While listening to Fox & Friends this morning, still half-asleep, I think I heard guest Ellen Ratner claim that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not a liberal. Her sparring partner, Jim Pinkerton could have said, “Not a liberal? What do you think she is Ellen, a socialist?” but I missed his reply because of the noise in the back of my throat.
The pro-choice/abortion rights outfit, NARAL gave her a 100% rating in 2005. So did Americans for Democratic Action, a leading liberal group. They only gave Ted Kennedy a 95. The top liberal groups rate her as a lib.
Leading conservative groups are a little more nuanced. The American Conservative Union gave her a 12 rating in 2005, but she was running for re-election. Her 2004 rating was zero, so call it a six average. The National Taxpayers Union gave her credit for voting with taxpayers nine percent of the time. Nine percent! As Jeff Foxworthy could say, if you vote for lower taxes nine percent of the time, you might be a liberal.
Other well-known liberals in the senate were rated similarly by those groups. Tom Harkin also averaged six from the ACU and scored a seven from the NTU. Ted Kennedy was a straight zero with the ACU and a seven with the NTU. Barbara Boxer rated an eight and an eleven respectively, and Hillary’s fellow NY senator, Chuck Schumer scored ten with the ACU and thirteen with the NTU.
Since Blogger isn’t real friendly with tabular data, let me sum it this way. Hillary’s composite score with these conservative groups is 7.5. Comparatively, Harkin rates 6.5, Kennedy’s score is 3.5, 9.5 for Boxer and 11.5 for Schumer. The average for these four typical libs is 7.75, just slightly higher than Hillary’s standing with conservative groups. It looks like top conservative groups think she is a liberal.
In fact, she is more liberal than the one admitted socialist in congress, former Representative, now Senator-elect (may God help the people of Vermont), Bernie Sanders. Bernie gets 100 ratings from NARAL and the ADA and averages six with the ACU. His NTU taxpayer-friendly rating is 18%. It will take more research to determine whether or not a defining characteristic of liberals is that they are harder on taxpayers than socialists are.
But the conclusion of my brief study this morning is that either I don’t hear well while waking up, or else Ellen Ratner is delusional.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Let’s scrap our education system
A note attached to a small rock thrown on my porch this morning advised me to check out an article in the Washington Post about a new study recommending a total reform of public education. The referenced article included these highlights:
Actually, I had already heard a little about this report on Rush Limbaugh’s program Friday, but I missed the original source info. It’s called “Tough Choices or Tough Times – The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce”, and the pdf of the executive summary can be found here (h/t to joannejacobs for the site).
Slogging my way through the exec summary, I find some stuff I like, such as the recognition of the global nature of the world’s labor market and the enumeration of the skills that will be most necessary in coming years. It stresses the continuing nature of education and the need for innovation and ability to learn new skills. It enumerates ten core ‘facts’ on what is wrong with our education system, most of which are hard to argue against, and concludes we need an entirely new educational system to make things right.
As an example, allowing students to leave public school after tenth grade for vocational training, or to stay for higher level college prep courses, depending on their abilities and inclinations could make school more meaningful. It would reverse the unfortunate trend toward mainstreaming all students onto a similar path that too often leads to boredom and apathy.
But, aside from the political inertia preventing implementation of major education reforms (see Mr. Weaver above); some of these ideas are just plain bad. Universal pre-school is anathema to me as I have mentioned numerous times. But it is typical of the recurrent flaw in this report, which is the unsupported faith in the success of public/governmental agencies. Where is the incentive to hire effective teachers? How will good schools be rewarded for putting out the best product? In short, where are the market mechanisms to increase competition between schools?
The report says states will develop examinations in core subjects that students must pass to go on to college or vocational school. That sounds good, and I support the concept, (even though it goes on to say “No one would fail, if they did not succeed, they would just try again”). However, knowing that the state is paying much of the cost of k-12 (or k-10) education, don’t you think its financial incentive would be to see that young people get through it as quickly as possible? Considering that colleges and trade schools get paid by the tuition hour, wouldn’t they be happy to enroll unprepared students and then put them into remedial classes?
Public education is a difficult entity to apply market mechanisms to, because it is TWELVE YEARS before the product goes to market, and after all that time it is impossible to assign blame or credit for how good the product is. That makes it difficult to effectively reward the service providers who have done the best jobs. The commission which wrote this report made a reasonable attempt to give individual students some say in their educational outcome above that which they now have, and I eagerly await any comment the Thermstroms or the Milton/Rose Freidman Foundation might make. But in the meantime, I offer my own two-part educational program, which suffers no more drawbacks than the one the commission put together, and is a lot cheaper to implement:
1. End social promotion
2. No driver’s license until you graduate from high school
This program gives the students an incentive!
An independent commission yesterday proposed dramatic changes that would shake up American public education in an effort to make the nation more competitive globally. The recommendations include authorizing school districts to pay companies to run all their schools; enrolling many students in college after the 10th grade; and paying teachers about $100,000 annually.The note concluded, “I hope to have a chance to read the whole report during my prep period tomorrow, but I like the part about me getting paid $95,000 per year.” It was signed ‘Ms. Ditto’.
[…]
The most controversial recommendations include empowering school districts to sign contracts with companies and teachers to run the schools -- which would replace schools' administrative structures with something similar to that in charter schools -- and forcing teachers to give up pensions in exchange for large pay increases.
Districts, they said, should relinquish control to the most highly qualified contractors, who would be rewarded for successfully running schools -- or fired if student performance languishes.
[…]
Boosting teacher pay would draw better candidates to the profession, commission members said. They recommend that schools increase teacher pay by at least $20,000 -- to $45,000 for beginners and $95,000 for experienced ones working a regular school calendar. Teachers who work year-round, they said, would be paid $110,000.
Teachers would get the raises in exchange for giving up pensions and switching to 401(k) retirement plans.
Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, agreed that teacher pay should be increased. However, "it is shortsighted to call for salary programs that increase teacher pay but deplete retirement benefits," he said in a statement.
[…]
Allowing students in vocational courses to graduate from high school after the 10th grade and enroll in trade schools or community colleges if they pass exams demonstrating academic competency. High-performing college-prep students would spend the 11th and 12th grades taking advanced courses and then, after graduation, enroll in college as sophomores and juniors.
Actually, I had already heard a little about this report on Rush Limbaugh’s program Friday, but I missed the original source info. It’s called “Tough Choices or Tough Times – The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce”, and the pdf of the executive summary can be found here (h/t to joannejacobs for the site).
Slogging my way through the exec summary, I find some stuff I like, such as the recognition of the global nature of the world’s labor market and the enumeration of the skills that will be most necessary in coming years. It stresses the continuing nature of education and the need for innovation and ability to learn new skills. It enumerates ten core ‘facts’ on what is wrong with our education system, most of which are hard to argue against, and concludes we need an entirely new educational system to make things right.
As an example, allowing students to leave public school after tenth grade for vocational training, or to stay for higher level college prep courses, depending on their abilities and inclinations could make school more meaningful. It would reverse the unfortunate trend toward mainstreaming all students onto a similar path that too often leads to boredom and apathy.
But, aside from the political inertia preventing implementation of major education reforms (see Mr. Weaver above); some of these ideas are just plain bad. Universal pre-school is anathema to me as I have mentioned numerous times. But it is typical of the recurrent flaw in this report, which is the unsupported faith in the success of public/governmental agencies. Where is the incentive to hire effective teachers? How will good schools be rewarded for putting out the best product? In short, where are the market mechanisms to increase competition between schools?
The report says states will develop examinations in core subjects that students must pass to go on to college or vocational school. That sounds good, and I support the concept, (even though it goes on to say “No one would fail, if they did not succeed, they would just try again”). However, knowing that the state is paying much of the cost of k-12 (or k-10) education, don’t you think its financial incentive would be to see that young people get through it as quickly as possible? Considering that colleges and trade schools get paid by the tuition hour, wouldn’t they be happy to enroll unprepared students and then put them into remedial classes?
