Obamacare Will Kill Far More Than the Veterans Administration

/in , , , , /by

The news that some forty veterans died while waiting to receive care from a Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital—care that was denied because of bureaucratic chicanery—will seem small in comparison to the numbers of Americans who will die from the implications of Obamacare.

At this point, some nineteen VA hospitals are under suspicion of engaging in similar practices, but as large as the VA bureaucracy is, it will be small in comparison to what Obamacare requires. The original legislation that combined the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act represented nearly 2,700 pages.

The regulations that are being created to implement it will run to several volumes. By late 2013, the Obama administration had published 11,588,500 words of final Obamacare regulations. If looks can kill, that many words will surely kill. Too many people will be unble to get the care they need because there will be a regulation to prevent it.

What is making headlines now has long been known in other nations with national healthcare systems. It is about rationing, not dispensing care; if for no other reason that is why healthcare should remain in the private sector.

Unless a future Congress repeals Obamacare, the death toll will mount. There have been some forty or more pieces of legislation to repeal it passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. No Republican voted for Obamacare when it was introduced.

What we know is that, while serving on the oversight committee, then-Senator Obama was aware of the VA problems before he ran for President. In 2009, as President, he promised veterans to fix the problems. How concerned is he in 2014? There has been a noticeable lack of public comment from a President famed for having something to say about everything that makes headlines.

Add the VA scandal to the long list of Obama administration scandals from the IRS to Benghazi, but it is Obamacare that has already been a monumental failure and, as we begin to receive news of those who will die as because a local hospital closed or because they lost the care of a personal physician familiar with their problem, it will emerge as the greatest scandal of his presidency.

On March 23, 2010 Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. By October, the Obama administration abandoned the long-term-care insurance program that was in the law. It was later formally repealed by Congress, but the changes that President has initiated since then ignore the fact that only Congress, as the legislative branch, has the power to make such changes.

December 2012 was the deadline for states to decide on running their own insurance exchanges; 36 states left all or part of the job to the federal government. In the lead up to the October 2013 launch of HealthCare.gov more delays were announced by the White House and the website turned out to be a complete disaster. That same month insurers notified thousands of policy holders that their health plans were not compliant with Obamacare and would be cancelled.

In effect, Obamacare caused hundreds of thousands of people with healthcare plans they liked to lose them, thus artificially increasing the number of “uninsured”. In April the White House announced that seven million had signed up for Obamacare. Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, gave notice she was resigning. The figure cited by the White House is likely dubious.

In May, an article in The Fiscal Times reported that “A handful of state-run exchange websites—which cost nearly a half a billion dollars to build—still don’t work, nearly seven months after they first went live.” The Fiscal Times estimated that Obamacare websites had cost $5 billion and so many were not functional that the original plan to transition signups to them from HealthCare.gov was likely to be abandoned.

To mark the anniversary of Obamacare’s enactment, in March 2014 the American Action Forum released a report that the law’s regulatory burdens are twice as great as its alleged benefits. “From a regulatory perspective, the law has imposed more than $27.2 billion in total private sector costs, $8 billion in unfunded state burdens, and more than 159 million paperwork hours on local governments and affected entities.”

Obamacare Agent BadgeIt’s rarely mentioned or reported, but the implementation of Obamacare will also require an increase in the number of people either full-time or under contract with the federal government. The highest estimate for new Internal Revenue Service hires is around 16,000 as the IRS has been put in charge of enforcing Obamacare. It already employs about 100,000 people nationwide which means there is one IRS employee for every 3,000 Americans.

In an April 4 Forbes magazine article, “Obamacare Shows America Suffers from a President Dangerously Disconnected From Reality”, Peter Ferrera, a Heartland Institute Senior Fellow specializing in entitlement and budget policy, concluded that the numbers of those insured by Obamacare were largely a fabrication or invalidated in some cases by data that the Health and Human Services Department released.

“Obamacare,” wrote Ferrera, “has been a major drag on the economy, preventing full recovery from the recession. Employers trying to avoid the costs of the employer mandate have reduced many full time jobs to part time jobs. Or that have frozen hiring, and the associated costs due to Obamacare. This is contributing to income stagnation and decline for the middle class, the working class, and the poor.”

L. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center asked “How do we know Obamacare is failing? They’re burying the story. They aren’t in denial. They know the truth. They’re just choosing to ignore it.”

A Center analysis of the three network evening news broadcasts from January through March found only twelve full stories about Obamacare. “None of the networks dared to report the ongoing opposition of the American people to Obamacare” over that period of time, even when they were the ones doing the polling!

The real story of Obamacare, however, isn’t about who signed up or not. The real story of Obamacare that is not being reported is about those who have died and will die as the result of this horrendous experiment in socialized medicine.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLES:

America’s Veterans Deserve Better: 5 Priorities to Fix VA
Obamanomics Has Cost Your Family a Ridiculous Amount of Money

5 steps for fixing the VA problems — if I were in charge

/in , , , , , , /by

As I watch the events unfold regarding the Veterans Administration scandal — certainly not a phony one – I’m waiting to hear a concrete plan of action and solutions.

We do not need any more studies, assessments and reports. We certainly don’t need another agency within the Obama administration investigating itself.

I’m also concerned about the number of retired military officers circling the wagons around, it seems, one of their own — retired former Chief of Staff, now Secretary of Veterans Administration, General Eric Shinseki.

What amazes me is that, in uniform, this type of abject and systematic failure over the past six years would have resulted in relief of command. However, it now seems there are different standards and measures of effectiveness in the quagmire we call government bureaucracy — I would have hoped the code of honor and integrity transcends the day one takes off the uniform.

In any event, here are five steps the administration should be taking (not holding my breath):

1. Change of management – I didn’t say leadership because it seems no one is leading and they are certainly mismanaging. But it begins at the top with the Secretary and must go to the senior levels where these issues are being raised.

Some will say leave Secretary Shinseki in place to fix the VA problems, it’s been almost six years and the problem has been exacerbated. Some believe (or hope) once there are resignations, the media will move on and this won’t be a hot topic anymore – that may apply to the fawning Obama liberal media but not the rest of us.

In that vein, we should be listening to our Veterans Service Organizations such as the VFW, American Legion, ROA, NAUS, AMVETS and MOAA as they are the true “voices of our veterans.”

General Shinseki and senior levels of the VA have lost the confidence of the veteran community. As a matter of fact, it seems he’s completely turned his back on it and become just another “Beltway Bandit” — forgetting his oath of office as a commissioned officer in exchange for political loyalties. We thank him for his countless years of service to our nation in uniform, but this is inexcusable.

2. Provide immediate relief with vouchers to civilian hospitals for proper care – of course this process will need scrutiny and tracking to ensure good stewardship of the taxpayer dollar — which we all would humbly want to see go to caring for those who have borne such a burden for this Republic. But the voucher program is not the panacea to solve the greater problem.

3. Develop regional “Centers of Excellence” – five to be exact: North, South, East, Midwest, and West, based upon veteran population concentration, focus resources for staffing and look at relationships with local private hospitals. As well, outpatient clinics should be part of these COEs and we should develop best practices for better automation as part of this initiative. I would say these would be our Tier IA Veteran care facilities and there should be a determination as to their coverage areas.

4. Provide local alternatives for remote areas – we need to assess the remote areas where our veterans need care and coverage and look at developing a process and a system whereby their first line of healthcare can come from a local private hospital. Again, there would need to be a system in place to track these individuals. Along with this comes a very well-trained and responsive system of “Help Centers” that can address issues and resolve them for our vets, and I don’t mean “we will get back to you.”

5. Improve record-keeping – if the Obama administration was so adept at contacting voters they should be able to develop a better automation system for records and caring of our veterans. It is imperative that we are able to quickly and seamlessly transition health records of those who have served in uniform, regardless of Active Duty or Reserve Component, into the VA system. No more drop-offs into the abyss.

You might have thought this would have been what President Obama would have articulated last week, instead of more faux outrage and lecturing about others taking responsibility.

