I wonder if the people who send Congressman Andrews back to Washington every two years can name any decent legislation that attests to his ability as a lawmaker. In the past two years alone, he's voted for such things as raising the debt limit, the Cap and Trade energy scam, the Cash for Clunkers scam, the stimulus-package-turned-government-slush-fund scam, and a healthcare scam that will all but destroy the surviving pieces of our medical industry that Congress has been butchering for decades. Over the last ten years, he has also voted to send over $100 billion in taxpayer money outside the country in aid to foreign governments.
In the same period, you will also find that Mr. Andrews was one of those who abdicated his duty to uphold the Constitution both by giving George Bush the power to initiate military action against Iraq without a declaration of war, and by voting for (and continually extending) the USA PATRIOT act, which sends the Bill of Rights up in flames. For these reasons alone he should have been ejected from office in disgrace.
But he wasn't. No, this is the kind of career to which Mr. Andrews has committed himself- so much so that he hedged his bet against losing the 2008 Senate primary by running his wife as a placeholder for his House seat. Instead of taking his lumps and retiring after his failed power grab (as he repeatedly insisted he would), he pulled the old switcheroo with his wife and retook the seat anyway because, he said, his "public service was more meaningful" than whatever job awaited him in the private sector. I'll bet.
After a disrespectful stunt like that, one would think the voters would have had the sense to kick him to the curb. Instead, they curbed their integrity by giving him another landslide victory. It is time his constituents recognize that they've been patsies for Rob Andrews for almost two decades. See how his elections are financed at opensecrets.org to find whose interests his career has really been serving. The truth is that no matter what little political favors he may have done for people during his cushy tenure, it hasn't been worth giving the man a free pass to Washington. Because of career politicians like Mr. Andrews, future generations have been guaranteed an America that will be less free and more dependent on government. What's more, that America will come with a high pricetag, and they'll be expected to pay it.
I don't know what the solution is, but I know that sending Mr. Andrews back through Washington's revolving door isn't it. It pains me to wonder how much different everything would have turned out if, instead of blindly putting the same charlatan back into office every two years, we elected someone who didn't think government was the answer to everyone's problems; who wanted Americans to keep their whole paychecks; who didn't unapologetically use public money for federal programs that never deliver what they promise; and who didn't see a House seat as a prize to be won, but rather as an opportunity to maintain the liberties of her neighbors.
Will we get the opportunity to vote for such a candidate this year? Not from what I gather. Almost no one from the mainstream political parties stands out as worth having in office, and I can't find any information on the independents in this district. So broken is this system that I honestly wish there were a None of the Above option. But since there isn't and we're all going to have to hold our nose again to vote this year, let's assert our belief in term limits and send Rob Andrews packing. Nothing is worse than a smug career politician who is way past his prime and doesn't know when to hang it up. Besides, we really can't do much worse, and at least then we might have someone in office with a shred of humility who's not a Washington insider.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Christie and the Schools
Ask a hundred people how they think a school should be run, and you’re likely to get a hundred different answers. Some parents want more counselors, some want a greater nursing staff, some want particular sports, some want co-curricular activities, some want salary cuts. Everyone assigns a different priority to all these things. Whatever gets cut, no matter how much, people are going to complain.
Parents pay taxes; they want what’s best for their kids; and (so far as I know) they’re more or less forced to send their kids to their local school. They want to milk it, and I don’t blame them. As long as they’re only paying a fraction of the cost involved in putting their kids through school, it’s understandable. I’m sure every parent would like to see her child’s school stuffed with well-educated and well-paid staff, and activities of every kind. Don’t we all?
Well, maybe not all of us. A taxpaying non-parent’s priorities are probably more like “getting my taxes lowered” than “paying for other people’s kids’ government schooling.” I know I’d rather keep the 40% of my property tax than fork it over to the government to be disposed of politically in the school system. Maybe it’s harsh, but it’s true. Public-educated kids are caught in a political crossfire between government, taxpayers, and unions. Everyone has a stake in getting what they want (everyone wants lower taxes; politicians want reelection; unions want power) and we all have to use political means to get it. It’s an unending political tug of war, and the primary casualties are the very people the system is supposed to work for: parents, students, and teachers.
The other week, I attended a board of education meeting. The board announced budget cuts and cutbacks on nursing staff and counseling staff. Many parents were angry over these things, and called for administrative cuts. There was a lot of yelling, finger-pointing, a few speeches, and little good news. It was like a highlight reel of everything that’s wrong with public education.
Since parents believe their children are entitled to an education the government believes it is its job to provide it (two very flawed premises, by the way), any mention of privatizing/deregulating education isn’t even on the table. But the governor wants to address a budget deficit. Wonderful. Since market solutions are unimaginable to most people, the popular alternatives are to [continue to] tax the rich or to cut funding to schools. For anyone who wants less government, the answer is obvious.
I don’t have any faith in the education bureaucracy being able to redistribute their remaining funding in a way that pleases everybody (as I said, everyone involved has her own idea of how it should be), so there will definitely be many losers after it’s all said and done, and the schools will suffer for it. All the more reason to remove the government from education completely. As a parent, do you really want your kid’s education to be so vulnerable to political waves like this? Should every public teacher in the state have to quake in her boots every time some politician sneezes?
No, but that’s the way it is. The problem here is not that Chris Christie is cutting school funding, it’s that some politician has the power to cut the funds to begin with. Put any special interest group in place of parents and the NJEA, and that group would vilify the governor and decry the cuts just as much (or to whatever extent its political power permitted). Wouldn’t you?
Even though I’m tacitly in Christie’s corner on this one, I recognize that that’s only because his position (so far) leans in the direction of less government, and that’s all I’m interested in. That's an important point. See, though I don’t think I should even have to be bothered with any of it, I still feel I have a stake in the outcome. Politics has a way of doing just that- taking people who ordinarily wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) give a damn and roping them in, forcing them to fight for the least offensive political exploitation of their money, time, and labor; things that shouldn’t be anyone else's to begin with. In fact, the more I hear about this battle, the more I think that neither Chris Christie nor the NJEA are any worse than the other. Maybe the budget cuts are neither good nor bad. Maybe they’re just political maneuvers like anything else, no matter how they’re portrayed to the public by the two warring sides.
The point is that this whole seemingly unsolvable mess is a natural and predictable consequence of the government’s presence in the field. Private school teachers (and parents, and students), on the other hand, are totally insulated from all this political warring. They look upon this and shake their heads, wondering why anyone would want to put up with that kind of garbage.
Then, they turn around and quietly return to work. The rest of the education establishment should be so lucky.
Parents pay taxes; they want what’s best for their kids; and (so far as I know) they’re more or less forced to send their kids to their local school. They want to milk it, and I don’t blame them. As long as they’re only paying a fraction of the cost involved in putting their kids through school, it’s understandable. I’m sure every parent would like to see her child’s school stuffed with well-educated and well-paid staff, and activities of every kind. Don’t we all?
Well, maybe not all of us. A taxpaying non-parent’s priorities are probably more like “getting my taxes lowered” than “paying for other people’s kids’ government schooling.” I know I’d rather keep the 40% of my property tax than fork it over to the government to be disposed of politically in the school system. Maybe it’s harsh, but it’s true. Public-educated kids are caught in a political crossfire between government, taxpayers, and unions. Everyone has a stake in getting what they want (everyone wants lower taxes; politicians want reelection; unions want power) and we all have to use political means to get it. It’s an unending political tug of war, and the primary casualties are the very people the system is supposed to work for: parents, students, and teachers.
The other week, I attended a board of education meeting. The board announced budget cuts and cutbacks on nursing staff and counseling staff. Many parents were angry over these things, and called for administrative cuts. There was a lot of yelling, finger-pointing, a few speeches, and little good news. It was like a highlight reel of everything that’s wrong with public education.
Since parents believe their children are entitled to an education the government believes it is its job to provide it (two very flawed premises, by the way), any mention of privatizing/deregulating education isn’t even on the table. But the governor wants to address a budget deficit. Wonderful. Since market solutions are unimaginable to most people, the popular alternatives are to [continue to] tax the rich or to cut funding to schools. For anyone who wants less government, the answer is obvious.
I don’t have any faith in the education bureaucracy being able to redistribute their remaining funding in a way that pleases everybody (as I said, everyone involved has her own idea of how it should be), so there will definitely be many losers after it’s all said and done, and the schools will suffer for it. All the more reason to remove the government from education completely. As a parent, do you really want your kid’s education to be so vulnerable to political waves like this? Should every public teacher in the state have to quake in her boots every time some politician sneezes?
No, but that’s the way it is. The problem here is not that Chris Christie is cutting school funding, it’s that some politician has the power to cut the funds to begin with. Put any special interest group in place of parents and the NJEA, and that group would vilify the governor and decry the cuts just as much (or to whatever extent its political power permitted). Wouldn’t you?