Public education is a difficult entity to apply market mechanisms to, because it is TWELVE YEARS before the product goes to market, and after all that time it is impossible to assign blame or credit for how good the product is. That makes it difficult to effectively reward the service providers who have done the best jobs. The commission which wrote this report made a reasonable attempt to give individual students some say in their educational outcome above that which they now have, and I eagerly await any comment the Thermstroms or the Milton/Rose Freidman Foundation might make. But in the meantime, I offer my own two-part educational program, which suffers no more drawbacks than the one the commission put together, and is a lot cheaper to implement:
1. End social promotion
2. No driver’s license until you graduate from high school
This program gives the students an incentive!
Friday, December 15, 2006
Good Bye, Don Rumsfeld, and thanks
I’ve been a big fan of Don Rumsfeld’s and his candor with his press and in fact I had some ideas of my own how he should handle them. Today was his last in his second term as SecDef, and it was an emotional farewell as he inspected the troops for the last time. Was he just another victim of the Democrats’ thumpin’ of the President’s Iraq war policy in the recent election or was he a major cause of it?
Much of the blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq has been placed on Rumsfeld, but I have some questions. It is conventional wisdom that we did not have enough “boots on ground” in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi army collapse. But, as I recall, the original battle plan had the army’s Fourth Infantry driving toward Baghdad from the north as the Third I.D. and the Marines swept up from the south. It was the State Department under Colin Powell who failed to deliver Turkey’s assent to the plan that caused the 4th ID’s entry into the war to be delayed until it could be “redeployed” to the southern entry point. Remember the stories of looting and general chaos as Saddam and the remnants of his army melted away? Could another entire division on site at the beginning of the occupation rather than as reinforcements have made a difference? Was that Rumsfeld’s fault or the State Department?
Was it Rumsfeld who decided who to deal with in Iraq as a new Iraqi government was built from scratch? Who decided not to utilize any of the Baathists or members of the old Iraqi army? How much input did Rummy have into the plans and tactics of redevelopment of the Iraqi economy? The Rules of Engagement (ROE) for soldiers in combat (as described here in captainsjournal) would seem to be a function of military superiors and ultimately the SecDef, but how much outside influence was there? Abu Ghraib was clearly a military operation, but how much of the fallout was due to military misbehavior and how much was a trumped up media event?
I’m no military expert, and I don’t have enough facts (who does?) to determine what would have been the outcome of different choices. I do know that as news consumers, we are all strongly influenced by what we are told, and Rumsfeld, like his boss, has suffered from disapproval by the press. The State Department - especially Colin Powell more than Condi Rice - has been the recipient of a more favorable press relationship. Perhaps the press doesn’t always appreciate candor.
The Iraqi front of the Global War on Terror has not always gone as most of us hoped. No doubt Secretary Rumsfeld could have done some things better. But I don’t think he deserves the title of designated scapegoat for all things the media wants to carp about.
Much of the blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq has been placed on Rumsfeld, but I have some questions. It is conventional wisdom that we did not have enough “boots on ground” in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi army collapse. But, as I recall, the original battle plan had the army’s Fourth Infantry driving toward Baghdad from the north as the Third I.D. and the Marines swept up from the south. It was the State Department under Colin Powell who failed to deliver Turkey’s assent to the plan that caused the 4th ID’s entry into the war to be delayed until it could be “redeployed” to the southern entry point. Remember the stories of looting and general chaos as Saddam and the remnants of his army melted away? Could another entire division on site at the beginning of the occupation rather than as reinforcements have made a difference? Was that Rumsfeld’s fault or the State Department?
Was it Rumsfeld who decided who to deal with in Iraq as a new Iraqi government was built from scratch? Who decided not to utilize any of the Baathists or members of the old Iraqi army? How much input did Rummy have into the plans and tactics of redevelopment of the Iraqi economy? The Rules of Engagement (ROE) for soldiers in combat (as described here in captainsjournal) would seem to be a function of military superiors and ultimately the SecDef, but how much outside influence was there? Abu Ghraib was clearly a military operation, but how much of the fallout was due to military misbehavior and how much was a trumped up media event?
I’m no military expert, and I don’t have enough facts (who does?) to determine what would have been the outcome of different choices. I do know that as news consumers, we are all strongly influenced by what we are told, and Rumsfeld, like his boss, has suffered from disapproval by the press. The State Department - especially Colin Powell more than Condi Rice - has been the recipient of a more favorable press relationship. Perhaps the press doesn’t always appreciate candor.
