jim moran on what is wrong with economy

"Right now we've got to get this economy back on its feet," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) (and I swear to God that is his actual name). "And the most de-stimulating part of our economy right now is state and local spending. They're cutting back and in fact in the last three months they cut about 100,000 jobs. In the last two years they've cut over 300,000 jobs. These are people who won't be able to make their mortgage payments, who won't be shopping at stores, who will be pulling the economy down..."

Really?  This moran really thinks the most destimulating part of our economy is lack of state and local spending? Is this in anyway a defensible viewpoint?  But I guess this is what you think when you represent northern Virginia and the only reason there are jobs there is because the huge largess of the federal government which takes money from the productive members of the rest of the country so that people in Moran's district can push some paper around.  Let's look at Exhibit A to see whether job losses in the public sector are a major problem right now.

Exhibit A

So state and local government job losses, which are more than offset by the number of jobs added by the federal government and are only 1.7% the number of losses in the private sector, are the major destimulating factor in the economy?  Look, the House and Senate just passed the $26 billion bailout of state governments.  This is nothing more than a special interest payout to union members by the democrats.  This money was meant for the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees as payback for the campaigning for democrats the past few cycles.  Their major constituency wanted some cash and they got it.

And I am tired of the staright up bullshit that we have to do it "for the children."  Nothing about this money is going to help children.  These unions don't care about the children.  Now I'm not saying that teachers don't care about their students, but I am saying that the unions don't.  I could go on a rant about how the teacher's unions are the number one reason why are public schools are failing, but I already did, although only partially, here and here.  In short, teachers can't be fired, so once they are hired they continue to educate our kids even if they are horrible.  Why is this acceptable in our society?  Everyone in every other kind of profession is accountable.  And not only accountable for the amount of effort they put in.  They are accountable for RESULTS.  I don't give two shits if you are a teacher who comes in early and leaves late.  If your kids aren't getting the proper education then you should be fired and try a career doing something else.  This is the way it works in the real world.

But alas this is to no avail.  The only study I could find was in 2005 and the U.S. was ranked third in education spending in the world at around $8,000 per pupil (here).  However, that number is way under the actual spending levels as it includes only what is spent by state and local districts directly on the pupils.  It does not include the money that goes into the education bureaucracy or the outlays spent directly by the federal government.  In fact these two recent studies by the Washington Post and the Cato Institute showed that actual per student spending was closer to $25,000 and $19,000 in the school districts in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, receptively.  And these are two of the worst schoold districts in the country.  Until we recognize that accountability of educators and not spending it what is needed, public schools will continue to fail.  But don't worry, that moran said that we can alleviate the biggest destimulating section of the economy by giving them tens of billions more!  And I'm sure this money will lead to better results.  Until it doesn't.  And then the teachers demand more money.  And the cycle continues...

the all star break and education in america

Well it's the halfway point of the baseball season, and the world champion Philadelphia Phillies are right where they belong: in first place. Thanks in large part to a 9-1 home stand to finish the first half, they have built a substantial, but in no way insurmountable four game lead over the second place Marlins in the NL East. This team has a legitimate shot at repeating. They have the best and most explosive offense in the National League. They are scrappy both individually and as a team.

The only big question mark is pitching, both the starters and bullpen. Although the relief pitchers have been hot and cold, especially Brad Lidge, I don't think there is much they can or will do to sure up the unit. I don't think this will be a problem though. They have shown that they can succeed both consistently and in key situations (see last season), and I think they are going to recover nicely in the second half. The bigger question mark is the starting rotation.

According to reports the phils are very close to signing Pedro Martinez. Although I am not against the move because it will probably cost us very little, I don't think it is a solution. If the Phils sign him I hope I'm wrong, but I think he's out of gas and all washed up. My biggest concern is that the Phils will sign him that the front office will think that they have done enough and won't make anymore moves. In other words, they won't trade for Roy Halladay.

I am all for signing Halladay, almost regardless of cost. In a perfect world I wouldn't want to give up Kyle Drabek, but the time to win is now. This Phils have only won two World Series titles in their 125+ years of playing the game. One of those titles was last year. This is their chance; they must win now. If that means mortgaging the future, then so be it. Let's go out and get arguably the best pitcher in the game for this season and next and try to make it a dynasty. The Phils would instantly become the favorites to go to the World Series in the NL, and we would probably have the best 1-2 pitching combo in the majors in Halladay/Hamels. Amaro needs to make this happen.

On a completely unrelated note, I just want to comment quickly on the ridiculousness of public education in America. First, Texas has proposed several changes to their curriculum that is outraging many liberals (See a shortened list of changes here). For example they want to de-emphasize the historical importance of liberl icons like Thurgood Marshall and Ceasar Chavez. The only change I really want to comment on is the proposal to focus more on original historical documents rather than on texts that interpret those documents. I think this is a fantastic idea. There is no better way to learn history than to read actual account of what occurred. This way no hindsight spin can be put on historical events. Anyone who writes an account has their own agenda and biases, and whether they mean to or not they will inevitably put some kind of spin on the facts. Focusing on primary accounts can help alleviate that problem and let students think critically and draw their own conclusions based on the facts.