Even though I’m tacitly in Christie’s corner on this one, I recognize that that’s only because his position (so far) leans in the direction of less government, and that’s all I’m interested in. That's an important point. See, though I don’t think I should even have to be bothered with any of it, I still feel I have a stake in the outcome. Politics has a way of doing just that- taking people who ordinarily wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) give a damn and roping them in, forcing them to fight for the least offensive political exploitation of their money, time, and labor; things that shouldn’t be anyone else's to begin with. In fact, the more I hear about this battle, the more I think that neither Chris Christie nor the NJEA are any worse than the other. Maybe the budget cuts are neither good nor bad. Maybe they’re just political maneuvers like anything else, no matter how they’re portrayed to the public by the two warring sides.
The point is that this whole seemingly unsolvable mess is a natural and predictable consequence of the government’s presence in the field. Private school teachers (and parents, and students), on the other hand, are totally insulated from all this political warring. They look upon this and shake their heads, wondering why anyone would want to put up with that kind of garbage.
Then, they turn around and quietly return to work. The rest of the education establishment should be so lucky.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A Quick Look at the Latest News
Today, the President signed an executive order to abolish the DEA and end the federal Drug War. Asset forfeiture laws have been repealed, and all persons imprisoned on account of nonviolent drug offenses have received a presidential pardon. The states are up to their eyeballs in paperwork because of this, but that’s okay.
Hillary Clinton rolled out a new foreign policy, ceasing all military and economic aid to governments around the world. United States troops are now in the process of packing it all up and heading home. Dubbed No Soldier Left Behind, its purpose is to see to it that never again will an American soldier die on foreign soil fighting wars for the UN or toppling governments around the world. They will have to work their own problems out without the assistance of Washington or the American taxpayer. Resources previously spent on national offense will now be spent on national defense. We’ll finally have that missile defense shield.
Now that the American government has stopped taking sides in foreign conflicts, the Terrorist Threat color has reduced been downgraded to green, and there is talk about disregarding it altogether. The world took notice that if liberty somehow caused terrorism, there would have been many other more easily accessible countries available to attack. It has been admitted that terror and intervention, not freedom, is what caused the War on Terror. Finally, we struck at the root of the problem, and we won.
Congress has proposed a budget of less than a trillion dollars, with massive cuts in all federal agencies. Work has started on a plan to free everyone from Social Security and Medicare- with the War on Terror coming to a halt, an enormous reduction in the size of the federal government, and the wholesale liquidation of government assets across the country, the national debt is now somewhat under control and people will be free to save for their own retirements and pay their own medical bills. There’s now hope on the horizon that the babies of today will not owe as much of their lifetime’s labor to the government as previously thought. Federal taxes of all sorts no longer impose a crushing burden on everybody, and the repeal of the 16th amendment is also in sight.
The FDA has been abolished and the Healthcare bill has been repealed. Health insurance is no longer tied to the tax code, and federal regulations no longer apply to its price or availability. Insurance will finally be insurance again, rather than a program to pay every nickel and dime of everyone’s medical needs. The states have agreed to do away with mandated coverage, community rating laws and licensing laws. Almost all drugs are available OTC. Prices have fallen through the floor, as Americans now enjoy medical access unheard of in generations.
With the department of Education now defunct, state governments have voted for a plan to release the cost of education from the taxpayer and put it in the hands of the customer. Teachers will no longer need to unionize since being an educator will no longer be a government job. Your kids will get the education you want them to get, rather than what the state legislature says they should get. The demand for this newly tailored education from business will be enormous, as it will be flexible enough to adapt to what they want. As such, the cost will be controlled (not only by a decrease in regulation, but because federal taxes will soon fall), and the market will make sure only the best teachers will remain in the field in a way that no union or government ever could.
Best of all, Congress has assembled a commission to end the Federal Reserve’s monopoly control over the money supply. Tomorrow, the United States will begin the transition away from fiat paper currency backed by nothing to a commodity system to be determined by the market. No longer will people have to live with the reality that the government can simply confiscate their savings through inflation any time it wishes, for whatever purpose, and then laying the burden of debt on the nation’s young.
Soon the dollar, taxpayers, and businesses will be liberated from big government; trade barriers with the United States will be torn down; American-imposed embargoes and economic sanctions will be lifted, and the economy is about to bounce back with a vengeance.
These are just a few of the more important changes scheduled to take place either today or in the near future. In short, the United States is about to be a free country again.
April fools!
Hillary Clinton rolled out a new foreign policy, ceasing all military and economic aid to governments around the world. United States troops are now in the process of packing it all up and heading home. Dubbed No Soldier Left Behind, its purpose is to see to it that never again will an American soldier die on foreign soil fighting wars for the UN or toppling governments around the world. They will have to work their own problems out without the assistance of Washington or the American taxpayer. Resources previously spent on national offense will now be spent on national defense. We’ll finally have that missile defense shield.
