 27 point improvement in Florida. 

MA outperforms the national average, but by a mere three points. Florida doubled the improvement of the national average.

The same is true among free and reduced lunch eligible African American students. MA improved by nine points, the national average improved by ten points, and Florida improved by twenty four points.

 

FL MA 2Again, MA doesn’t have anything to be ashamed of given their highest scores. There are other wealthy and homogenous states that spend a great deal on their public schools- and MA clobbers them. For me, however, when it comes to education reform…

2 Comments | teacher union, vouchers | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

School Name Trend Reverses?

June 2, 2009

As Brian Kisida, Jonathan Butcher, and I documented, there has been a dramatic decline over the last several decades in the naming of schools after presidents, in particular, and people, in general.  Instead, schools are increasingly receiving names that sound more like herbal teas, day spas, or nature shows than our nation’s founders.  It’s gotten to the point where there are more schools in Florida named after manatees, the lovable sea cow, than George Washington.  In Arizona there are more schools named after roadrunners (beep-beep!) than Thomas Jefferson.  And there are plenty of schools that sound like Whispering Hills, Hawk’s Bluff, Deer’s Leap, etc….

But take heart, fans of school names with a civic purpose, the trend away from naming schools after presidents may be reversing.  According to Powerline, “St. Paul’s Webster Magnet Elementary School changed its name last month to the Barack and Michelle Obama Service Learning Elementary.”

As David Shribman writes on RealClear Politics, erasing the name Webster from the school marks a real loss:

“There is no trace at all of Webster in the Obama Service Learning Elementary school today, not even a picture of Webster, who may have been the subject of more formal portraits of any man of his time, if not of all American history. Indeed, in the period leading up to the vote on the name change, the principal of the school, Lori Simon, actually had to figure out for whom the school was named originally.

Talk about a missed teaching moment. Webster was the greatest orator in the age of great oratory; some of his words remain in the American memory, even in this ahistorical age. He was probably the most eminent Supreme Court lawyer in American history, having argued 249 cases before the court, including several of the landmark cases of the early 19th century that shaped constitutional law in the United States for generations. And he was one of the greatest secretaries of state ever (and the first to serve non-consecutive terms, one under William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, another under Millard Fillmore).”

Of course, school names should reflect a community’s values and as those values shift, so too should school names.  But couldn’t they have found a Gopher Valley school somewhere to rename?

1 Comment | civic values | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Duncan Endorses Universal Vouchers (without knowing it)

June 1, 2009

Below is a portion of the transcript from a National Press Club event last week featuring Secretary of Ed, Arne Duncan.

If I am reading Duncan right, the problem with vouchers is that they only serve 1 to 2 percent of the population.  So, the obvious solution he endorses must be universal vouchers.  Right?

MODERATOR:  OK.  What is your position on a potential national education voucher program?   

DUNCAN:  I’ve been very, very clear that I don’t think vouchers work.  They’re not the answer.  Let me explain why.      

Vouchers usually serve 1 to 2 percent of the children in a community.  And I think we as the federal government, we as local governments, or we as school districts, we have to be more ambitious than that.  That’s an absolutely worthy or noble goal.  If a nonprofit or philanthropy wants to provide scholarship money to children, that’s a great, great use of the resources.       

But I don’t want to save 1 or 2 percent of children and let 98, 99 percent drown.  We have to be much more ambitious than that.  We have to expect more.       

And this is why I would argue rather than taking one of these struggling schools, these thousands (inaudible) — rather than taking three kids out of there and putting them in a better school and feeling good and sleeping well at night, I want to turn that school around now and do that for those 400, 500, 800, 1,200 kids in that school and give every child in that school and that community something better, and do it with a real sense of urgency. 

4 Comments | vouchers | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

PJM on Free to Teach

June 1, 2009

Free to Teach cover

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Today Pajamas Media runs my column on why the government school monopoly is bad for teachers:

Everyone knows a monopoly is bad for the people who rely on its services. But monopolies are also bad for the people who work for them. Just like the monopoly’s clients, its employees have few alternatives. If they’re not treated well at work, they can’t go work for a competing employer. That means the monopoly doesn’t have to worry about keeping them happy.

And the education monopoly also locks out parental pressure for better teaching, which is probably a factor in improving working conditions for teachers in private schools. Public schools are government-owned and government-run, so the main pressure on them is political imperatives. The main pressure on private schools is keeping parents happy. Given that parents primarily want better teaching, which of those two options do you think is better for teachers?

A certain recent study is mentioned in the column.

Leave a Comment » | research reports, teacher quality | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »