Why Save Water?
If you've paid for something on an "all you can eat" basis, why stop eating?

While at this conference (see prior entries), I'm staying at a crummy hotel at a premium price. Shut out of the host hotel (it was booked), I was forced to take up temporary residence at a hotel further away. One problem: it smells like mold whenever I open the door, the TV doesn't work, there's no desk, the two chairs are worn (one with a rip on the upholstered seat), and the carpet hasn't been cleaned in a year. Oh yeah, and I'm paying a 3-digit sum each night. Ouch.

Location, location, location, they say. Or in this case, it was timing, timing, timing. Anyway, since being in such a humid location is not my standard practice, I've taken a shower not only in the morning but also in the late afternoon, just before dinner.

Is this a waste of water? Perhaps; though taking a shower is refreshing, I doubt that it's an essential part of not offending my fellow conference attendees. On the other hand, I'm paying a flat rate for this room, and at quite a quite a dear price.

So why not take an extra shower? Run the AC even while I am gone, especially since it takes a while to cool off the room? Avoid the (minimal) effort of turning off the lights when I leave? Again, there's no financial incentive for me to not "waste resources." Oh, some hotels may leave little notes in the room about "being kind to the earth," but there's something in some people that says "I paid for this, I might as well use it."

There are a variety of ways in which the logic of this situation can be applied directly or in a modified form to various policy issues. But it's time to head for dinner. (permalink)

SPN: The Errors of Enchantment.
One enjoyable aspect of attending the SPN meetings is finding out what free-market organizations are doing. Here's one example: the Rio Grande Foundation has a blog, Errors of Enchantment. As you might guess from the name of the blog, the foundation is based in New Mexico. (permalink)

Quote of the Day.
"This doesn't lower costs; it just shifts the cost from government onto people. That doesn't solve anything." -- Sen. Chris Steineger, D-Kansas City.

Steineger was referring to promoting the private purchase of long-term care insurance and clamping down on Medicaid scheming, whereby wealthy individuals artificially impoverish themselves in order to get taxpayers to pick up the tab for their nursing home stays.

It "doesn't solve anything," ignores at least two simple questions: Is socialized medicine the best path as long as it applies to nursing home care, especially if it means that people of modest incomes subsidize those better off? And if you're an advocate of taxpayer-funded health care for the poor, why would you endorse rules and an ethic that winks and nods at efforts to game the system out of money that could be going to the truly poor?

Labels: Health care, Medicaid

(permalink)

Probing Michigan Voters on Faith and Politics.
The Detroit News commissioned a poll of 600 Michigan residents on questions of faith and politics. The survey resulted in some interesting observations, which can be found here. (permalink)

Dinner Debates
The field of "politics" is (thankfully) more about election seasons that refuse to end or legislative grandstanding. Its a phenomenon that intersects with economic self-interest, visions of morality, and the efficacy of options in public policy.

Though the SPN conference did not formally start until today, I got an informal start on it with dinner last night.

Sitting at a table of 12, I observed and participated in discussions at both ends of a very long table. All of my dinner companions are involved in understanding and shaping public policy. The friendly but passionate debates during the evening showed that even among those who share a general approach to policy, there's room for disagreement. As iron sharpens iron, the Bible observed, so two people interacting can sharpen each other.

Our discussion ranged from politics to policy to philosophy, with red versus blue, the definition of marriage, and the merits of the works of David Hume, Edmund Burke, and Ayn Rand taking up some of the topics.

I have a feeling that we could use more of these talks, across political and philosophical differences. It is nearly cliched to say that, and it is perhaps more difficult to have a dialogue when there are more opportunities for fundamental differences in play. And it would certainly be a change from the smackdown cross-talk of political talk shows.

Then again, it just might be more productive, too. (permalink)

SPN: A Gathering of Policy Guys (and Dolls).
Talk about a niche market: this week I'm participating in a conference of public policy nerds, at the annual meeting of the State Policy Network. I'll be periodically offering up observations from various sessions on education policy as well as other topics.

Welcome, readers of TownHall.org (permalink)

Crime is Out of Control, But Look at Those Street Lights!
Detroit is struggling to pay cops and firefighters--but it's got plenty of money to pay a 100 percent premium on decorative street lights.

Blame it on the need to impress visitors to the Super Bowl, which will (allegedly) usher in a new age of prosperity and peace.

City officials defend the move to put in the new lights, saying that most of the money came from state and federal sources. (permalink)

Hurricane Relief Efforts Reaching a Wider Swath.
A church and non-profit group in Detroit held job fair for refugees from Hurricane Katrina. The turnout was 80 percent Detroit residents.

The state of Michigan has an unemployment rate close to 7 percent, highest of any state in the country. The rate in Detroit is double that.