The Iraqi front of the Global War on Terror has not always gone as most of us hoped. No doubt Secretary Rumsfeld could have done some things better. But I don’t think he deserves the title of designated scapegoat for all things the media wants to carp about.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Tax School Update
Still learning stuff today. For instance, I learned that I'm glad to not be in private practice as a tax attorney.
Doug Gross has given a pretty good speech on growth in rural Iowa and why some communities are growing and others are failing. If you are interested you should go to the Committee of 82 website and check out this pdf. Aside: This guy is a good speaker. How did he not do better running for governor? I realize he's not super telegenic but his energy really comes across in front of a live audience.
Main points:
Interstates do not equal economic vitality.
Population growth does not equal economic vitality.
Only per capita incomes correlate directly to economic vitality.
Our current economic development is focused on creating jobs not raising incomes.
Statistically significant factors driving growth or contraction:
Income taxes: High tax states have slower income growth or contraction.
Property taxes: Same. Especially commerical property tax rates. Iowa's are comparable rate-wise to Manhattan.
Local government employees: More local government means less growth.
Population over 65: More codgers equals less growth.
Farmers: More farmers equals less growth. Federal subsidies have driven farm consolidation.
Suburban effect: Longer commute means greater growth. Wealthy people want transportion and telecommuting.
Livestock/Value Added Agriculture: More equals more growth.
Locally owned small businesses: More equal more growth.
Ideas:
Create voluntary comminity infrastructure to assist small business startups. Local attorney's, banks, business leaders assisting small entrepreneurs.
Rural Vitality Fund: Farm Burea, Iowa Bankers Association, Iowa Department of Economic Development, et al. mentoring small businesses, holding seminars, and raising private and public funds to seed small businesses with wealth potential.
Doug Gross has given a pretty good speech on growth in rural Iowa and why some communities are growing and others are failing. If you are interested you should go to the Committee of 82 website and check out this pdf. Aside: This guy is a good speaker. How did he not do better running for governor? I realize he's not super telegenic but his energy really comes across in front of a live audience.
Main points:
Interstates do not equal economic vitality.
Population growth does not equal economic vitality.
Only per capita incomes correlate directly to economic vitality.
Our current economic development is focused on creating jobs not raising incomes.
Statistically significant factors driving growth or contraction:
Income taxes: High tax states have slower income growth or contraction.
Property taxes: Same. Especially commerical property tax rates. Iowa's are comparable rate-wise to Manhattan.
Local government employees: More local government means less growth.
Population over 65: More codgers equals less growth.
Farmers: More farmers equals less growth. Federal subsidies have driven farm consolidation.
Suburban effect: Longer commute means greater growth. Wealthy people want transportion and telecommuting.
Livestock/Value Added Agriculture: More equals more growth.
Locally owned small businesses: More equal more growth.
Ideas:
Create voluntary comminity infrastructure to assist small business startups. Local attorney's, banks, business leaders assisting small entrepreneurs.
Rural Vitality Fund: Farm Burea, Iowa Bankers Association, Iowa Department of Economic Development, et al. mentoring small businesses, holding seminars, and raising private and public funds to seed small businesses with wealth potential.
Belated props to IrishWalsh
Cead Mile Failte! A month or two ago I got a chance to meet and drink beer with the proprietor of The Mind of Irish Walsh. He's a good cat and both of our readers should visit his site for an update on the condition of Algore and Matt Lauer after their recent separation surgery. Keep scrolling for a great post on banning smoking in America.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Expect a couple more posts
Well I'm in Tax School this week to keep my law license (a good thing). As interesting as federal taxation may be, I'm finding that my concentration is improved by taking a break now and then. Plus the DM downtown Marriot has free wi-fi (cool).
Global Warming is a Religion
The WSJ recently had an editorial on global warming that really set me off. So indulge me as I get this off my chest.