Now that the American government has stopped taking sides in foreign conflicts, the Terrorist Threat color has reduced been downgraded to green, and there is talk about disregarding it altogether. The world took notice that if liberty somehow caused terrorism, there would have been many other more easily accessible countries available to attack. It has been admitted that terror and intervention, not freedom, is what caused the War on Terror. Finally, we struck at the root of the problem, and we won.
Congress has proposed a budget of less than a trillion dollars, with massive cuts in all federal agencies. Work has started on a plan to free everyone from Social Security and Medicare- with the War on Terror coming to a halt, an enormous reduction in the size of the federal government, and the wholesale liquidation of government assets across the country, the national debt is now somewhat under control and people will be free to save for their own retirements and pay their own medical bills. There’s now hope on the horizon that the babies of today will not owe as much of their lifetime’s labor to the government as previously thought. Federal taxes of all sorts no longer impose a crushing burden on everybody, and the repeal of the 16th amendment is also in sight.
The FDA has been abolished and the Healthcare bill has been repealed. Health insurance is no longer tied to the tax code, and federal regulations no longer apply to its price or availability. Insurance will finally be insurance again, rather than a program to pay every nickel and dime of everyone’s medical needs. The states have agreed to do away with mandated coverage, community rating laws and licensing laws. Almost all drugs are available OTC. Prices have fallen through the floor, as Americans now enjoy medical access unheard of in generations.
With the department of Education now defunct, state governments have voted for a plan to release the cost of education from the taxpayer and put it in the hands of the customer. Teachers will no longer need to unionize since being an educator will no longer be a government job. Your kids will get the education you want them to get, rather than what the state legislature says they should get. The demand for this newly tailored education from business will be enormous, as it will be flexible enough to adapt to what they want. As such, the cost will be controlled (not only by a decrease in regulation, but because federal taxes will soon fall), and the market will make sure only the best teachers will remain in the field in a way that no union or government ever could.
Best of all, Congress has assembled a commission to end the Federal Reserve’s monopoly control over the money supply. Tomorrow, the United States will begin the transition away from fiat paper currency backed by nothing to a commodity system to be determined by the market. No longer will people have to live with the reality that the government can simply confiscate their savings through inflation any time it wishes, for whatever purpose, and then laying the burden of debt on the nation’s young.
Soon the dollar, taxpayers, and businesses will be liberated from big government; trade barriers with the United States will be torn down; American-imposed embargoes and economic sanctions will be lifted, and the economy is about to bounce back with a vengeance.
These are just a few of the more important changes scheduled to take place either today or in the near future. In short, the United States is about to be a free country again.
April fools!
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Kyleigh's Law
Beginning in May, drivers in New Jersey who are younger than 21 and have a provisional license must attach a red sticker on their license plates to identify them as such. The intent of the law (dubbed Kyleigh’s Law) is to help the police identify drivers with the provisional license who may be driving with too many passengers (more than one, unless a parent is present) or who may be driving past the curfew (11pm to 5am). A peripheral intent is to make such drivers think twice about their behavior on the road, knowing they’ll stand out more.
Now, I could talk about the stickers possibly drawing unnecessary attention to young drivers (or any drivers) from police. I go on about how it’s stressful enough being followed by a cop without having a special decal attached to one’s license plate. I could go on about how families owning multiple vehicles might occasionally frustrate the law’s intent when people with full licenses get behind the wheel of cars with the stickers. Or, I could point out the many instances where provisional drivers driving late at night or with more than one passenger might actually be completely reasonable and not warrant a ticket. But I won’t, because these are the obvious objections, and there's more to this story.
Will the law be effective in preventing incidents like the story of Kyleigh D’Alessio? Sure, in theory. But the cost won’t only be measured in more ticketing, fines, and decal sales (which won’t break your bank at $4 a pop, but I’ll bet the markup is hefty), but in your freedom. Whatever the intent of the law, it’s really not much more than a way to control people and make money doing it, all under the false pretense of protecting people. What legislator can resist posturing to some law-demanding voting bloc while pretending to save lives? If the state can manage to make a buck while doing it, so much the better. It’s for your own good (particularly the $100 fine for removing the decal). It drives me crazy to think of someone saying, "What's the big deal with a little sticker?" The big deal is that it's a needless regulation whose approval paves the way for more needless regulations. Even if this law doesn't affect you personally, it still legitimizes the role of the state in having this type of power, and so this power can be exercised over you- unless there's some clear objective limitation on the government's authority to regulate driving of which I’m not aware.
However, there is more still.