Naturally, there's some grumbling going on, as in "Hey, why not be generous to these new people? What about those of us already living here?"

Those "already living here" did not suddenly lose everything they had, so some amount of generosity is called for in one case that is not called for in the other. And when it comes to jobs, any business that is profitable offers a job not to be generous, but to fill a business need.

Unfortunately, job fairs aren't going to fix Michigan's long term problems, which include a large number of people with poor education (blame public policy, at least in part, for that) and a horrible business climate.

It's time that policy makers start paying attention to the 10 points to transform Michigan, offered by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michael LaFaive offers some specific recommendations for Detroit, including a reduction in the city's tax burdens, accompanied by a reduction in the city's bureaucracy, which overloads residents with taxpayer-paid employees. (permalink)

Taxing the Public for Private Benefit.
Wailing against tax cuts as gifts to "the rich" is folly, and reveals a misunderstanding of the goals of public policy. On the other hand, so is lavishing gifts on private individuals (often wealthy ones) for private gain, especially when those gifts were purchased with taxpayer dollars.

The Independence Institute has published its own "pork booklet" with plenty of examples of wasteful spending in Colorado. Examples include $60 in "economic development" funds, including money to Kodak ($125,000), EchoStar ($400,000), and Mexicana Airlines ($600,000). As the institute's president, Jon Caldera points out, this money was being handed out while Colorado was in the midst of an economic crisis," a situation that may cause the undoing of the state's successful Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

The pork booklet, in PDF, is here. If you are at all sympathetic to the idea that certain provisions of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (notably, the "ratchet effect") should be loosened, take a look at the report. It seems to confirm the cliche that government will do the right thing only when it's forced to. In this case, a strict limit on the amount of tax revenue a government can collect and spend may be the only thing that keeps such foolish spending from being even larger. (permalink)

Admin: About Those "I've Not Been Blogging" Posts.
For the record, you won't see many posts here along the lines of "Sorry I haven't been blogging lately, but ...." Some bloggers may see the need for this, as well as some blog readers. But as a writer and I reader, I don't see the need for it--which is why you'll see few, if any, of such posts here.

There are a lot of reasons why a person might not write for a given period if time, whether that is a day, week, or month: extraordinary commitments elsewhere (family, work, church or some other association), writer's fatigue, vacation (and the ability to leave the computer at home), and so forth. That's about all that anyone needs to say, or know--unless there's some explicit expectation that, say, a blogger will publish 10 items a week, usually in exchange for cash.

So when there's nothing published on this blog for a given day, there's nothing published. No explanation necessary, no explanation given. Enjoy the blogosphere. (permalink)

Has The Private Sector Really Been Tried?
When the public sector fails time and time again to deliver quality education at an acceptable (or even very high) price, it gets ... more money. When a botched contracting out operation goes bad, the criticism falls ... on the idea of private enterprise.

The following item from Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Foundation explains how contracting out the operation of a school system can go wrong.
------------------------------


Give Choice and Competition a Chance

David W. Kirkpatrick

07.06.05

No Pennsylvania school district has been more troubled for a longer period of time than the Chester-Upland District in Delaware County. And although privatization appears to be the latest disappointment, there still are ways for the district to rebound.

In June 1994, the state took control of the district’s fiscal affairs, and set up a three-member Board of Control. Two years later a special court-appointed master, looking at special education in the district, issued a 100-page report charging the district with being “unwilling and unable to provide a free appropriate public education.” He proposed using tax dollars to allow district parents to send their children to other schools in the county.

From 1990 to 1996, the district had five superintendents and five high school principals—and the parade continues today. Even two chairmen and two members of the three-member Board of Control had left. One said of the district, “the only solution may be to dissolve it and disperse its students to other districts.”

By 2000, the state assumed complete control of the district. The Board of Control signed contracts with three private companies to run district schools. One withdrew, and a second was purchased by the third, Edison Schools, Inc. Thomas E. Persing, then-chairman of the Board of Control and a public school administrator for more than 30 years, called the district was a “failure” and said, “We cannot continue to pour the same old wine out of the same bottle.”

Recently, Edison announced that, after losing more than $30 million, and still owed more than $2 million by the district, it was withdrawing from the district’s operations at the end of last month. But although decades of failure should bring into question the future of government-owned and operated schools, the events in Chester-Upland are instead raising questions about the role of private companies in the running of public schools.

Edison suffered losses because it relied on the good faith of district management and staff and accepted responsibility without commensurate authority. The district—not Edison—retained control of such key areas as personnel, security, maintenance, and technology. Edison was unable to prevent many teachers from failing to attend professional development sessions or correct maintenance workers who wouldn’t move supplies.

The problem, to paraphrase what someone once said about Christianity, was not that privatization was tried and found wanting. It is that it wasn’t truly tried in the first place.