And yes, something criminal has occurred within the Veterans Administration and the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, should conduct an independent investigation — or is it just not that important?

I always taught my young officers that any issues you bring to me must have at least once recommendation for a solution — above are just a few off the top of my head. And I don’t have an entire policy staff.

But I must ask, if the Obama administration, indeed government itself, is having a problem handling veterans healthcare, which is less than two percent of our American population, how do you think they’ll handle trying to manage the entire country’s healthcare?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: America’s Veterans Deserve Better: 5 Priorities to Fix VA

FL Governor Rick Scott Suing Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Shinseki

/in , , , , , /by

Governor Rick Scott, a veteran himself with a son in the U.S. Army, announced plans to file a lawsuit establishing the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration’s (AHCA) authority to inspect federal VA hospitals in Florida, and to stop the federal veterans affairs agency from obstructing state actions.

Governor Scott said, “As the chief health policy and planning entity for the state that licenses, inspects, and investigates consumer complaints, AHCA should be allowed access to federal VA hospitals to inspect their processes and their facilities. On seven separate occasions at six federal VA hospitals, however, state inspectors have been blocked by federal officials from carrying out their mission of ensuring facilities in Florida meet the healthcare needs of our veterans. I have asked AHCA to sue the federal veterans affairs agency to shine a light on their activities and protect the lives of our heroes who have earned nothing short of access to the best care possible.”

The complaint will be filed in federal court against U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki to establish AHCA’s right to inspect and regulate health facilities in Florida. The suit will stop the federal government from obstructing AHCA’s inspections of these facilities.

Governor Scott said, “With 1.5 million veterans that call Florida home, we’re committed to being the most veteran-friendly state in the nation – and reports of deaths, neglect, poor conditions and a secret waiting list in federal VA hospitals in Florida are unacceptable. To date, Sec. Shinseki has refused to step down, our inspectors continue to be turned away, and none of the information we’ve asked for has been provided. Transparency and accountability are critical to supporting our veterans, and this suit will fight the federal VA’s continued practice of stonewalling our inspectors.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

VA workers rip crucifix off dying vet’s neck, deal crack, rape and more, according to audit report
America’s Veterans Deserve Better: 5 Priorities to Fix VA

Compulsion Is Not Cooperation by Gary M. Galles

/in , , , /by

Market competition expands cooperative arrangements among people.

If you ask people whether competition or cooperation is better, almost everybody picks cooperation. It just “feels” better. However, when it comes to economic relationships, the question is not “either/or,” despite long-standing confusion.

FDR’s often-echoed statement was that “cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.” Market competition is actually the process that leads to better cooperative results than are otherwise achievable. Market competition actually expands cooperation.

A competitive market economy is characterized by more extensive and effective cooperation than a “cooperative” economy controlled by the State. That is because market competition embodies a discovery process that reveals who will best cooperate with us, and how. So far this system has no equal. That is why commerce has reduced conflict throughout history, with greater beneficial effects, the less it has been hamstrung by governments. Even in an age of open source and peer-to-peer, market arrangements—exchanges of value between parties—still give rise to the greatest level of prosperity.

A market economy, based on a legal framework of people’s rights to life, liberty, and property, outclasses a command economy because it is permeated by voluntary cooperation across the almost uncountable margins where individual choices interact. Consider the “cooperation” imposed on some by others against their will: Such a system of technocracy discards massive potential gains realized through exchange.

Competition exists within firms. But success in the marketplace requires extensive cooperative skills among many individuals in widely varied activities. Just as sports teams and orchestras illustrate how fierce competition can produce outstanding cooperation, the employees of firms must cooperate to produce high-quality, low-cost results, or risk being of being outperformed by rival cooperative teams.

Market competition is the process of rivalry in which the best cooperators—those who cooperate more effectively with more people—earn greater rewards. Further, the stronger the competition for consumer patronage and employees, the more such cooperation develops.

Each interaction in the vast web of market relationships (which Friedrich Hayek called the “extended order” of the marketplace) involves voluntary cooperation, which is the origin of the market’s mutual benefits. No arrangement is imposed by someone else’s decree. Rather, each develops as participants advance their mutual self-interests, among participants who often live in vastly disparate places, speak and write in a multitude of languages, and often believe many different things—even mutually inconsistent ones. And competition improves outcomes because the requirement to get the consent of all whose rights are impacted (absent in other systems) forces competition into positive channels, generating beneficial results.

People compete for jobs to cooperate with others to produce goods and services. That “competitive” cooperation also extends to owners and creditors, suppliers and customers. A worker that cooperates more effectively earns more income. A firm that better cooperates with customers and suppliers raises its market value.

Market competition leads to improved cooperation because everyone is free to offer to cooperate at whatever terms they find acceptable. The process rewards those most able to meet consumer desires, whoever they may be. Competition replaces restrictions imposed to benefit the politically powerful by denying others opportunities to cooperate on better terms. The result is improved results for them as well as those who would prefer to deal with them, if given the chance. Based in secure property rights, it does not allow the strong to abuse the weak; rather, it favors those better able to serve others, however weak they may be in politics or other aspects of society, with a special premium for benefiting the masses (where really large rewards can be reaped). In that way, competition is the primary uplifting force for the poor, not the means of making them victims.

Nothing prevents individuals who are sovereign over themselves from voluntarily cooperating whenever all involved expect to benefit. We do it countless times, without even noticing it. But when those with political power can impose limits on how we are allowed to cooperate with others, competition is transformed into a political war to control what we must cooperate in pursuit of, as well as how and for whom. There is nothing harmonious, benevolent, caring, or community-minded about such conflict. It focuses on reducing the options of others.

Scarcity means competition cannot be avoided, no matter how society is organized. In capitalism—voluntary cooperation based on private property (in turn based on the principle of self-ownership)—it creates wealth out of otherwise-latent abilities in others. The key to its success is its limitation to voluntary activities, barricaded against political compulsion, because under “cooperative” decision-making, competition for political power destroys wealth and hamstrings society from vast areas of true cooperation.

Contrary to those who assert cooperation’s superiority to competition, capitalism is the only system that strips force away from all relationships, allowing true voluntary cooperation. The issue is not competition versus cooperation, but channeling people’s scarcity-induced competition exclusively into mutually agreed forms. Markets do that. As Ludwig von Mises put it, competitive markets comprise “a system of mutual cooperation,” where “the function of competition is to assign to every member of the social system that position in which he can best serve the whole of society and all of its members.” In contrast, government enforced “cooperation” actually crowds out or destroys real cooperation.

ABOUT GARY M. GALLES

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.

Why Black Men Need More White Women

/in , , , , , , /by

Black women constantly complain about the dearth of “eligible” Black men to date and marry. Noted sociologist William Julius Wilson has argued that “the increasing levels of non-marriage and female-headed households is a manifestation of the high levels of economic dislocation experienced by lower-class Black men in recent decades.”

He further argued that, “When joblessness is combined with high rates of incarceration and premature mortality among Black men; it becomes clearer that there are fewer marriageable black men relative to black women who are able to provide the economic support needed to sustain a family.”

Then you add in the unfortunate increase in homosexuality within the Black community and you have a recipe for disaster.

This is why Black men need more White women like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. Even though they are conservative media personalities, they have done more to promote the well-being of Black males than many of the very women who stridently complain about the lack of “eligible” Black men.

Coulter is a friend and I find her comments regarding the Black community very insightful. Look at what she said two years ago on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” She said, “Groups on the left, from feminists to gay rights groups to those defending immigrants, have commandeered the Black civil rights experience.”

She continued, “I think what – the way liberals have treated Blacks like children and many of their policies have been harmful to Blacks, at least they got the beneficiary group right. There is the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We don’t owe the homeless. We don’t owe feminists. We don’t owe women who are desirous of having abortions, but that’s — or — or gays who want to get married to one another. That’s what civil rights has become for much of the left.”

Stephanopoulos asked, “Immigrant rights are not civil rights?” Coulter responded, “Civil rights are for Blacks…what have we done to immigrants? We owe Black people something…We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven’t even been in this country.”