Before long, the adolescent outrage over Kyleigh’s law will pass and it will simply be accepted as something that always was- as routine as anything else that comes with getting one’s license. In a few decades, the idea of provisional drivers (or whatever it’s called then, at whatever age range it’s changed to) driving without an identifying sticker will horrify people, and many would battle any attempts to repeal it. Why? Because, they would say, chaos would ensue; teenagers just aren’t responsible enough to drive on their own; they always had to drive with a decal; the police need a way to keep an eye on them.
But the real reason people would say that is because they couldn’t remember a time without it. They will have no memory of the fact that there was a time when provisional drivers didn’t need to have a decal. They won’t remember that just a few decades ago, provisional licenses didn’t even exist. They won’t remember that the driving age was once just...17. And they won’t understand that in spite of all this, it was no big deal. The sky wasn’t falling, there was no state of emergency, and getting a license wasn’t a Byzantine ordeal. Life went on despite that much less of the government’s authoritative presence. Imagine that.
It’s important to note that this condition is in no way exclusive to the Motor Vehicles Commission. While Kyleigh’s Law isn’t the end of the world (I can think of other recent legislation that’s sure to have a heavier impact), it’s a good example of the relatively quiet way government can grow and come to be accepted (if not demanded) as the norm. Since recklessness is the exception and not the rule, we should always favor liberty and responsibility over being forced to accept government "protection" in all matters big and small. Keep this in mind even though a particular law may seem benign because once freedom is lost, it is very difficult to get back.
Now, I could talk about the stickers possibly drawing unnecessary attention to young drivers (or any drivers) from police. I go on about how it’s stressful enough being followed by a cop without having a special decal attached to one’s license plate. I could go on about how families owning multiple vehicles might occasionally frustrate the law’s intent when people with full licenses get behind the wheel of cars with the stickers. Or, I could point out the many instances where provisional drivers driving late at night or with more than one passenger might actually be completely reasonable and not warrant a ticket. But I won’t, because these are the obvious objections, and there's more to this story.
Will the law be effective in preventing incidents like the story of Kyleigh D’Alessio? Sure, in theory. But the cost won’t only be measured in more ticketing, fines, and decal sales (which won’t break your bank at $4 a pop, but I’ll bet the markup is hefty), but in your freedom. Whatever the intent of the law, it’s really not much more than a way to control people and make money doing it, all under the false pretense of protecting people. What legislator can resist posturing to some law-demanding voting bloc while pretending to save lives? If the state can manage to make a buck while doing it, so much the better. It’s for your own good (particularly the $100 fine for removing the decal). It drives me crazy to think of someone saying, "What's the big deal with a little sticker?" The big deal is that it's a needless regulation whose approval paves the way for more needless regulations. Even if this law doesn't affect you personally, it still legitimizes the role of the state in having this type of power, and so this power can be exercised over you- unless there's some clear objective limitation on the government's authority to regulate driving of which I’m not aware.
However, there is more still.
Before long, the adolescent outrage over Kyleigh’s law will pass and it will simply be accepted as something that always was- as routine as anything else that comes with getting one’s license. In a few decades, the idea of provisional drivers (or whatever it’s called then, at whatever age range it’s changed to) driving without an identifying sticker will horrify people, and many would battle any attempts to repeal it. Why? Because, they would say, chaos would ensue; teenagers just aren’t responsible enough to drive on their own; they always had to drive with a decal; the police need a way to keep an eye on them.
But the real reason people would say that is because they couldn’t remember a time without it. They will have no memory of the fact that there was a time when provisional drivers didn’t need to have a decal. They won’t remember that just a few decades ago, provisional licenses didn’t even exist. They won’t remember that the driving age was once just...17. And they won’t understand that in spite of all this, it was no big deal. The sky wasn’t falling, there was no state of emergency, and getting a license wasn’t a Byzantine ordeal. Life went on despite that much less of the government’s authoritative presence. Imagine that.
It’s important to note that this condition is in no way exclusive to the Motor Vehicles Commission. While Kyleigh’s Law isn’t the end of the world (I can think of other recent legislation that’s sure to have a heavier impact), it’s a good example of the relatively quiet way government can grow and come to be accepted (if not demanded) as the norm. Since recklessness is the exception and not the rule, we should always favor liberty and responsibility over being forced to accept government "protection" in all matters big and small. Keep this in mind even though a particular law may seem benign because once freedom is lost, it is very difficult to get back.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Politics Inaction
If you tuned in to today's healthcare summit in the hopes of watching anything constructive, I'm betting you were disappointed.
After work, even I gave it a shot just for laughs. Within two minutes, I heard partisan bickering over the semantics about trusting the judgment of the CBO for cost projections. It was like watching a political commercial.
The one thing I know I can count on when watching big government operate is the remarkable display of hubris. What I saw today was a bunch of politicians sitting around in a room and arguing over the best way to manage the medical industry- something they're clearly unqualified to do. If I wasn't already so used to the absurdity of it all, I'd be blown away by it.