For an honest evaluation of privatization’s merits, one should compare Edison’s record since its 1992 founding with the sorry record of the Chester-Upland public schools during the same period. In the school year that just ended, Edison was managing 157 schools, with 250,000 students, in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The number of students were up 118,000 from just 132,000 the year before. If all of those students were in one school district, it would be one of the largest districts in the nation.

In Philadelphia, Edison runs 20 schools, and has been so successful that it has acquired two more. Edison’s Philadelphia schools outnumber the 11 in Chester-Upland, so problems there were not one of size. Philadelphia is also comparable to Chester-Upland in that students in each are predominantly urban, low-income and minority.

Teachers in Edison schools around the nation have indicated their support for the company. Letters from National Education Association members in Mount Clemens, Mich., stated that the school leaders became “visionaries,” classrooms became “rich learning environments,” and the “Edison Project has been a positive learning experience for all of us and our community.”

When asked what would work in Chester, Charles Zogby, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Education at the time Edison was brought in, said “That’s a good question. I truly don’t know.”

Here are four possible solutions:

Give privatization a real test by giving the company or companies equal parts responsibility and authority.

Try the recommendation of the court’s master in 1994 and give parents funds to send their children elsewhere.

Dissolve the district.

Build on the examples set by the successful charter schools in the district. Convert all schools in Chester to publicly-run charter schools, or convert the entire district to a charter district, as has been done in some other states.

Worthy and tested ideas are not lacking. What is needed is political courage, a rare commodity.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Give Me Some (More) Educational Choice.
Arizona has done more to promote competition among schools, and educational choice, than perhaps any other state. But the Goldwater Institute argues that there's still more to do.

-----------------------------------------
State Still Needs More Variety in Educational Choices

by Mathew Ladner, Ph.D.
August 22, 2005

Arizona students are returning to school or enrolling for the first time, providing an opportunity to take note of the expanding revolution in American education: the ability of parents to choose the best school for their children.

Parents have a growing opportunity to pick the education setting most closely aligned with the individual needs of their child, and public schools face a growing level of competition for students. Nearly a fourth of K-12 students nationwide are not attending their neighborhood public schools, opting instead for an array of public and private options. [Emphasis added.]

State legislatures have established seven school-voucher programs and six education tax-credit programs since 1990. State governments created two of these programs this year and expanded five existing programs.

These programs increase the access for parents to choose private schooling for their children.

In addition, unknown numbers of children attend public schools of choice through interdistrict and intradistrict choice and/or magnet schools.

By the mid-1990s, 1.2 million children were attending these schools. Today, approximately 1 million children now attend charter schools, and as many as 2 million students are home-schooled. [Emphasis added]

Florida has been a leading state in expanding school-choice options. Through the creation of three statewide choice programs - A+ Scholarships for children in failing schools (800 students); McKay Scholarships for children with disabilities (18,000 students); and tax-credit scholarships for low-income children (15,000 students) - Florida has led the way in the creation of school choice.

The Miami-Dade public school system recently announced its intention to create new magnet-school options as a response to the competition.

"We cannot be ostriches anymore with our heads in the sand," a district official told the Miami Herald.

"They either get on board with the changing landscape of public education, or they're going to be left behind, with no students and no teachers," a Miami teacher union official stated.

Harvard, Stanford and University of Wisconsin scholars have established that children using choice programs score higher on achievement tests. The evidence concerning children remaining in their public schools is even more compelling.

Harvard economist Caroline Minter Hoxby studied Arizona public elementary school test scores and found that those schools facing high levels of competition from charter schools made gains in fourth-grade reading four times as large as the other schools.

While choice reform continues to advance, the issue has unfortunately become embroiled in a political controversy in Arizona.

Last session, the Arizona Legislature passed and Gov. Janet Napolitano agreed to sign - and then vetoed - a significant expansion in school choice for low-income parents in the form of a tax credit for corporations providing scholarships to students to attend independent schools.

While the veto has become a heated dispute, it is important to recognize that the ultimate winners from the resolution will be thousands of Arizona children who will have the opportunity to attend a school best matching their needs as chosen by the parents.

Arizona badly needs this legislation and more like it, especially in areas where the need for options is most urgent.

High-performing public and charter schools often have years-long waiting lists, while nearby independent schools have empty seats. Despite the progress made toward choice in Arizona, desperate parents often face terrible difficulty in finding a seat for the child when a change is needed. Upper-income people fled poorly performing public schools decades ago by exercising the most common form of school choice: buying a home in the suburbs.

Giving the children of low-income families a similar chance to have their parents choose a school that serves their needs spurs public school reform and equality of opportunity, one of the few things upon which all Arizonans genuinely agree.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Value of No Child Left Behind.
It's a fashion among conservatives and liberals alike to bash No Child Left Behind, and not without reason.