Earlier this year, she said, “I mean my whole life I’ve heard Republicans hate Black people, I’ve never seen any evidence of it until I read Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. We are the party that has always stood up for African-Americans. Who gets hurt the most by amnesty, by continuing these immigration policies it is low-wage workers, it is Hispanics, it is Blacks.”

I don’t know Ingraham personally, but I like what she had to say last month about Democrats and Blacks. “

[Congressman] Steve Israel is reprehensible in what he said [on alleged racism in the Republican Party]…Nancy Pelosi, throw her into the ring [for similar comments]…I say this is a race to the bottom…The Democrats have failed the Black youth in this country with their terrible economic approach. Do we call that racist?

“…They turn their heads away from the millions upon millions of Black babies slaughtered in the womb over 10 years… Is that racist?…Is it racist that they allow inner cities to continue to crumble as families decay across the board in America – especially hard hit is African-American families…It is reprehensible and it’s all about November…This is not about ‘They care about Black people.’ They care about their majority eroding away.”

So, let me make sure I understand. Black women complain about the state of “eligible” Black males to date and marry, yet they support the policies of a president who is going to make the problem much worse.

Under Obama, Blacks have regressed on every economic, social and moral indicator that is tracked. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the current Black unemployment rate is 11.6 percent; for Blacks aged 16-19 it is at 36.8 percent.

However, the average Black unemployment rate during the terms of the last three presidents, as well as the average over the past 30 years, are noteworthy. Under Clinton, it was 10 percent; under George W. Bush, 9.3 percent but under Obama, 14 percent for the total time he has been in office. The 30-year average for Blacks is 12.4 percent.

Campaign slogans notwithstanding, this isn’t the kind of change we have been waiting for.

Obama has done more for same-sex marriage couples than he has for his same-race brothers and sisters. In fact, Newsweek dubbed him our first gay president – not for his sexual orientation, but for his relentless pandering to homosexuals.

He has also advocated amnesty for those in this country illegally, which will only continue to increase the unemployment rate in the Black community, especially among low and under-skilled Black workers. This will further decrease the pool of potential Black men for women to date and marry. Let’s face it, our women are not going to marry someone who is unemployed or underemployed.

Historically, Black women have been notoriously protective of their men and children. It is ironic that Coulter and Ingraham, two conservative White women, are now assuming that role. We Black men need more White women like Coulter and Ingraham, not Black women who will give a pass to a failing Black president.

CLICHES OF PROGRESSIVISM #6 – Capitalism Fosters Greed and Government Policy Must Temper It

/in , , , , , /by

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government.

Our society is inundated with half-truths and misconceptions about the economy in general and free enterprise in particular. The “Clichés of Progressivism” series is meant to equip students with the arguments necessary to inform debate and correct the record where bias and errors abound.

The antecedents to this collection are two classic FEE publications that YAF helped distribute in the past: Clichés of Politics, published in 1994, and the more influential Clichés of Socialism, which made its first appearance in 1962. Indeed, this new collection will contain a number of essays from those two earlier works, updated for the present day where necessary. Other entries first appeared in some version in FEE’s journal, The Freeman. Still others are brand new, never having appeared in print anywhere. They will be published weekly on the websites of both YAF and FEE: www.yaf.org and www.FEE.org until the series runs its course. A book will then be released in 2015 featuring the best of the essays, and will be widely distributed in schools and on college campuses.

See the index of the published chapters here.

20140414_Clichesofprogressivism (1)

#6 – Capitalism Fosters Greed and Government Policy Must Temper It

On April 19, 2014, the Colonial Bread store in my town of Newnan, Georgia, closed its doors after a decade in business. The parent company explained, “In order to focus more sharply on our core competencies, the decision was made to close some of our retail stores.” A longtime patron responded in the local newspaper this way: “It’s just sad. It’s simply greed and we’re on the receiving end. It’s frustrating to know there isn’t anything you can do about it either.”

Now there’s a rather expansive view of “greed” if there ever was one! Trying to make more efficient the business in which you’ve invested your time and money is somehow a greedy thing to do? And what is it that the disgruntled patron wishes should be done about it? Perhaps pass a law to effectively enslave the business owner and compel him to keep the store open? Who is really the greedy one here?

“Greed” is a word that flows off Progressive tongues with the ease of lard on a hot griddle. It’s a loaded, pejorative term that consigns whoever gets hit with it to the moral gutter. Whoever hurls it can posture self-righteously as somehow above it all, concerned only about others while the greedy wallow in evil selfishness. Thinking people should realize this is a sleazy tactic, not a thoughtful moral commentary.

Economist Thomas Sowell famously pointed out in Barbarians Inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays that the “greed” accusation doesn’t meet the dictionary definition of the term any more. He wrote, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

Once upon a time, and for a very long time, “greed” meant more than just the desire for something. It meant the inordinate, obsessive worship of it that often crossed the line into actions that harmed other people. Really, really wanting a million bucks was not in and of itself a bad thing if you honestly worked for it, freely traded with others for it, or took risks and actually created jobs and wealth to secure it. If you worshiped the million bucks to the point of a willingness to steal for it or hire a public official to raid the Treasury on your behalf, then you were definitely a greedy person. Shame on you. If you’re one of those many people today who are willing to stoop to stealing or politicking your way to wealth, you’ve got a lot to answer for.

“Greed” also means, to some people, an unwillingness to share what’s yours with others. I suppose a father who buys a personal yacht instead of feeding his family would qualify. But that’s because he is evading a personal responsibility. He owes it to the family he brought into being to properly care for them. Does the bakery owner who closes his store thereby violate some responsibility to forever serve a certain clientele? Was that ever part of some contract all parties agreed to?

Let’s not forget the fundamental and critical importance of healthy self-interest in human nature. We’re born with it, and thank goodness for that! I don’t lament it for a second. Taking care of yourself and those you love and have responsibility for is what makes the world work. When your self-interest motivates you to do that, it means on net balance you’re good for the world. You’re relieving its burdens, not adding to them.

A common but misleading claim is that the Great Recession of 2008 resulted from the “greed” of the financial community. But did the desire to make money suddenly appear or intensify in the years before 2008? George Mason University economist Lawrence White pointedly explained that blaming greed for recessions doesn’t get us very far. He says, “It’s like blaming gravity for an epidemic of plane crashes.” The gravity was always there. Other factors must have interceded to create a serious anomaly. In the case of the Great Recession, those factors prominently included years of cheap money and artificially low interest rates from the Federal Reserve, acts of Congress and the bureaucracy to jawbone banks into making dubious loans for home purchases, and government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac skewing the housing market—all policies that enjoyed broad support from Progressives but never from genuinely “free market” people.

The Progressive perspective on “greed” is that it’s a constant problem in the private sector but somehow recedes when government takes over. I wonder exactly when a politician’s self-interest evaporates and his altruistic compassion kicks in? Does that happen on election night, on the day he takes office, or after he’s had a chance to really get to know the folks who grease the wheels of government? When he realizes the power he has, does that make him more or less likely to want to serve himself?

The charlatan cries, “That guy over there is greedy! I will be happy to take your money to protect you from him!” Before you rush into his arms, ask some pointed questions about how the greedy suspect is doing his work and how the would-be protector proposes to do his.

The fact is, there’s nothing about government that makes it less “greedy” than the average guy or the average institution. Indeed, there’s every reason to believe that adding political power to natural self-interest is a surefire recipe for magnifying the harm that greed can do. Have you ever heard of corruption in government? Buying votes with promises of other people’s money? Feathering one’s nest by claiming “it’s for the children”? Burdening generations yet unborn with the debt to pay for today’s National Cowboy Poetry Gathering in Nevada (a favorite pork project of Senator Harry Reid)?