However, focusing on historical facts will not make a difference when the teachers themselves are biased, and once again the teacher's unions are flexing their political muscle now that Obama and the democrats control the executive and legislative branches. Thanks in large part to the unions leaning on the democrats, Obama is letting the DC voucher program expire despite the fact the DC city counsel has voted overwhelmingly to ask for the program to be extended. The union hates the program because it weakens their monopoly hold on public education funds. In reality the union doesn't care that the program has been an unbridled success, they only care about their own power and clout. They know that if similar programs are enacted around the country, teachers everywhere would start facing, get this, COMPETITION. But no, competition doesn't make the quality of output better in education they claim. That is only true FOR EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY IN AMERICA. Until we stop bowing to the teachers unions on education choice and reform, we are never going to truly bring about the needed change, especially in the country's poorest neighborhoods like Washington, DC.

The Budget Part I and Education

President Obama announced the details of his 2009 budget late last week. Now I expected the growth in government to be significant, but even I did not expect what was released by the administration. The price tag is currently listed at $3.6 trillion for the fiscal year 2009, but many of the true costs are hidden because it will expand the federal government to unheard of levels, forcing us to continually fund this monster for years to come. The budget, in conjunction with the recently passed stimulus package, will take the national debt to unheard of levels, with the 2009 budget deficit being $1.75 trillion, which is roughly 12.3% of the total GDP of the United States. Even if the economy recovers as fast as Obama claims it will under his stimulus, which it won't (he projects 3.5% positive growth in the year 2010, after a decrease of over 1% this year, despite tax increases and growth restrictions on energy production from cap and trade), he only hopes to get the deficit down to $1 trillion by the end of his first term. Just to put these numbers in perspective, in President Bush's final year in office the deficit was a record $455 billion, which is slightly less than half the $787 billion stimulus that was just signed into law. People love slamming Bush for fiscal irresponsibility and the high costs of the war in Iraq (which I think they rightly should), but it is nothing more than drops in the bucket compared to what Obama has planned.

I don't think I would be so angry about all of this unless I wasn't so sure that this federal spending was going to be completely wasted. For example, the stimulus devoted $81.1 billion in "education" spending, while the 2009 budget confers another $46.7 billion (although neither of these numbers include Obama's increase in Pell grants that will be at least another $10 billion). Where is this money going? Are you telling me that with all of this spending, we can not increase the standard of education in America? The reason why this money doesn't help is because it really isn't going to initiatives designed to most effectively helped underprivileged youth. Instead it continually increases the size of the Department of Education, and the bureaucracy associated with it, and to special projects bought by the campaign money supplied by a variety of special interest groups.

What is truly lacking in our educational system in the U.S. is competition. Sure there is some competition between public and private schools, but it is skewed in favor of the public schools because selective monetary support from the government. For competition to truly effect positive change in the U.S. educational system, the government cannot implicitly decide that it can provide the public with the best possible education and only provide support to citizens who choose its failing schools. The counterargument, however, is that it is the duty of the government to provide all its citizens with a minimal level of education, and public schools are necessary otherwise no school would accept the poorest students. This is simply untrue.

The District of Columbia has one of the most progressive voucher systems in the U.S. Every year the federal government will provide up to a $7,500 voucher for students who wish to use that money on private education. This system has been a great success for everyone involved except the public school officials. They have continued to see falling test scores and decreased enrollment as the best and most determined students leave in order to get a chance at succeeding in life. The teachers at these public schools are not accountable at all, as the unions protect their members from discipline, even if the teachers themselves are failing. The only major problem with D.C.'s voucher program is its size. It's much too small. Last year only 1,700 students were approved for the program. The reason that it was so small was because of strong opposition from powerful teacher's unions because they can feel their monopoly grip on providing K-12 education slipping away.

Worst of all, President Obama and his congressional counterparts led by Congressman Dick Durbin plan on ending the D.C. voucher plan next year. For a story of how this move will adversely affect one underprivileged family whose children attend the same school as president Obama's children see the WSJ article found here. Bowing to the political power of the unions once again, Democrats are hurting one of their strongest constituencies while claiming they are doing it to protect them. Now I dare you to find one family who takes advantage the voucher program who has anything but good things to say about it (other than it should be expanded). That is the main reason why the democrats are ending the program using a procedural vote, so that the press won't pay it much attention.

Those citizens who are dedicated to succeeding can and will succeed if they are given the opportunity to do so. That's what a voucher system does. It allows the poorest Americans to choose whether or not to attend a failing, dangerous school with no future opportunities, or a school that will give them a chance at becoming productive citizens. President Obama and the other democrats want to spend tremendous amounts of money on failing public schools in an attempt to create an equality of outcome in terms of the education received by students across the country. This is an impossible task and goes in the face of the ideals America was founded on. America was founded on the principles equality of opportunity, which is provided by a voucher system, not equality of outcome, which is the major premise of Marx's communism.