But the Pacific Research Institute points out one virtue of the law: it focuses attention on an "inexcusable achievement gap." (permalink)

California Leading the Way In Tenure Reform?
California's "Governator" is offering a step in the right direction in tenure reform. Among the changes: stretching out the probationary period for new teachers to five years and allowing schools to fire teachers for two consecutive years of bad performance.

Behind the move is a chance to increase accountability and take out non-performers. Come to think of it, how many jobs actually allow someone to stay on the job for two years with subpar performance?

The power of removing tenure can be seen in the Fenton Avenue Charter School, in Los Angeles. This charter school had previously been a unionized school, with tenure. After the school converted to a charter, its teachers had to face a whole new set of evaluations, focusing on the well-being and performance of students, not mere seniority.

The results of the change were dramatic: The school has 79 teachers. Only 7 are from the pre-charter days. The others washed up, or dropped out.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

American Universities Show the Way to Educational Excellence: Competition.
The world beats a path to America's universities. This is in sharp contrast with the state of K-12 education, where the U.S. lags other industrialized countries in international comparisons.

The Goldwater Institute suggests why:
--------------------------------------
American Universities Best in the World

by Vicki Murray, Ph.D.
September 19, 2005

America’s higher education system is the best in the world, according to a just-published international survey by the Economist magazine. Of the world’s top 20 universities, 17 are in the United States.

The secret to success in the American system is that “there is no system.” Instead, there are thousands of universities competing for students and funding, producing an abundance of programs suited to students of any age, interest, and skill level.

According to the survey, “The bargain with the state has turned out to be a pact with the devil” for many European universities. That’s because government-funded universities also tend to be government-managed, with the state dictating every aspect of academic life, from whom universities can employ, to what they can teach to whom and for how much. Such centralization crowds out the hallmarks of the U.S. system: competition and innovation.

Consider the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. It is the 19th best university worldwide. As a forthcoming Goldwater Institute report shows, it has achieved that world-class status largely without state subsidies. Less than 10 percent of the University of Michigan’s general budget is state subsidized (permalink)

In Favor of Photo ID Requirements.
A bipartisan panel recommends that states require photo identification for voting. Sounds reasonable for such an important task as voting. But as John Hood explains, his reluctance to accept conspiracy theories is fading when he ponders that those who oppose such a sensible requirement know who benefits from voter fraud. (permalink)

In Education, Count All the Money.
Defenders of the status quo in education policy often complain when critics publish numbers of how much taxpayers are actually spending on education. I've been on the receiving end of some blistering criticism (from advocates of more spending) for overstating the amount actually spend. (In reality, the numbers I used understate the true taxpayer effort, if anything.)

A reader of this blog sent in the following analogy, which is useful:

I know one pervasive mistake in Minnesota (and likely elsewhere) when folks discuss money spent on education is they often talk only about operating expenses and they exclude capital. On one hand, it makes sense since the funding for the two are handled separately. On the other hand, when was the last time you bought a product or service and the vendor later handed you a second bill? "I thought I already paid," you say. Comes the reply, "Oh, that was for labor & material; this is for office equipment and truck depreciation." (permalink)

Ballot Fatigue.
What do you get when there's an election with 51 candidates for 11 seats on the board of a government agency that has turned in a horrible performance year after year?

You might get something like what recently happened in Detroit, where fully one-third of people who voted in a primary election failed to cast a single vote for any member of the school board.

Parents of school children ought to be able to express a vote of confidence (or no confidence) in school their kids attend. But that vote ought to take place in the marketplace, not the ballot box.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

The Problem With Schools.
Take a look at this newspaper headline to see one symptom of the problems of public schools. Make sure to click "Next" once you see the initial screen. (permalink)

Sports Stadiums are Madness.
On the heels of yesterday's comments about sports stadiums, it's time to recall this review of the policy implications of funding professional sports stadiums.

The study, "Sports Stadium Madness," is a bit dated (it was published in 1998), but while the numbers have changed, the logic has not. (permalink)

Let the Interstate Commerce (in Wine) Flow.
What's happened in the few months since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down discriminatory laws affecting shipment of wine? The Wall Street Journal has a roundup.

To review the situation, some states did not allow any through-the-mail (FedEx, UPS, etc.) purchase of wine. Others were more open in their rules. Still others--the states that were the target of the lawsuits leading to the court's ruling--said that a consumer in state A could buy wine from a vineyard in state A, but not from state B.

The court ruled that this distinction was an unconstitutional restriction on interstate commerce.

In today's Wall Street Journal, "The Pinot Noir is in the Mail" (link for subscribers) surveys recent developments.