If you are an honest, self-interested person in a free market, you quickly realize that to satisfy the self-interest that some critics are quick to dismiss as “greed,” you can’t put a crown on your head, wrap a robe around yourself and demand that the peasants cough up their shekels. You have to produce, create, trade, invest, and employ. You have to provide goods or services that willing customers (not taxpaying captives) will choose to buy and hopefully more than just once. Your “greed” gets translated into life-enhancing things for other people. In the top-down, socialized utopia the Progressives dream of, greed doesn’t disappear at all; it just gets channeled in destructive directions. To satisfy it, you’ve got to use the political process to grab something from other people.

The “greed” charge turns out to be little more than a rhetorical device, a superficial smear intended to serve political ends. Whether or not you worship a material thing like money is largely a matter between you and your Maker, not something that can be scientifically measured and proscribed by lawmakers who are just as prone to it as you are. Don’t be a sucker for it.

Lawrence W. Reed
President
Foundation for Economic Education

Summary

  • Greed has become a slippery term that cries out for some objective meaning; it’s used these days to describe lots of behaviors that somebody doesn’t like for other, sometimes hidden reasons.
  • Self-interest is healthy and natural. How you put it into action in your relationships with others is what keeps it healthy or gets it off track.
  • Lawmakers and government are not immune to greed and, if anything, they magnify it into harmful outcomes.
  • For more information, see http://tinyurl.com/lxdrfac, http://tinyurl.com/pyvvx73, and http://tinyurl.com/lj7s2ab.

20130918_larryreedauthorABOUT LAWRENCE W. REED

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. Prior to becoming FEE’s president, he served for 20 years as president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.

Frak! Has Your Mother Sold Her Mangle? by Sarah Skwire

/in , , , , /by

Language—even profanity—evolves faster than it can be regulated.

I was all ready to write a column about Anthony Trollope, Francis Hodgson Burnett, and women’s property rights, when Brighton, Michigan, decided to start enforcing $200 fines against people who swear in public.

This was such a perfect demonstration of the extension of Skwire’s First Law from politicians to those who enforce the laws enacted by politicians that I had to shelve my original plans and devote this week’s column to the question of cussing. (Skwire’s First Law, by the way, cannot be stated in Brighton, Michigan, without incurring a fine. Suffice it to say that it addresses my opinion of politicians.)

What the fine law enforcement agents of Brighton are failing to consider, however, is that language is a Hayekian spontaneous order. That means language changes and evolves faster than it can be regulated.

Charles Mackay discusses the rapid evolution of nonsensical slang phrases in his book Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Though Mackay may have been too much of a gentlemen to discuss actual profanity, he does record the speedy shifting of popular phrases of the day from “Quoz!” to “What a shocking bad hat!” to “Hookey Walker!” to what may be one of the earliest recorded “your mama” jokes, “Has your mother sold her mangle?” As Mackay notes, the inscrutability and the ephemerality of such slang insults drive their popularity. “Like all other earthly things, Quoz had its season, and passed away as suddenly as it arose, never again to be the pet and the idol of the populace. A new claimant drove it from its place, and held undisputed sway till, in its turn, it was hurled from its pre-eminence, and a successor appointed in its stead.”

My guess is that language—especially profanity—evolves even faster and more creatively in response to attempts to regulate it. W. C. Fields, for example, charmingly evaded rules about swearing in film with epithets like “Godfrey Daniels!” It’s still a fairly satisfying response when a small child steps painfully on one’s foot. In similar fashion and for similar reasons, smart kids have been using “shut the front door” and “see you next Tuesday” for ages.

In fact, it is my hope and expectation that the young skate rats and adolescent flaneurs of Brighton are, even now, innovating new curse words and resuscitating old ones in order to confound the cops and maintain the great teenaged prerogative of insulting geezers in language they can’t understand.

To further that noble end, I have a few suggestions for areas where Brightonians might wish to focus their research.

Science Fiction

Science fiction movies and literature have long been a productive source of alternate curse words. FromBattlestar Galactica’s “frak” and “felgercarb” to Farscape’s “frell” and Firefly’s “gorram,” there are a host of useful and satisfying epithets to explore. The extensive and apparently very well-researched Chinese language cursing in Firefly also serves as a realm that the citizens of Brighton should explore.

Foreign Languages

Anyone who grew up in a multilingual household knows the utility of cursing in a language that most people around you can’t understand. I grew up learning the emphatic pleasures and subtle distinctions of Yiddish cursing, but friends give me to understand that—satisfying as shmendrick and shmeggege andpaskudnyak are—other languages offer equally profane pleasures.

Antiquity

The past is a foreign country as well. They curse so differently there. My high school French teacher taught us curses from the pre-war era. So, to this day, I cause Gallic hilarity with my tendency to exclaim “Ma foi!” and “Zut alors!” when I am in France and incensed. But resuscitating earlier curses from English will work as well. Recall the episode of The Simpsons where Bart notes:

Bart: That ain’t been popular since aught-six, dag-nab it!

Homer: What did I tell you?

Bart: No talking like a grizzled 1890s prospector. Consarn it.

How quaint!

Literature

This may be my favorite option, because I cannot keep myself from envisioning the perplexity among Brighton’s law enforcement agents when confronted by a populace who take their cusswords from theScarlet Pimpernel. “Sink me! You can’t really intend to ticket me for that, can you? Zounds, you rogue!” Those wanting to explore this fertile source of filth will want to pay particular attention to the works of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Rabelais.

The difficulty with all the foregoing options, of course, is that if one is sufficiently unlucky, one may encounter an officer who is familiar with the obscure curses one has chosen. To evade this problem, I suggest a solution that has been popular with parents of young children since time began.

Curse Words That Aren’t

Titmouse. Ballcock. Christological. Zeugma. Fractional reserve. Bassinet.

And I will cheerfully pay the $200 fine for the first Brighton-area citizen who can show me a citation for having called a cop a “bilabial fricative.”

20121127_sarahskwireABOUT SARAH SKWIRE

Sarah Skwire is a fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.

CLICHES OF PROGRESSIVISM #4 – The More Complex the Society, the More Government Control We Need

/in , , , , , /by

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is proud to partner with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) to produce “Clichés of Progressivism,” a series of insightful commentaries covering topics of free enterprise, income inequality, and limited government.

Our society is inundated with half-truths and misconceptions about the economy in general and free enterprise in particular. The “Clichés of Progressivism” series is meant to equip students with the arguments necessary to inform debate and correct the record where bias and errors abound.

The antecedents to this collection are two classic FEE publications that YAF helped distribute in the past: Clichés of Politics, published in 1994, and the more influential Clichés of Socialism, which made its first appearance in 1962. Indeed, this new collection will contain a number of essays from those two earlier works, updated for the present day where necessary. Other entries first appeared in some version in FEE’s journal, The Freeman. Still others are brand new, never having appeared in print anywhere. They will be published weekly on the websites of both YAF and FEE: www.yaf.org and www.FEE.org until the series runs its course. A book will then be released in 2015 featuring the best of the essays, and will be widely distributed in schools and on college campuses.

See the index of the published chapters here.

20140414_Clichesofprogressivism (1)

#4 – The More Complex the Society, the More Government Control We Need

Argued a college president at a recent seminar: “Your free market, private property, limited government theories were all right under the simple conditions of a century or more ago, but surely they are unworkable in today’s complex economy. The more complex the society, the greater is the need for governmental control; that seems axiomatic.”

It is important to expose this oft-heard, plausible, and influential fallacy because it leads directly and logically to socialistic planning. This is how a member of the seminar team answered the college president:

“Let us take the simplest possible situation—just you and I. Next, let us assume that I am as wise as any President of the United States who has held office during your lifetime. With these qualifications in mind, do you honestly think I would be competent to coercively control what you shall invent, discover, or create, what the hours of your labor shall be, what wage you shall receive, what and with whom you shall associate and exchange? Is not my incompetence demonstrably apparent in this simplest of all societies?