Nothing happened today that hasn't been planned in advance, and so the whole thing was a waste of time- like all political games. The President may have started it, but both parties, I'm sure, welcomed the opportunity to try to posture a little harder about their feelings on healthcare reform.
When I say it was a waste of time, it's not because nothing got accomplished. On the contrary, considering how nobody at that summit had any intention of seriously reducing the presence of the federal government in the medical and insurance industries, I'd say ending in a stalemate was the best possible outcome. It was a waste because we already knew what was going to happen.
The only thing I do like about this "debate" is that it showcases the inefficiencies built into the lawmaking process. I'm thankful for a Congress so divided because it limits the damage it can do to the nation. When a single party dominates both the executive and the legislative branches, it's like open season on our freedom.
The White House and Capitol Hill should take a hint from the fact that big government healthcare reform has been difficult to pass. Perhaps it's a sign. Maybe the reason it's been so tough to get what they want is because it was never meant to happen. Maybe the Founders made it that way because they knew that government could barely be trusted with protecting people's rights, much less with managing a major portion of their economy.
But I doubt our legislators will see it that way. More likely, they see themselves as leaders and decision makers. They know what the people want, and it's their duty to provide it. I guess it will take more than a six-hour televised stalemate to convince them they're not the answer the country is seeking.
After work, even I gave it a shot just for laughs. Within two minutes, I heard partisan bickering over the semantics about trusting the judgment of the CBO for cost projections. It was like watching a political commercial.
The one thing I know I can count on when watching big government operate is the remarkable display of hubris. What I saw today was a bunch of politicians sitting around in a room and arguing over the best way to manage the medical industry- something they're clearly unqualified to do. If I wasn't already so used to the absurdity of it all, I'd be blown away by it.
Nothing happened today that hasn't been planned in advance, and so the whole thing was a waste of time- like all political games. The President may have started it, but both parties, I'm sure, welcomed the opportunity to try to posture a little harder about their feelings on healthcare reform.
When I say it was a waste of time, it's not because nothing got accomplished. On the contrary, considering how nobody at that summit had any intention of seriously reducing the presence of the federal government in the medical and insurance industries, I'd say ending in a stalemate was the best possible outcome. It was a waste because we already knew what was going to happen.
The only thing I do like about this "debate" is that it showcases the inefficiencies built into the lawmaking process. I'm thankful for a Congress so divided because it limits the damage it can do to the nation. When a single party dominates both the executive and the legislative branches, it's like open season on our freedom.
The White House and Capitol Hill should take a hint from the fact that big government healthcare reform has been difficult to pass. Perhaps it's a sign. Maybe the reason it's been so tough to get what they want is because it was never meant to happen. Maybe the Founders made it that way because they knew that government could barely be trusted with protecting people's rights, much less with managing a major portion of their economy.
But I doubt our legislators will see it that way. More likely, they see themselves as leaders and decision makers. They know what the people want, and it's their duty to provide it. I guess it will take more than a six-hour televised stalemate to convince them they're not the answer the country is seeking.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Pay Them What They're Worth
Background Information: I am a teacher at a relatively affluent private high school. I am not tenured (tenure isn’t offered to us), and I don’t belong to a union. I have a private retirement account. I do not hold an education degree, nor do I hold any state certification. This is my seventh year as a teacher, and my seventh at my current school. My pay is immaterial, because every dollar I get has been paid to me along a chain of people who gave it up willingly (as opposed to through taxation).
I take the position that the government should not be in the business of education. Everyone who works in the federal Department of Education should lose his job, and any real estate currently held by the federal DOE should be sold off to the public. I don’t think many people would even notice the change. Then, the people can begin to reclaim their power over education from the state government, just as the states reclaimed it from the federal government. I can see this taking a long time to accomplish, but it’s a goal worth pursuing.
Teacher Pay
Many people claim teachers are grossly overpaid, and many teachers believe that they’re grossly underpaid. Teaching has many more variables than the average job: teacher ability, years of experience, education level, number of classes, number of courses, types of courses, number of students, types of students, etc.. A teacher’s salary should depend on all of these things, some of which are pretty subjective. It is impossible for any political institution to give it this kind of tailored approach. Teachers are paid closest to what they’re worth in the private sector- where salaries are determined by a market, rather than politics.
Every single thing about our public schools is politicized, A to Z. Be it teacher salaries, when to get tenure, how many hours to work, issues with merit-based pay, pensions, shutting down “failing schools”, the curriculum, what courses to include, who gets the best parking spot, you name it. This is because public education is a government job (I once had a public school teacher brag about this to me). Because everybody’s taxes are on the line, everybody wants things their way. Frustrated by trying to cater to everyone, it should be no surprise that only a few people involved really have their needs met.