"Big wine-drinking states New York, Connecticut, Ohio and Texas have all removed their bans in recent months," writes Vanessa O'Connell, "bringing the number of states that no longer prohibit direct wine shipments to consumers to 30. That's up from 26 states at the start of 2005 and 17 states in 1997."

Laws on the books in Florida, Massachusetts, Vermont and Indiana are vulnerable to legal challenges, thanks to the recent ruling.

The new environment contributes to the trend of disintermediation, as vineyards can now reap some of the financial gain formerly enjoyed by distributors.

Consumers, meanwhile, now have a wider selection, and can choose from new services, such as "futures programs," which is a fancy way of saying "put me on the waiting list."

There are still some kinks to work out. Paperwork, for example, must still be filed by vineyards wishing to sell across state lines. That can take a while. And some vineyards won't sell at prices that undercut the retail price of their distributors.

Still, the court did open the way for increased competition, and a more fully open marketplace. The full implications may not be seen for another year or so, but they're coming. (permalink)

On the Road to Another Folly.
Minnesota, the land of high spending, may be on the path to spend $1.3 billion more. On social welfare programs? On schools? On environmental cleanup?

Oh no, silly. Nothing that trivial. Think sports stadiums.

The proposals are for the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Vikings, and the Minnesota Twins. Then again, having three proposals on the table is a good thing if it means that none get enacted. Said one political veteran: "One's difficult. Two is improbable. And I think three is impossible." Says the speaker of the House, "Trying to do all three of them at once would ensure the defeat of all three."

To which I say: bring it on.

Actually, a new stadium for the university is not the worst of the three deals. The university is, after all, an arm of state government already. Throwing money at Gopher Nuts to support what is a public agency is better than subsidizing the two professional sports teams, which are private businesses.

Meanwhile, the governor weighs in: "This is one of the most vexing public policy and political issues that has confronted us for a number of years. It has been lingering around the Capitol like a bad smell for going on a decade."

It's certainly a bad smell associated with the issue, but the solution is not vexing: Just. Say. No.

Unfortunately, the desire for a legacy may get in the way of found policy. "[governor Pawlenty] said then, and has repeated it on other occasions, that he did not want to be the governor who let either professional sports team move out of Minnesota." (permalink)

Sales Taxes Coming to an E-mail Box Near You.
The days of the tax-free Internet are finally coming to an end.

In theory, people are supposed to pay sales tax on stuff they buy over the Internet. It's going to be more "in fact," after a coordinated effort of state governments gets underway.

Budget and Tax News offers up this: "An 18-state network for the voluntary collection of taxes on goods sold over the Internet or through the mail has been created by the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP), a step project members hope will lead to a national sales tax collection program."

The move is a defeat for efforts to base sales tax not on the location of the buyer but of the seller, a move that is likely to limit competition among states to attract business by offering lower tax rates. (permalink)

Medicaid Calls for "Tough Choices"
Here's one way of understanding the need for Medicaid reform: in the state of Kansas, Medicaid costs have gone up 12 percent per year, every year since 1991.

Some argue that states have budget problems because the things they buy, such as education and health care, are increasing at rates higher than inflation.

Overlooked, though, is the fact that when government buy its "big ticket" items, it is the single largest (health care) or dominant (education) purchaser. Therein lies the problem.

Labels: Medicaid

(permalink)

Stop Subsidizing the Entertainment Choices of the Rich.
In general, taxpayer dollars should not be used to do those things that are readily supplied in the private sector, especially is the recipients of the government service can easily pay for those services themselves.

Of course, this brings us to public broadcasting. There's simply no reason for it now, if there ever was. News? You can get it 24 hours a day on cable TV. High-brow art? Ditto. Children's programming? There's plenty on TV (including a few children-specific channels), not to mention a plethora of DVDs, video games, and the like. (Or if your tastes run to the more old-fashioned kind, send 'em to the library to get some books.)

So who listens to public radio or watches public TV? Well, in urban areas you might get the immigrant cabbie. On the other hand, you're more likely to get a member of the upper crust. Nothing against people who have found their way to a higher-than-average income, but why should everyone else subsidize their entertainment choices?

"Compared to the general public, NPR listeners are 152 percent more likely to own a home valued at $500,000 or more; 194 percent more likely to travel to France; and 326 percent more likely to read the 'New Yorker,'" according to a report cited by NPR's umbrella organization, the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

PBS viewers are also in the above-average financial bracket: "its viewers are 44 percent more likely than the average Joe to have a household income over $150,000; 39 percent more likely to have a graduate degree; and 177 percent more likely to have investments of $150,000 and up."

Simply put, we tax the poor to subsidize the entertainment choices of the wealthy.