“Now, let us shift from the simple situation to a more complex society—to all the people in this room. What would you think of my competence to coercively control their creative actions? Or, let us contemplate a really complex situation—the 188,000,000 people of this nation [Editor’s note: now, in 2014, about 318 million]. If I were to suggest that I should take over the management of their lives and their billions of exchanges, you would think me the victim of hallucinations. Is it not obvious that the more complex an economy, the more certainly will governmental control of productive effort exert a retarding influence? Obviously, the more complex our economy, the more we should rely on the miraculous, self-adapting processes of men acting freely. No mind of man nor any combination of minds can even envision, let alone intelligently control, the countless human energy exchanges in a simple society, to say nothing of a complex one.”

It is unlikely that the college president will raise that question again.

While exposing fallacies can be likened to beating out brush fires endlessly, the exercise is nonetheless self-improving as well as useful, in the sense that rearguard actions are useful. Further, one’s ability to expose fallacies—a negative tactic—appears to be a necessary preface to influentially accenting the positive. Unless a person can demonstrate competence at exploding socialistic error, he is not likely to gain wide audiences for his views about the wonders wrought by men who are free.

Of all the errors heard in classrooms or elsewhere, there is not one that cannot be simply explained away. We only need to put our minds to it. The Foundation for Economic Education seeks to help those who would expose fallacies and accent the merits of freedom. The more who outdo us in rendering this kind of help, the better.

Leonard E. Read
Founder and President of FEE, 1946–1983

Summary

Editor’s Note

This was the first chapter in the first edition of FEE’s Clichés of Socialism when it appeared in 1962. Though the “complexity requires control” fallacy is not publicly expressed so boldly today, it is still implicit in the core assumptions of modern Progressivism. Almost every new innovation gives rise to some call from some Progressive somewhere to regulate it, monitor it, sometimes even ban it. Rarely will a Progressive reject new assignments for government, even though it has already assumed so many that it manages so poorly (and at a financial loss). It behooves us to point out that the more government attempts to control, the less well it will perform all of its duties, including the essential ones. Leonard Read passed away in 1983, but his wisdom as expressed here still resonates.

20130918_larryreedauthorABOUT LEONARD E. READ

Leonard E. Read (1898-1983) was the founder of FEE, and the author of 29 works, including the classic parable “I, Pencil.”

PUBLISHERS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

School Choice: Historic developments in KS, FL, AZ, as other states play defense by Leslie Hiner

/in , , , , , /by

Alabama – Stephanie Linn @StephanieJLinn

U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the Alabama Accountability Act on grounds that the school choice program contained within the Act violated equal protection. The Southern Poverty Law Center had filed a lawsuit contending that its clients, students in “failing” public schools, were unable to take advantage of the program because they do not live near a non-failing public school or a participating private school, and, thus, no student in the state should have the ability to participate in the program. The judge issued his opinion stating:

“The requested remedy is arguably mean: Withdraw benefits from those students who can afford to escape non-failing schools. The only remedy requested thus far would leave the plaintiffs in exactly the same situation to which they are currently subject, but with the company of their better-situated classmates. The equal protection requested is, in effect, equally bad treatment.”

In 2013, the Alabama Supreme Court blocked a challenge to the Accountability Act. A separate lawsuit from the Alabama Education Association is still pending in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

On April 1, the Alabama Senate Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability Committee passed HB 558 that would have amended the Alabama Accountability Act to lift the cap on individual donations and expand the types of entities that could contribute to scholarship granting organizations. The bill died when the Senate adjourned sine die without taking up the bill.

Alaska – Michael Chartier @Mchart1

The legislative session in Alaska was dubbed “The Education Session” by Gov. Sean Parnell (R), and it certainly lived up to that name. The legislation that most interested the Friedman Foundation was Senate Joint Resolution 9, a constitutional amendment that would have removed sections of the state’s Blaine amendment, allowing for a universal voucher system. Unfortunately for the people of Alaska, that amendment did not make it through the legislature. However, the bright spot on the horizon was in the education funding bill. It contained a corporate tax credit for donations to private and religious schools. It is the Friedman Foundation’s hope that money could be used for scholarships for students. Please see our previous coverage of Alaska’s education funding bill for more information on that unique proposal.

Arizona – Leslie Hiner @LeslieHiner

April 23 was a day of victories and defeats for school choice. Here is a summary of significant legislation:

  • Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed into law HB 2150, which will allow children of active duty military families to enroll in the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program upon being stationed in Arizona; no prior Arizona public school enrollment is necessary.
  • Gov. Brewer signed into law HB 2139, which expanded the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program to include siblings of current ESA recipients and children with disabilities who are eligible to enroll in a preschool program.
  • Gov. Brewer vetoed SB 1048, which would have allowed chapter S corporations to contribute to Arizona’s corporate tax-credit scholarship program.
  • The Senate defeated SB 1236, which would have expanded the ESA to include children living in ZIP Codes where the average income is 185 percent of poverty or less; children of various emergency services personnel and siblings of current scholarship recipients would also have been eligible. It is estimated that more than 100,000 children would have become eligible. A similar bill, HB 2291, was defeated in the House on April 17.
  • The House passed HB 2328 and sent the bill to Gov. Brewer. This bill removes the requirement that children with disabilities who qualify for Lexie’s Law scholarships must first attend an Arizona public school to qualify for a scholarship. The bill was signed by Gov. Brewer on May 5.

A week later, Gov. Brewer signed into law HB 1237, which added clarifying language to the existing ESA program. Some of the new specifications include:

  1. requiring parents to use a portion of funding for the child’s current educational needs,
  2. specifying that an individual or facility accredited by a state, regional, or national accrediting organization may provide teaching/tutoring service,
  3. clarifying that only children with disabilities may use the ESA for certain therapies, and
  4. improving the funding formula.

Florida – Stephanie Linn @StephanieJLinn

The Florida House of Representatives passed a bill, April 11, to expand the existing tax-credit scholarship program and a new Personal Learning Scholarship Account Program for students with special needs, similar to Arizona’s ESA program. The expansion to the tax-credit scholarship program included increasing the per-student funding amount, increasing student eligibility by raising the limit on household income, and providing eligibility to students in kindergarten and first grade and siblings of students already in the program. Check out our legislative update for more details of the bill.

Kansas – Michael Chartier @Mchart1

Gov. Sam Brownback (R) signed a school funding bill into law, April 21, that included a provision creating a corporate tax-credit scholarship program. This development ushered Kansas into the school choice club as the 24th state. Low-income children from failing schools are eligible for up to an $8,000 scholarship from approved nonprofits. Corporations that donate to such nonprofits are eligible to receive a 70 percent income tax credit, with the total amount of credits capped at $10 million. Click here for more program details.

Louisiana – Leslie Hiner @LeslieHiner

On April 10, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court ruling denying parents the right to intervene in the Department of Justice request for injunction against the Louisiana voucher program in the decades-old desegregation case, Brumfield v Dodd, 405 F. Supp. 338 (E.D. La. 1975). Parents now have the right to intervene in the case.

Mississippi – Stephanie Linn @StephanieJLinn

The Mississippi House voted down an ESA bill for students with special needs by a vote of 57-63 on April 2. House sponsor, Rep. Carolyn Crawford said she intends to file the bill again next year.

New Hampshire – Leslie Hiner @LeslieHiner

The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Duncan v. State of New Hampshire on April 16. This case positions individuals represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United For Separation of Church and State (AU) against the state’s new tax-credit scholarship program, that is currently serving well over 100 students in schools of their choice. Check out our explanation of that lawsuit here.

Oklahoma – Leslie Hiner @LeslieHiner

On April 24, the House passed HB 2643, enlarging Oklahoma’s Equal Opportunity Education Scholarship program, making sub-chapter S corporations eligible for participation and providing a 75 percent state tax credit to those donors who commit to give for three years. The House dissented in Senate amendments, and the bill is currently in conference committee.

Tennessee – Stephanie Linn @StephanieJLinn

A voucher bill backed by Gov. Bill Haslam (R) made great progress in the Tennessee legislature, but the bill failed to garner enough support to make it over the finish line.