With regards to how much a teacher should make, I have a better question: who should decide how much they make? Should it be the relatively small group of people who own and operate the school on their own terms (whose customers are willing to pay for)? Or should it be the government? Teachers throwing a coup over a pay freeze is a natural consequence of government-run education. The politics of education necessitates having a teacher’s union as a way to mitigate political maltreatment and favoritism. They’re combating the force of government with their own force. Now, the government is again trying to respond with force. This is the way politics and power games work. Who knows what the next move will be?
Of course, that’s not how it works in the real world. In the real world, when the boss tells you your pay is getting frozen, you either accept it or you quit and find a better position. You can’t get together with your buddies to force everybody to play the game the way you want it played. It’s sad to see educators reduced to just another special interest group fighting for its piece of the government’s power. They’re likely to say (and truly believe) they’re fighting for what’s fair, but the truth is that without some sort of reference point, nobody in this situation can say what is and isn’t fair. If all that stood in the way of a pay hike for me was threatening a strike or a little lobbying, I could probably fool myself into thinking I was fighting for fairness, too. But being outside the system, I know better.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any of this leading to a discussion of the real problem: how to release American education from an endless political tug-of-war. This soap opera will continue and all we’ll have to show for it in the end will be higher taxes. The argument for less government in education should be championed by every teacher who knows she's worth her compensation (and more). It is the only way to ensure that good teachers get paid what they're worth. Is is also the only way to destroy the black hole for taxpayer money that is a bad teacher's tenure and pension.
I take the position that the government should not be in the business of education. Everyone who works in the federal Department of Education should lose his job, and any real estate currently held by the federal DOE should be sold off to the public. I don’t think many people would even notice the change. Then, the people can begin to reclaim their power over education from the state government, just as the states reclaimed it from the federal government. I can see this taking a long time to accomplish, but it’s a goal worth pursuing.
Teacher Pay
Many people claim teachers are grossly overpaid, and many teachers believe that they’re grossly underpaid. Teaching has many more variables than the average job: teacher ability, years of experience, education level, number of classes, number of courses, types of courses, number of students, types of students, etc.. A teacher’s salary should depend on all of these things, some of which are pretty subjective. It is impossible for any political institution to give it this kind of tailored approach. Teachers are paid closest to what they’re worth in the private sector- where salaries are determined by a market, rather than politics.
Every single thing about our public schools is politicized, A to Z. Be it teacher salaries, when to get tenure, how many hours to work, issues with merit-based pay, pensions, shutting down “failing schools”, the curriculum, what courses to include, who gets the best parking spot, you name it. This is because public education is a government job (I once had a public school teacher brag about this to me). Because everybody’s taxes are on the line, everybody wants things their way. Frustrated by trying to cater to everyone, it should be no surprise that only a few people involved really have their needs met.
With regards to how much a teacher should make, I have a better question: who should decide how much they make? Should it be the relatively small group of people who own and operate the school on their own terms (whose customers are willing to pay for)? Or should it be the government? Teachers throwing a coup over a pay freeze is a natural consequence of government-run education. The politics of education necessitates having a teacher’s union as a way to mitigate political maltreatment and favoritism. They’re combating the force of government with their own force. Now, the government is again trying to respond with force. This is the way politics and power games work. Who knows what the next move will be?
Of course, that’s not how it works in the real world. In the real world, when the boss tells you your pay is getting frozen, you either accept it or you quit and find a better position. You can’t get together with your buddies to force everybody to play the game the way you want it played. It’s sad to see educators reduced to just another special interest group fighting for its piece of the government’s power. They’re likely to say (and truly believe) they’re fighting for what’s fair, but the truth is that without some sort of reference point, nobody in this situation can say what is and isn’t fair. If all that stood in the way of a pay hike for me was threatening a strike or a little lobbying, I could probably fool myself into thinking I was fighting for fairness, too. But being outside the system, I know better.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any of this leading to a discussion of the real problem: how to release American education from an endless political tug-of-war. This soap opera will continue and all we’ll have to show for it in the end will be higher taxes. The argument for less government in education should be championed by every teacher who knows she's worth her compensation (and more). It is the only way to ensure that good teachers get paid what they're worth. Is is also the only way to destroy the black hole for taxpayer money that is a bad teacher's tenure and pension.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Ambiguous Unemployment Statistic
The job market is a shambles. Companies are laying off, people are out of work, and it’s just a bad situation.
Or is it?