Taxpayer subsidies to PBS and NPR are modest in comparison with the rest of the federal budget. But if we can't impose even the small amount of fiscal discipline to cut off this gravy train, the federal budget will continue to soar. (permalink)

How Much Do We Underestimate the Amount of Money Spent on Education? Try Half.
The status quo answer to every problem with K-12 education is "more, more, more." But taxpayers are handing over a lot more money than you might think.

In Oklahoma, for example, the official numbers show that $6,429 per person was spent on education in 2003 (the last year for which relevant data are available).

But two authors for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (one a CPA with public sector experience) comb through government finance data, apply the rules of GASB (standard accounting practices for the private sector), and find that actual spending in the Sooner State that year was actually $11,250 per student. Even then, they say, the number is understated for a variety of reasons.

That's right, over $11,000 per student. And that's not in the wealthy north shore suburbs of Chicago, or the high-income states of New Jersey or Connecticut. It's in Oklahoma, a state where the average personal income is only $33,000, or $8,500 (20 percent) below the national average income. In other words, the residents of Oklahoma are paying a lot more than official numbers might lead them to believe.

So if the official numbers understate the true effort by at least half, where does that the extra money go? Shell games and Enron-like accounting, say the authors. Some money spent on education is funneled through departments outside the Department of Education. Some money is spent (or in some cases, obligated for payment in the future) on the teachers' retirement plan, which has a gross imbalance between promised benefits and income. Some of the money being spent on education now, in other words, is being deferred to the future--a future that will put a tight squeeze on other public priorities and on taxpayers.

There's going to be some rude awakenings once taxpayers--and this applies outside Oklahoma as well as inside--realize that they aren't getting what they had hoped for from public education systems, but are paying much more than ever believed. (permalink)

Is the 65 Percent Solution Strong Enough?
Is a 65 percent mandate for education good enough?

The idea of requiring that at least 65 percent of education dollars reach the classroom has taken off since it was popularized by George F. Will.

The idea, advocated through the organization First Class Education, is simple: too much money in education budgets is wasted in various forms of overhead. Put money into teachers who actually teach. Student improvement should go up at a minimal cost to taxpayers. Impose increased effiency on schools, and make them focus on their key function, the teacher-student interaction.

When the proposal was advanced in Minnesota, King Bananian, the chairman of the economics department at Saint Cloud State University, had a less than favorable impression. And it's not because he's in favor of the status quo. Says King:

To raise that number, one of three things has to happen: We either have to push up school district spending and devote it all to hiring more teachers; we have to give teachers raises; or we have to reallocate district spending away from support services to classrooms.

The movement is a national one, and the first time the idea hits a statewide ballot may be Arizona. Reformers at the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute aren't that sold on the idea, either.

Proponents hope the mandate will ensure that money actually reaches students. Unfortunately, those hopes are unlikely to materialize.

The fundamental problem with the mandate is that it still leaves spending, and reports on spending, in the hands of administrators. Accounting gimmicks and creative itemizing can turn almost any dollar into a “classroom dollar.” There is little reason to believe the 65-cent solution will amount to any real change in the education system.

To ensure money reaches students, a direct route is best: education dollars should follow students in the form of education grants to any classroom – public, charter, or private.

Critically, education grants foster competition between schools seeking to attract students. The competitive process naturally reduces administrative bloat, and puts the focus on student learning. Let’s spend the whole dollar and make it count.

Labels: Charter schools, Education

(permalink)

Politicians or Judges?
Say what you will about politicians, at least they are the ones we elect to make decisions for us. Not so for judges.

The problem of legislative disputes turning into lawsuits afflicts many areas of public policy. One of the big-dollar disputes surrounds funding of K-12 education.

Charlie M. Arlinghaus comments on the situation in New Hampshire, which has had its share of political battles spilling over into legal ones:

Our elected officials are and must be free to do things that some of us find unwise, silly or foolhardy. The court exists to protect a basic framework of rights, not determine the wisdom of policy. Too many lawsuits seek to supplant legislative opinions with judicial opinions.

The real problem with education funding is the chaos inspired by a constant barrage of lawsuits. We debate not the wisdom of a plan but whether the court will let it stand. The only solution, the only permanent fix, is some sort of a constitutional amendment that makes clear the flexibility granted to the people we elect and reduces court challenges to serious constitutional issues instead of anyone and everyone unhappy with the side of the vote they were on. (permalink)

Pound the Treadmill, Get a Discount.
The discounts-for-healthy-living model is finally moving to the public sector.

Life and health insurance companies typically give discounted premiums for non-smokers. Some health insurance companies provide discounts or subsidies for people who regularly hit the gym.

The public sector is picking up on this model. There's a proposal floating for Michigan's Medicaid program. Follow state requirements to quite smoking, keep doctor's appointments or lose weight, and enjoy reduced copay requirements (which are minimal to begin with) or expanded benefits.