On April 10 the Senate passed the Tennessee Choice & Opportunity Scholarship Act, SB 196, a voucher program capped at 5,000 students in the first year of operation. If the bill had passed, students from low-income households who attend a “failing” public school would be given the first opportunity to receive a voucher. If remaining spots were available, students from low-income households in districts containing failing schools would be eligible to apply. The House companion bill, HB 190, stalled in the House Finance Committee. The bill sponsor, Rep. Bill Dunn, withdrew the bill citing a lack of support in the committee.

ABOUT LESLIE HINER

 serves as the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice’s Vice President of Programs and State Relations. She also serves on the Schools That Can National Advisory Board. She is an appointee to the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights Indiana State Advisory Committee, and also serves as an appointee to the Indianapolis City-County Ethics Commission.

Drug Addicts As Rational Actors by Cathy Reisenwitz

/in , , , , , /by

Rethinking the science of addiction.

How do you justify taking away someone’s agency? The easiest way is to claim they didn’t have it in the first place.

For a long time, both popular media and information sources on the subject have depicted drug addicts as zombies incapable of making rational choices. Helpguide.org describes drug addiction as causing “changes in your brain,” which “interfere with your ability to think clearly, exercise good judgment, [and] control your behavior.”

Drug use and addiction are a lot more complicated than what we get in most policy debates. These debates are more often driven by political incentives and personal biases than actual evidence. We’ll return to this evidence in a moment. Right now, let’s unpack this “national conversation” a little more.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Although the initial decision to take drugs is voluntary for most people, the brain changes that occur over time challenge an addicted person’s self-control and hamper his or her ability to resist intense impulses to take drugs.”

This view is fairly representative. The focus of this accepted wisdom is often about how the brains of addicts are different from those of non-addicts, which gives rise to the idea that if you alter the addict’s brain with substances, you alter his or her behavior.

  • The National Institute on Drug Abuse claims “drugs change the brain in ways that foster compulsive drug abuse.” Its website describes addiction as “a chronic, often relapsing brain disease that causes compulsive drug seeking and use.”
  • This view is shared by the Drug Enforcement Administration. According to its Drugs of Abuse 2011 resource guide, “Addiction is defined as compulsive drug-seeking behavior where acquiring and using a drug becomes the most important activity in the user’s life. This definition implies a loss of control regarding drug use, and the addict will continue to use a drug despite serious medical and/or social consequences.”

And all these statements seem uncontroversial until you get to the fundamental question: Do drug addicts lose their agency—that is, their ability to make rational choices?

The prevailing view is that addicts simply lack free will.

But as ubiquitous as the view might be, it’s actually a pretty recent development in thinking about addiction. “Historically speaking, the idea of addiction as a brain disease is a very new one,” according to the University of Utah’s Health Sciences department. “People once saw addiction as a personality flaw and a sign of weakness. This stigma persists in society today and is a major challenge for addicts and the people who treat them.” Is it a challenge? Could there be some wisdom in the idea that one is able to find the strength to make better decisions?

In many ways, viewing addicts as victims who need help has improved outcomes and led to better addiction treatment options. However, the view that addicts lack free will no doubt contributes to wrongheaded ideas on the right and left. For those on the right, it is morally permissible to lock up drug offenders; on the left, it’s fashionable to think of addiction as a blanket public health problem requiring more State resources for more clinics and more social workers.

But what if addiction didn’t mean addicts have no choice? Maybe it really means something closer to this: The addict chooses to use drugs when others wouldn’t. In other words, that decision-making process varies from user to user and from addict to addict in nuanced ways. But it’s still a decision-making process.

For years, Dr. Carl Hart has been bringing drug addicts into the lab and giving them choices. Would you rather have some crack now or $20 later? It’s like a grimier version of the marshmallow tests for kids. And he’s been continually surprised at how rational those choices are. Addicts will often give up more doses of crack for $5 in cash or a voucher. Every meth and crack addict took $20 when offered.

Video of the marshmallow test for kids:

Besides the implications this finding has for how to treat addiction, it also raises questions about the ethical implications and underpinnings of incarcerating addicts and casual users alike.

No doubt the view of addiction as reducing rational actors to agency-less drug-craving automata opens up several ways to evade the questions surrounding whether or not it’s ethical to lock someone for ingesting a certain substance. Put another way, the evasion comes precisely in pegging social costs like crime to that purported lack of agency. So, in some quarters, the rationale goes: They have to be locked up because they’ll just do anything to get their drugs.

On the other hand, a similar premise can justify requesting expanded budgets to finance less punitive public health measures. And neither of these justifications is always and in every case wrong. Certainly,some addicts make poor life choices, engage in criminal activity, and impose social costs due in great part to their addictions. But Hart’s work demonstrates that conventional wisdom and popular media tropes get the zombie premise wrong: People are still agents.

In addition, the no-agency view has helped policymakers sidestep the issues of how genetic, environmental, and societal factors can all influence addictive and drug-seeking behaviors. Remember the infamous studies showing drug-addicted rats pushing the button for drugs until they literally starved themselves to death? Dr. Hart’s research is exposing the full picture of that study, too, along with some startling implications for humans if said rats are suitable analogs.

“The rats that keep pressing the lever for cocaine are the ones who are stressed out because they’ve been raised in solitary conditions and have no other options,” Dr. Hart said. “But when you enrich their environment, and give them access to sweets and let them play with other rats, they stop pressing the lever.”

“The key factor is the environment, whether you’re talking about humans or rats,” he said.

If drug-addicted humans and rats have more agency than we realized, are cages and clinical complexes the most ethical response? Treating people as agents again could change the way we think about controlling the social costs of addiction.

RELATED RESOURCE: Rehab for Teens: Your Best Options

ABOUT CATHY REISENWITZ

Cathy Reisenwitz is an associate at Young Voices and editor-in-chief of Sex and the State. She will be speaking at the FEE summer seminar “Are Markets Just? Exploring the Social Significance of a Free Economy.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Oklahoma Could Be First to Really Dump Common Core

/in , , , , /by

On May 23, 2014, both the Oklahoma House (71-18) and Senate (31-10) voted to dump the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

All that is left is for Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin to sign the legislation, HB 3399, into law. (Fallin was not governor when Oklahoma signed on for CCSS as part of Race to the Top {RTTT} in 2010.)

In December 2013, Fallin issued an executive order that included absorbing the term Common Core into the broader term, Oklahoma Academic Standards.

Fallin also noted that the Oklahoma legislature aligned its education legislation with CCSS and even included the language to align Oklahoma’s English Language Arts (ELA) and math standards “with the K-12 Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative.”

The Oklahoma legislature might have approved CCSS effective August 1, 2010, but it has apparently reversed its decision on May 23, 2014.

This is no “rebrand,” folks. HB 3399 appears to be a genuine rejection of CCSS.

Here is some of the language from the bill:

Section 11-103.6a B.1. …To be considered college- and career-ready, the standards shall be evaluated by the State Department of Education, the State Regents for Higher Education, the State Board of Career and Technology Education and the Oklahoma Department of Commerce and be determined to be such that the standards will address the goals of reducing the need for remedial coursework at the postsecondary level and increasing successful completion of postsecondary education. The subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments for English Language Arts and Mathematics shall be solely approved and controlled by the state through the State Board of Education.

2. Upon the effective date of this act, the State Board of Education shall begin the process of adopting the English Language Arts and Mathematics standards and shall provide reasonable opportunity, consistent with best practices, for public comment on the revision of the standards, including but not limited to comments from students, parents, educators, organizations representing students with disabilities and English language learners, higher education representatives, career technology education representatives, subject matter experts, community-based organizations, Native American tribal representatives and businesscommunity representatives.

3. Until the statewide student assessments for English Language 
Arts and Mathematics are implemented… the State Board of Education shallimplement the subject matter standards for English Language Arts andMathematics which were in place prior to the revisions adopted by the Board in June 2010.  [Emphasis added.]

In short, until the new Oklahoma standards and associated assessments are ready (“on or before the 2017-18 school year”), Oklahoma will return to the math and English Language Arts (ELA) standards in place prior to CCSS completion in June 2010.