Global warming is a religion not science as much as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Animism et al. are religions not science. How can I tell? Well like any good religion it could very well be true. There are lots of signs pointing to a general warming trend and theories which link this trend to human activity. Like most religions, there are also strong arguments that there is no reliably identifiable warming trend and even were such a trend to be reliably identified the mere fact that such warming coincides with increased industrial output does not equate to human causation. As we all learned the first day of statistics "correlation is not causation."
Of course similar tautological statements may be made with respect to many disputed scientific theories, so why do I claim it is a religion? First the definition of scientific inquiry (see wikipedia) is framing the question, proposing a hypothesis, experimentation, observation, then new hypothesis. Scientific inquiry is marked by the following characteristics: observation, description, prediction, control, falsifiability, and where applicable, a persuasive causal explanation which not only identifies the cause(s) but also demonstrates correlation of causes and effects and the time order of causes and effects.
Global warming fails many if not most of these criteria. Cutting to the chase, not one of the existing global warming models can even reliably predict past weather patterns based on the data collected. Their reliability predicting future weather patterns is almost nil. Further, there is no way to provide a "control" for global weather. In lab experiments some mice are given a prospective carcinogen and others are not. The mice in both groups are treated exactly the same in all other respects. If the incidence of cancer in the first group is statistically significantly greater than in the control a conclusion may be drawn that the prospective carcinogen is an actual carcinogen. Scientists cannot point to an area of the globe unaffected by their hypotheses to prove causation. In addition, scientists know that the atmosphere has previously been much warmer than now and contained higher concentrations of greenhouse gases including CO2. Yet somehow, the earth did not become an arid desert nor did the supposed effect of prior warmings snowball (to use an ironic term) into a global climatic cataclysm. Why should this warming be any different even if caused by human activity.
Here's where true religious faith comes in. The theory of global warming is not falsifiable. No matter what the data, proponents proclaim the cause is global warming (much as many dispensationalists over the last 2000 years have been prone to claim every major world event heralds the second coming of Jesus Christ). More snow=global warming. Less snow=global warming. More hurricanes=global warming. Less hurricanes=global warming. Blue is the new black at the Paris fashion show=global warming. If you ask any honest global warming proponent "Is there anything that would in your mind disprove the theory of global warming and/or its anthropological cause?" they would say no. Just as any true Muslim would proclaim that nothing would shake their faith in Islam.
I will offend many ecologically minded folks by saying that global warming is about the saving the environment in the way Joe Camel ads are about public health. Global warming is a classically watermelon phenomenon. Green on the outside, red on the inside. The environment is one of the few areas where communism and socialism can still capture the imagination of the West's populace for statist solutions and anti-capitalist crusades. The left's concern for global warming is entirely opportunistic in this regard and could just as easily been replaced by any other cause du jure, though few would offer quite the same opportunity to undermine our economic foundations and property rights.
Finally, and as alluded to above, science is unable to establish that global warming will result in actual damage to the earth. Will a warmer earth be less hospitable to human, plant, and animal life? I think it is unquestionable that localized effects may be bad. What's to say that other localized effects won't be equally as good. After all, don't most scientists acknowledge that previous, warmer eras had significant and substantial flora and fauna?
However, let us concede that antropogenic global warming exists and further concede that it will result in a net detriment to earthly life. No one has demonstrated that the costs of halting or reversing global warming will result in excess benefits. Bjorn Lomborg is the only individual who has made an honest attempt to quantify these costs and benefits and resoundingly rejected Kyoto like controls. His thanks has been a lost career not an honest dialogue with global warming advocates.
Global warming is a religion not science as much as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Animism et al. are religions not science. How can I tell? Well like any good religion it could very well be true. There are lots of signs pointing to a general warming trend and theories which link this trend to human activity. Like most religions, there are also strong arguments that there is no reliably identifiable warming trend and even were such a trend to be reliably identified the mere fact that such warming coincides with increased industrial output does not equate to human causation. As we all learned the first day of statistics "correlation is not causation."
Of course similar tautological statements may be made with respect to many disputed scientific theories, so why do I claim it is a religion? First the definition of scientific inquiry (see wikipedia) is framing the question, proposing a hypothesis, experimentation, observation, then new hypothesis. Scientific inquiry is marked by the following characteristics: observation, description, prediction, control, falsifiability, and where applicable, a persuasive causal explanation which not only identifies the cause(s) but also demonstrates correlation of causes and effects and the time order of causes and effects.