Predictably, some folks play the class card. A spokesman for the "Michigan League for Human Services," writes the Detroit News, "said the plan is unfair because unhealthy behavior is a societal problem and this approach singles out the poor."

But people in the optional population of Medicaid--where the proposal would be applied--are already "singled out" by virtue of their relying on government funds. As the legislative author of the proposal points out, people on Medicaid smoke more and are in general more overweight than the general population. The plan, then, is a way to control cost increases, conceivably allowing for more people to enroll. At the least, the plan offers the idea of incentives to a population that has so far received services with nothing at stake.

Labels: Health care, Medicaid

(permalink)

All You Wanted to Know About the Taxpayers Bill of Rights ...
... or at the campaign to undo it as written, is available at www.taxincrease.org, a specialty site of the Independence Institute. (permalink)

Wal-Mart and the Hurricane.
Wal-Mart versus FEMA. Who's got the better record?

Here are two items I wrote for the Detroit News.
Day one:

Wal-Mart's legendary efficiency and skill in logistics management is one reason why the company keeps growing--to the horror of reactionaries.

The company's expertise in distribution was used very well in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Now, I sympathize with the argument that successful companies do not, and should not, practice philanthropy: eliminate the middleman and let shareholders make financial donations, and organize efforts through fraternal organizations, churches, and other groups.

Still, it's worth noting that big W donated a minimum of $20 million to relief efforts. Says the Washington Post, "While state and federal officials have come under harsh criticism for their handling of the storm's aftermath,

Wal-Mart is being held up as a model for logistical efficiency and nimble disaster planning, which have allowed it to quickly deliver staples such as water, fuel and toilet paper to thousands of evacuees."

Further, reports Michael Barbaro and Justin Gillis, "The same sophisticated supply chain that has turned the company into a widely feared competitor is now viewed as exactly what the waterlogged Gulf Coast needs."

Of course, the company operates in a competitive marketplace; it vies with department stores, hypermarkets (such as Meijer), and grocery stores for customers. It has to find ways of thrive--or die.

Government, by contrast, has a secure position. Woolworth died. The auto industry's history is riddled with companies that folded. K-Mart lives on, but only as part of another company. On the other hand, state and county governments are not subject to hostile takeovers, or liquidation by bankruptcy. Nor do public sector managers enjoy the same opportunities to gain large bonus checks through increased market share or profits. In short, the operational logic is quite different when you compare private with public sector.

Perhaps that's one reason why the president of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, said if "the American government would have responded like Wal-Mart has responded, we wouldn't be in this crisis."

Hat tip: Market Power)


Day two:
In the early days after Hurricane Katrina, a report in the Washington Post said that Wal-Mart is being held up as a model for logistical efficiency and nimble disaster planning.

It turns out that the company, so much honed by competition that it defines "world-class" in logistics and planning, is as good as advertised. Today’s Wall Street Journal contains an article that tracks the giant retailer’s progress in responding to the devastation in the Gulf area. (Here’s a link for subscribers.)

According to the Journal, 126 of Big Wal-Mart’s stores were in the path of the hurricane, and 7 out of every 10 of those (89 stores) suffered some damage. But now, 4 of every 5 of those damaged stories (74) are open for business. Depending on just how damaged those stores were, that’s a remarkable turnaround.

Wal-Mart isn’t just doing a remarkable job on its own terms; it’s showing us how private sector efficiency can top the efforts of government.

“From Boutte, La., to Pass Christian, Miss.,” the paper tells us, “Wal-Mart frequently beat FEMA by days in getting trucks filled with emergency supplies to relief workers and citizens whose lives were upended by the storm.”

The folks are FEMA are easy targets, and this applies doubly to its chief. But the difference lies in part not so much to personnel but to the systematic advantage that Wal-Mart and other companies have over government. (Home Deport, another big box retailer based in the south, has done a good job in getting supplies to people as well.) It’s not that FEMA employees as a group are incompetent.

They are, however, working in a public sector bureaucracy, which is seldom a model of efficiency and good management. The private sector has its bureaucracies, of course (think of layers of middle management). But there’s a difference between the two: competition eventually punishes the companies with bad management. In the public sector, rank-and-file people soldier on in a dysfunctional system, while the top dogs enter and leave according to the political season. Back in the private sector, companies reform and improve, or die.

Since its profit motive is served by building efficient distribution systems, Wal-Mart, the Journal reminds us, has “trucks, distribution centers and dozens of stores in most areas of the country. It also has a specific protocol for responding to disasters, and it can activate an emergency command center to coordinate an immediate response.”

It’s served the region well. Bob Buckley, sheriff of Union Parish, for example, got flashlights, food, and protective gear for his deputies two days after he asked for them—from Wal-Mart.