(An aside: Oklahoma’s appendices for its Phase 1 RTTT application shows impressive effort to establish its case for both national and international benchmarking of the College and Career Readiness Standards {CCRS} in math– the “anchor” math standards that were never finalized and just disappeared.  Oklahoma also tried to show that CCRS math fit in with CCSS precursor, the American Diploma Project. Furthermore, RTTT Phase 1 reviewer comments indicate that Oklahoma submitted a CCSS MOU though I could not find it in the 900-page RTTT appendices and that Oklahoma “has initiated procedures for adoption of Common Core Standards well before August, 2010.” Oklahoma’s Phase 2 appendices clearly states the intention of CCSS adoption later effected by Oklahoma 2010 SB 2033.)

On May 23, 2014, the Oklahoma legislature clarifies that there are to be no more memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between Oklahoma and federal government, indicating that the Oklahoma legislature intends to be the legal authority over Oklahoma public education:

D. 1. The State Board of Education shall not enter into any 
agreement, memorandum of understanding or contract with any federal agency or private entity which in any way cedes or limits state discretion or control over the process of development, adoption or revision of subject matter standards and corresponding student assessments in the public school system, including, but not limited to, agreements, memoranda of understanding and contracts in exchange for funding for public schools and programs. If the State Board ofEducation is a party to such an agreement, memorandum of understanding or contract on the effective date of this act, the State Board of Education shall initiate necessary efforts to amend the agreement, memorandum of understanding or contract to comply with the requirements of this subsection. [Emphasis added.]

For all of its efforts to meet federal, RTTT criteria (and it did try– reading the RTTT docs shows OK’s willingness to bend), Oklahoma did not receive RTTT funding.

However, it seems that in drafting the CCSS-exit legislation, 2014 Oklahoma lawmakers are taking no chances.

The newly-approved bill continues with stating that the state board of education can still seek waivers (presumably from No Child Left Behind {NCLB}) provided such waivers do not limit state authority over education standards or assessments. Furthermore, the bill does not prohibit benchmarking Oklahoma standards with other states or nations, but it does require the Oklahoma State Board of Education to “maintain independence” and not “relinquish authority.”

HB 3399 states that Oklahoma school districts will “exclusively determine… instruction… and curriculum.”

Also, the Oklahoma State Board of Education may participate in a testing consortium “but shall not bind the state, contractually or otherwise, to the authority of any other state, organization or entity which may supersede the authority of the Board….” In other words, Oklahoma must be free to exit any testing consortium if it wishes.

Another interesting component of HB 3399 concerns both academic standard content and related standardized testing content, thereby guarding against testing companies such as Pearson sneaking questions that have nothing to do with a given subject area into its subject-area tests. To such shady practices, Oklahoma lawmakers say “no”:

H.1. All subject matter standards and corresponding statewide student assessments adopted by the State Board of Education shall be carefully circumscribed to reflect direct application to subject matter proficiency and shall not include standards or assessment questions that are designed to collect or measure noncognitive, emotional or psychological characteristics, attributes or skills of students.

As for the creation of a new set of Oklahoma standards for math and ELA, HB 3399 includes the following stipulations:

Section 11-103.6 A.6. The subject matter standards for English Language Arts shall give Classic Literature and nonfiction literature equal consideration to other literature. In addition, emphasis shall be given to the study of complete works of literature.

7. At a minimum, the subject matter standards for mathematics shall require mastery of the standard algorithms in mathematics, which is the most logical, efficient way of solving a problem that consistently works, and for students to attain fluency in Euclidian geometry. [Emphasis added.]

At the end of two years, the new Oklahoma standards are to be compared to the “previous” CCSS across numerous criteria, including subject matter content, sequencing, developmental appropriateness, measurability, and development of critical thinking.

If this were merely an effort at “rebranding,” the turn-around would certainly be faster than three years and three months, and there would be no return to previous, state standards in the interim.

Now Oklahoma only needs a signature from its governor– a governor willing in December 2013 to try for a CCSS “rebrand.”

Fallin has until June 2, 2014– fifteen days following the may 23, 2014, adjournment of the Oklahoma legislative session– to sign the bill. Otherwise, her not signing is know as a pocket veto– the decision to take no action. The bill would die unless the Oklahoma legislature calls a special session.

This will certainly be one to watch.

RELATED ARTICLE: Left and Right Wing Call for Congressional Hearing on Common Core

New Florida School District Policy: Spy on Students’ Behavior when Off Campus

/in , , , , , /by
Sarasota County School Board Members

Sarasota County School Board members: Back row – Dr. Todd (resigned), Goodwin, Kovach. Front row – Zucker and Chair Brown.

The School Board of Sarasota County, Florida will vote to adopt a revised bullying and harassment policy at the June 17, 2014 board meeting. According to Scott Ferguson, Communications Specialist Sarasota County Schools, “The changes to the bullying and harassment policy were recommended by staff based on a state Department of Education requirement that Florida School Board bullying/harassment policies include staff members in addition to students. Staff also recommended clarification about cyber-bullying.” [Emphasis added]

Paragraph I-B-5 is new and covers cyber-bullying. The Bullying and Harassment 2.70 revised policy states:

B. The District upholds that bullying or harassment of any student or school employee is prohibited

1. During any education program or activity conducted by a public K-12 educational institution;
2. During any school-related or school-sponsored program or activity;
3. On a school bus of a public K-12 educational institution; or
4. Through the use of data or computer software that is accessed through a computer, computer system, or computer network of a public K- 12 education institution; or
5. Through the use of data or computer software that is accessed at a non-school–related location, activity, function, or program or through the use of technology or an electronic device that is not owned, leased, or used by a school district or school, if the bullying substantially interferes with or limits the victim’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school or substantially disrupts the education process or orderly operation of a school or department. This paragraph does not require a school to staff or monitor any non-school-related activity, function, or program.

Parents and concerned citizens are questioning the Sarasota County School Boards authority to prohibit or be involved in the “monitoring” of  student activities while off campus. Many find this a clear over reach in authority and can place students, and others, in a position to “monitor” (spy on) fellow students. The broad language, while “not requiring” it, can allow schools and staff to monitor students’ non-related activities, functions and programs.

Paragraph II-B defines cyber-bullying as:

Cyberbullying means bullying through the use of technology or any electronic communication, which includes, but is not limited to, any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic system, photoelectronic system, or photooptical system, including, but not limited to, electronic mail, Internet communications, instant messages, or facsimile communications. Cyberbullying includes the creation of a webpage or webblog in which the creator assumes the identity of another person, or the knowing impersonation of another person as the author of posted content or messages, if the creation or impersonation creates any of the conditions enumerated in the definition of bullying. Cyberbullying also includes the distribution by electronic means of a communication to more than one person or the posting of material on an electronic medium that may be accessed by one or more persons, if the distribution or posting creates any of the conditions enumerated in the definition of bullying. [My emphasis]

Is this a fix to a problem that does not exist? There are approximately 40,000 students in Sarasota County district schools. According to Ferguson:

Regarding data on bullying, here are the responses to questions posed to high school students in our district in a recent survey:

During the past 12 months, have you ever been bullied on school property?

(3,408 respondents)
a. Yes

22.3
b. No

77.7
During the past 12 months, have you ever been electronically bullied, such as through e-mail, chat rooms, instant messaging, Web sites, or text messaging?

(3409 respondents)
a. Yes

18.9
b. No

81.1

From the start of the current school year through May 7, there have been 16 expulsions for bullying and 34 expulsions for threats/intimidation.

According to the districts 2014 data .0004 percent of students have been expelled for bullying. The number is so small, yet the policy revisions are so broad. Is the intent to stop bullying or something more nefarious?

Is the Sarasota County School Board using cyber-bullying to infringe on the First Amendment rights of students to freely express themselves on and off campus? Is this school board becoming the NSA of education monitoring of all digital communications? Is this policy a bridge too far in trying to control the behavior of children beyond the school grounds? Is this policy an attempt to stifle students from speaking out based on their beliefs?

Is this policy using a sledge hammer to pound down a ten penny nail?