Global warming fails many if not most of these criteria. Cutting to the chase, not one of the existing global warming models can even reliably predict past weather patterns based on the data collected. Their reliability predicting future weather patterns is almost nil. Further, there is no way to provide a "control" for global weather. In lab experiments some mice are given a prospective carcinogen and others are not. The mice in both groups are treated exactly the same in all other respects. If the incidence of cancer in the first group is statistically significantly greater than in the control a conclusion may be drawn that the prospective carcinogen is an actual carcinogen. Scientists cannot point to an area of the globe unaffected by their hypotheses to prove causation. In addition, scientists know that the atmosphere has previously been much warmer than now and contained higher concentrations of greenhouse gases including CO2. Yet somehow, the earth did not become an arid desert nor did the supposed effect of prior warmings snowball (to use an ironic term) into a global climatic cataclysm. Why should this warming be any different even if caused by human activity.
Here's where true religious faith comes in. The theory of global warming is not falsifiable. No matter what the data, proponents proclaim the cause is global warming (much as many dispensationalists over the last 2000 years have been prone to claim every major world event heralds the second coming of Jesus Christ). More snow=global warming. Less snow=global warming. More hurricanes=global warming. Less hurricanes=global warming. Blue is the new black at the Paris fashion show=global warming. If you ask any honest global warming proponent "Is there anything that would in your mind disprove the theory of global warming and/or its anthropological cause?" they would say no. Just as any true Muslim would proclaim that nothing would shake their faith in Islam.
I will offend many ecologically minded folks by saying that global warming is about the saving the environment in the way Joe Camel ads are about public health. Global warming is a classically watermelon phenomenon. Green on the outside, red on the inside. The environment is one of the few areas where communism and socialism can still capture the imagination of the West's populace for statist solutions and anti-capitalist crusades. The left's concern for global warming is entirely opportunistic in this regard and could just as easily been replaced by any other cause du jure, though few would offer quite the same opportunity to undermine our economic foundations and property rights.
Finally, and as alluded to above, science is unable to establish that global warming will result in actual damage to the earth. Will a warmer earth be less hospitable to human, plant, and animal life? I think it is unquestionable that localized effects may be bad. What's to say that other localized effects won't be equally as good. After all, don't most scientists acknowledge that previous, warmer eras had significant and substantial flora and fauna?
However, let us concede that antropogenic global warming exists and further concede that it will result in a net detriment to earthly life. No one has demonstrated that the costs of halting or reversing global warming will result in excess benefits. Bjorn Lomborg is the only individual who has made an honest attempt to quantify these costs and benefits and resoundingly rejected Kyoto like controls. His thanks has been a lost career not an honest dialogue with global warming advocates.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Looking on the bright side…
The resignation of John Bolton from his recess appointment to the United Nations is a tragic blow to any hopes that the USA might be able to shape UN policy in a favorable direction. Despite fears that he was too blunt-spoken and difficult to work with, he has an impressive record of success at the organization.
Now that unanimous opposition from the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the extraordinarily worthless Lincoln Chafee have shown it to be impossible to get a full senate vote on his renomination, (those who know these things say he could get about 58 votes if a vote were held) Bolton has thrown in the towel.
Having lost a strong and effective spokesman at the increasingly dysfunctional UN, what is the bright side, you ask? Well, it may help bring about the day we finally face the reality that associating with that sorry collection of crooks, schnooks and crapweasels isn’t doing a damn thing for us, and we’d be better off sending Kofi and company packing.
Now that unanimous opposition from the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the extraordinarily worthless Lincoln Chafee have shown it to be impossible to get a full senate vote on his renomination, (those who know these things say he could get about 58 votes if a vote were held) Bolton has thrown in the towel.
Having lost a strong and effective spokesman at the increasingly dysfunctional UN, what is the bright side, you ask? Well, it may help bring about the day we finally face the reality that associating with that sorry collection of crooks, schnooks and crapweasels isn’t doing a damn thing for us, and we’d be better off sending Kofi and company packing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