When asked about the response from FEMA, he said "Who?" (permalink)

Consumers of Health Care, Unite.
One of the leading lights of public policy when it comes to health care reform has a new organization.

Greg Scandlen, former analyst at various organizations, has struck out on his own with Consumers for Health Care Choices.

The 501(c)4 organization describes itself as a "not-for-profit grass roots organization that represents the views of the health care consumer to policy makers and industry leadership." It advocates defined-contribution benefits, health savings accounts, and basic (minimal mandate) insurance.

Labels: Health care

(permalink)

Not Here, There.
For those who care, I'm doing more posting over at the Detroit News this week. The regularly scheduled programming of state-level policy will resume shortly. (permalink)

Advances in American Education: Pajama Learning.
Long hair on men. Spaghetti straps on women. And both in pajamas. In school.

Some Detroit-area schools have a solution: Just Say No.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Are You Ready for Some Football ... Fleecing?
The Institute for Policy Innovation points us to another fleecing of the taxpayer, in order to subsidize professional sports.

(The short commentary is reprinted below).

Take Me Out ‘of’ the Ballgame

Cities around the country are ponying up taxpayer funds for new stadiums to get, or keep, professional sports teams.

But Arlington, Texas, is blazing a new path.

The Dallas Cowboys decided several years ago it wanted a new stadium. Texas Stadium seemed fine to many of us, but new stadiums provide lots of new revenue opportunities. The Cowboys management negotiated with the City of Dallas for several months, but the city — or at least some city officials — decided the team wanted too much and passed on the deal.

Ready on the sidelines and eager to play was Arlington, located about halfway between Dallas and Fort Worth. The city already has Ameriquest Field, formerly The Ballpark in Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers.

Arlington and the Cowboys struck a deal and the voters approved. So what’s new about a city willing to pay to play? Well, generally in these agreements the city will pay part of the costs and the team pays the rest.

In this case, Arlington increased property, car rental and hotel taxes to pay for the city’s share. But according to a story in the Dallas Morning News, it also wants to levy a 10 percent tax on tickets and a $3 parking tax.

The twist here is that those user taxes will be applied toward the Cowboy’s portion of the bill.

So, the residents of Arlington, along with those renting cars and staying at hotels, will pay for Arlington’s share. And those who attend the games will pay the Cowboy’s portion.

The Arlington City Council certainly has the right to tax its constituents as much as it likes — and the voters can “throw the bums out” come the next elections if they choose. But should it also tax all of those who want to go see a game — to pay the Cowboys’ bill?

How do those people, who are guilty of nothing more than wanting to go to a football game, reflect their dissatisfaction (or satisfaction) at the polls? (permalink)

Mainstream Media Goes a-Blogging.
Here's one of the more interesting uses of blogging by a conventional media outlet: the Minneapolis Star-Tribune sent John Reinan on an 8-day, 11-city tour of the country. The goal: observe the operations, and customers of Minnesota-based Northwest Airlines during the ongoing mechanics strike.

So how does it work out? Reinan's blog does follow many of the conventions of blogging.

In the "mandatory" category, the blog is written over time; new stuff is appended to the old stuff.

In the "almost-mandatory" category, the blog is in reverse chronological order (latest news on top).

In the "often followed" category, it allows for comments (which I usually skipped).

The production is a breezy read, a combination of personal observations and recollections of conversations with a variety of people, fellow passengers and striking mechanics, chiefly, but also security personnel, but little-to-no coverage of pilots, flight attendants, or gate agents.

One thing the blog did not include, which I would place in the "almost-mandatory" category, are links to other web sites. You'd think that a blog hosted by a newspaper would have references to news articles in that paper. But it didn't happen this time. (permalink)

Community-to-Community Rebuilding.
Does the Internet and the blog phenomenon offer a way to assist with rebuilding a city after a disaster? Hugh Hewitt thinks so, and lays out the reasons in a Weekly Standard article.

Of course, this all depends on people in the affected area having access to the Internet, or at least to someone who has that access.

While many people still need old-school help, such as getting to dry land and clean water, the Internet-enabled approach might be useful in longer-term efforts. (permalink)

City Bans Wal-Mart, Act Surprised When Company Locates Across County Line.
A Wal-Mart? Not for us, say two Chapel Hill and Carrboro, North Carolina. Orange County, where the two cities are located, effectively bans big box stores.

The number one retailer announced plans to open up shop in neighboring Chatham County.

So what do Chapel Hill and Carrboro do? Carrboro county officials pass a resolution aimed at their neighbors; Chapel Hill, meanwhile, wants Chatham County to give them a peek at the documents that Wal-Mart has filed with the county.

The two cities say they are concerned about traffic. No kidding; a majority of Orange County residents do at least some of their shopping elsewhere due to county restrictions that push large retailers elsewhere. (permalink)