Even though it makes good press, unemployment by itself isn’t a good measure of how the economic health of the nation. The focus shouldn’t be on keeping people employed. Here’s an example.
When self-checkout machines were first introduced in the supermarket, I heard a woman remark to someone else that she refused to use it because it caused someone to lose his job. While she was correct in that the introduction of such a machine will indeed lower the demand for cashiers (and thus lead to the hiring of fewer cashiers) and some cashiers may lose their hours because of it, she was grossly incorrect in thinking this was a bad thing.
What the machine does is make it easier for people do get work done. It’s a device that saves time and labor. Imagine what life would be like if we thumbed our noses at every device that saved labor and caused job loss. Farmland would still be plowed by hand. People would still deliver ice to your door. All our clothes would still be sewn by hand. We would be living in a very different world. On the whole, the self-checkout machines are a good thing. Temporarily bad for the individual cashier, but a boon to everybody who goes to the supermarket- not to mention the new productive jobs created at the factory where the checkout machines are assembled and the ones created by when the machines need repairing.
The key is production, not employment. It’s much better to have low employment and high production than the other way around. That way, people’s efforts go further. What if 10% of the world’s population could do all the work to satisfy the needs of everybody? We would have 90% unemployment, but it would be an economic miracle.
Government can create jobs, but it generally cannot create productivity- especially on a national scale. What it gives to B it must first take from A. So the result is usually theft, waste, political favoritism, and a greater dependence on the state.
For these reasons, we should not look to the government to "fix unemployment." The best we can expect from government is to either create more government jobs (almost never a good), or to create another bubble in some industry it decides to favor ("green jobs" comes to mind). This is little more than a complicated form of welfare.
That the government bears the responsibility of being the job-maker is a myth that needs to be dispelled. If the government should focus on anything, it should be production, rather than employment. With an unlimited power to tax and spend, creating employment should be easy. But productivity is harder to come by. The only thing government produces well is more government. If government wants to do something positive, the best thing it can do is remove barriers that inhibit private sector activity.
If we want to set ourselves on a solid economic footing for the long term, we need a reduction in government. Less government means lower taxes, which puts capital back in the hands of the private sector- the only place we will ever see any innovation and productivity.
Just don’t get too optimistic when they say the job market is on the rebound and unemployment is dropping. It may just be a disingenuous way of telling us that growth of government is continuing unabated.
Or is it?
Even though it makes good press, unemployment by itself isn’t a good measure of how the economic health of the nation. The focus shouldn’t be on keeping people employed. Here’s an example.
When self-checkout machines were first introduced in the supermarket, I heard a woman remark to someone else that she refused to use it because it caused someone to lose his job. While she was correct in that the introduction of such a machine will indeed lower the demand for cashiers (and thus lead to the hiring of fewer cashiers) and some cashiers may lose their hours because of it, she was grossly incorrect in thinking this was a bad thing.
What the machine does is make it easier for people do get work done. It’s a device that saves time and labor. Imagine what life would be like if we thumbed our noses at every device that saved labor and caused job loss. Farmland would still be plowed by hand. People would still deliver ice to your door. All our clothes would still be sewn by hand. We would be living in a very different world. On the whole, the self-checkout machines are a good thing. Temporarily bad for the individual cashier, but a boon to everybody who goes to the supermarket- not to mention the new productive jobs created at the factory where the checkout machines are assembled and the ones created by when the machines need repairing.
The key is production, not employment. It’s much better to have low employment and high production than the other way around. That way, people’s efforts go further. What if 10% of the world’s population could do all the work to satisfy the needs of everybody? We would have 90% unemployment, but it would be an economic miracle.
Government can create jobs, but it generally cannot create productivity- especially on a national scale. What it gives to B it must first take from A. So the result is usually theft, waste, political favoritism, and a greater dependence on the state.
For these reasons, we should not look to the government to "fix unemployment." The best we can expect from government is to either create more government jobs (almost never a good), or to create another bubble in some industry it decides to favor ("green jobs" comes to mind). This is little more than a complicated form of welfare.
That the government bears the responsibility of being the job-maker is a myth that needs to be dispelled. If the government should focus on anything, it should be production, rather than employment. With an unlimited power to tax and spend, creating employment should be easy. But productivity is harder to come by. The only thing government produces well is more government. If government wants to do something positive, the best thing it can do is remove barriers that inhibit private sector activity.
If we want to set ourselves on a solid economic footing for the long term, we need a reduction in government. Less government means lower taxes, which puts capital back in the hands of the private sector- the only place we will ever see any innovation and productivity.
Just don’t get too optimistic when they say the job market is on the rebound and unemployment is dropping. It may just be a disingenuous way of telling us that growth of government is continuing unabated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)