Children will be children. Peer pressure is both part of growing up and part of life.  It is not the role of this or any other school board to decide what is proper behavior and what is not in the cyber world. That is best left up to parents.

Peter Baklinski writes on a different twist to anti-bulling campaigns, like that in Sarasota County:

While much of the past 15 years has left the goals of the gay ant-bullying scheme carefully unspoken, a recent article in an online homosexual publication let the cat out of the bag.

“Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?,” wrote Daniel Villarreal on Queerty.com, a website that promotes the gay agenda.

“We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it. Recruiting children? You bet we are,” he added.

“I for one,” continued Villarreal, “certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start f**ing men.”

For a fuller description please see the special report on Jennings by Mass Resistance.

For those who wish to contact the Sarasota County School Board and District staff about the new policy:

To email all School Board members:
boardmembers@sarasotacountyschools.net

Jane Goodwin Chair
jane.goodwin@sarasotacountyschools.net

Frank Kovach Vice Chair 
frank.kovach@sarasotacountyschools.net

Shirley Brown
shirley.brown@sarasotacountyschools.net

Caroline Zucker 
caroline.zucker@sarasotacountyschools.net

District 1: To be announced

Zoe Marshall,
Administrative Assistant
zoe.marshall@sarasotacountyschools.net

Phone: (941) 927-9000 ext. 31147

RELATED STORIES:

Being ignored is WORSE than being bullied: Ostracism is more psychologically damaging, claim experts | Mail Online
FCAT results show 10,000 South Florida third-graders at risk of being held back
New Technology Development Pushed by Feds Allows for Data Collection on Every Child
“LGBT” Teachers Conference in Boston – Part II: Pushing ‘Gay’ clubs in middle schools

Survey: CEOs say Florida second best state for business

/in , , , /by

In the 10th annual Chief Executive Magazine survey of CEOs concerning their views of the best and worst states for business, over 500 CEOs across the U.S. responded. Business leaders were asked to grade states with which they were familiar on a variety of measures that CEOs themselves have said are critical. These include the tax and regulatory regime, the quality of the workforce and the quality of the living environment. For example, a state’s attitude toward business is viewed as a critical component of its tax and regulatory regime, while employees’ attitude toward management is considered a crucial factor in the perceived quality of a region’s workforce. Public education and health are also important factors in the living environment, as are such things as cost of living and affordable housing.

top ten state for business

For a larger view click on the graphic.

Texas continues its 10-year historical position as the best state overall; but Florida, which ranks No. 2, is edging up and even overtaking Texas in its quality of living environment. “We’ve learned from Texas how to tell our story better and it helps that we’ve cut taxes 25 times—about $400 million,” Florida Governor Rick Scott told Chief Executive. Scott points to what he calls the Jim Collins “flywheel effect” where momentum is generated as more big name companies invest in his state. “When companies like Hertz, Amazon, Deutsche Bank and Verizon add jobs here, it causes more people to look at us. Business is comfortable that we’ll keep the tax base low and improve our workforce.”

Tennessee edged out North Carolina to take third place with North and South Carolina respectively capturing 4th and 5th place. Indiana, Arizona and Nevada finished 6th through 8th, respectively. Having jumped 31 positions from 40th in 2010 to No. 9 this year, Louisiana is the Cinderella state of Chief Executive’s ranking, proving that a concerted effort to transform old habits and policies can truly pay off. Wisconsin comes close with a meteoric thrust from 41st five years ago to 14th in 2014. Having survived a bitter recall last year, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker recently signed Senate Bill 1, legislation that provides $504 million in tax relief over the next two years to state taxpayers. The bill reduces income- and property-tax rates, as well as eliminates income-tax rates for manufacturers, making the Badger state even more competitive.

Likewise, Ohio has seen dramatic improvement due, in part, to an energetic governor in former congressman John Kasich, who, like Walker, pushed a vigorous turnaround. During his tenure, Ohio became the No. 5 job creator in the nation and No. 1 in the Midwest. Unemployment is now 6.5 percent, the lowest in Ohio since June of 2008. Likewise, Ohio has gone from an $8 billion deficit to a $1.5 billion surplus over the same period.

California, New York and Illinois continue to rank among the worst three states in 2014, with virtually no change from previous years. California has gained breathing space since Governor Jerry Brown took office and is credited with a budget surplus. But despite the return of fiscal discipline, it has exchanged acute problems for merely chronic ones. It is a state that continues high personal income tax rates and regulates with a very heavy hand. Its top, marginal tax rate of 33 percent is the third-highest tax rate in the industrialized world, behind only Denmark and France. This situation creates a bias against savings, slows economic growth and harms competitiveness.

Read more.

EPIC FAIL — Obama’s climate report card

/in , , , , /by

A team of independent scientists fact checked President Obama’s new national climate assessment report and issued it a failing grade.

They wrote that the President’s report is “a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts.”

You can read the scientists’ full rebuttal here, and of course Marc Morano is following developments as they break over at Climate Depot.

The President’s report is riddled with scientific errors and exaggerations.

Contrary to Obama’s report:

  • Temperature has failed to rise as computer models predict
  • There has been no warming for 17 years
  • Sea levels have not meaningfully risen
  • There is nothing extreme about today’s weather
  • Climate is cyclical and largely driven by nature
climate chart cfact

For a larger view click on the chart.

The scientists bottom line conclusion is that the National Climate Assessment “is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes. As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.”

Every day the facts become clearer and the case for catastrophic man-made global warming becomes weaker.

Count on CFACT to report the facts the media won’t.

Read the rebuttal

RELATED STORIES:

Scientists respond to Obama’s National Climate Assessment
‘Climate Hustle’ or ‘American Doomsday’?! Obama climate report panned by scientists

Democrat launches “Obamacare Hurts Seniors” website

/in , , , , , , /by
woodrow wilcox

Woodrow Wilcox

Woodrow Wilcox a longtime Democrat, Party precinct committeeman and elected delegate to the state convention of Democrats has launched a new website which explains how Obamacare hurts seniors on Medicare.

Wilcox states, “Since the passage of Obamacare, the rules of Medicare have been changing to the harm of millions of senior citizens.  If the current Democratic Party leaders won’t change direction and change the Obamacare law to stop harming seniors, then I am one Democrat who wants to change the leaders of the Democratic Party.”

Wilcox states on his website, “The articles on this website fall into three main groups: Articles that explain why Obamacare is bad for seniors. Articles that criticize Senators and Congressmen for voting for Obamacare. Articles that demonstrate my background in helping seniors with Medicare related medical bill problems. (I’ve done that work for over a decade.)” Wilcox has written a book through book titled “Solving Medicare Problems.”

One of the articles by Wilcox is titled “Three Kinds of Democrats Revealed.” In the column Wilcox notes:

The vote on the Obamacare law in March 2010 revealed three kinds of Democrats holding elected federal office in Washington, D.C.

The first group of Democrats were those who voted against Obamacare. Over thirty Democrats in the House of Representatives joined the Republicans to vote against Obamacare.

[ … ]

The second group of Democrats were in an inner circle who knew that there were things in the final version of the Obamacare bill that had not been in previous versions of the bill. These were the Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who pushed for a vote without allowing enough time for senators and representatives to read and check the final version before casting a vote.

[ … ]

The third group of Democrats were those who voted for the Obamacare bill without even bothering to insist that the final version be read. That was simply “blind” voting. That was totally irresponsible.

“Some people may consider me a “turn-coat” because I am against Obamacare. That is not so. I care about senior citizens more than I care about any political party, any political candidate, or any political agenda. If anyone is a “turn-coat”, it is the Democrats who support Obamacare,” writes Wilcox.

Wilcox has written extensively and authoritatively on the impact of Obamacare on seniors. To read all of his columns on Obamacare and its impact on senior citizens visit ObamacareHurtsSeniors.com

RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Ben Carson on ‘The View’ discusses Obamacare and health savings accounts:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Z-V6VMIy5Hc[/youtube]

 

RELATED STORY: Yes, Some People Will Have to Pay Back Their Obamacare Subsidies