Oct 2008
Obama & McCain on Education
Oct 20, 2008 14:50 Filed in: Education
The San Francisco Examiner ran an article today comparing the positions of Obama and McCain on education.
Big differences in candidates' education plans
The main difference between the candidates’ plans is in pre-school support. McCain would add less than $1 billion to education. He would give principals more say over funds while redirecting spending to online schools, home schools and tuition vouchers. Obama, on the other hand, would devote most of his increased spending to preparing children for kindergarden on the premise that children who enter school 2 years behind seldom catch up.
I wish that the candidates would spend a little time discussing the content of education. I’m convinced that generations of American students have been dumbed down by a curriculum that teaches little history, literature, economics, geography, or logic, and the results have been catastrophic. If you don’t believe me, show a teenager a map of the world and ask them to locate Venice, Baghdad, New Delhi and Beijing. Ask your teenager if he or she can identify Horatio, Brutus, Marcus Aurelius and Alaric. Ask him or her one thing that the Federal Reserve does and why. Finally, ask your teenager to name one American Nobel Prize winner in literature.
More pertinently, ask your teenage to name the three branches of the federal government and briefly explain the roles of each.
None of these questions are on the level we call “rocket science.” I was taught the answers to most of the foregoing questions at Mary Lee Boyd Elementary School on Northside Drive, here in Jackson, between 1950 and 1956.
Several years ago I reviewed a book by John Taylor Gatto, The Underground History of American Education: a schoolteacher’s intimate investigation into the prison of modern schooling, that related the whole sorry story of compulsory education in America. The book is well-worth reading and pondering. Gatto regards the educational system not as a failure but as a resounding success when judged in the light of its original purpose.
Big differences in candidates' education plans
The main difference between the candidates’ plans is in pre-school support. McCain would add less than $1 billion to education. He would give principals more say over funds while redirecting spending to online schools, home schools and tuition vouchers. Obama, on the other hand, would devote most of his increased spending to preparing children for kindergarden on the premise that children who enter school 2 years behind seldom catch up.
I wish that the candidates would spend a little time discussing the content of education. I’m convinced that generations of American students have been dumbed down by a curriculum that teaches little history, literature, economics, geography, or logic, and the results have been catastrophic. If you don’t believe me, show a teenager a map of the world and ask them to locate Venice, Baghdad, New Delhi and Beijing. Ask your teenager if he or she can identify Horatio, Brutus, Marcus Aurelius and Alaric. Ask him or her one thing that the Federal Reserve does and why. Finally, ask your teenager to name one American Nobel Prize winner in literature.
More pertinently, ask your teenage to name the three branches of the federal government and briefly explain the roles of each.
None of these questions are on the level we call “rocket science.” I was taught the answers to most of the foregoing questions at Mary Lee Boyd Elementary School on Northside Drive, here in Jackson, between 1950 and 1956.
Several years ago I reviewed a book by John Taylor Gatto, The Underground History of American Education: a schoolteacher’s intimate investigation into the prison of modern schooling, that related the whole sorry story of compulsory education in America. The book is well-worth reading and pondering. Gatto regards the educational system not as a failure but as a resounding success when judged in the light of its original purpose.
Comments
The Meltdown - an Exemplar
According to the Associated Press, the government-chartered mortgage company Freddie Mac “secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.” The target of the lobbying effort was a bill by Senator Charles Hagel that would have strengthened oversight and tightened regulation over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The bill was supported by Republicans and (sad to say) opposed by Democrats. The lobbying campaign, focused on 17 Republican senators, was successful in turning enough of them around to keep the bill from passing or even coming to the floor. The “turned” senators were Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Christopher "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George Allen of Virginia.
S. 190 - Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
It is possible that all this was perfectly legal—but it stinks of corruption. In fact, it was corrupt.
I’m a lawyer, and I know how easy it is to find a way to violate the spirit of a law without violating the letter, and that is particularly true of criminal statutes, which must be strictly interpreted to avoid running afoul of the due process requirements of the U. S. Constitution. On the other hand, using corporate funds to lobby lawmakers for the specific purpose of passing legislation to keep the investigators away from an ongoing crime (or a conspiracy) ought to be a crime, both for the corporations and their officers, and for the lobbyists that do the actual dirty work. It is obstruction of justice, pure and simple.
S. 190 - Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
It is possible that all this was perfectly legal—but it stinks of corruption. In fact, it was corrupt.
I’m a lawyer, and I know how easy it is to find a way to violate the spirit of a law without violating the letter, and that is particularly true of criminal statutes, which must be strictly interpreted to avoid running afoul of the due process requirements of the U. S. Constitution. On the other hand, using corporate funds to lobby lawmakers for the specific purpose of passing legislation to keep the investigators away from an ongoing crime (or a conspiracy) ought to be a crime, both for the corporations and their officers, and for the lobbyists that do the actual dirty work. It is obstruction of justice, pure and simple.
Post-Debate Conclusion
Although it is from the chit-chat after the second presidential debate, Carville’s conclusion seems even more spot-on after the third one:
The 20th Percentile Solution
Part of the problem with our national government is a weak alignment in interest between high government officials in all three branches and the guy on the street.
Here’s a proposal for part of the solution: Pass a constitutional amendment fixing the salaries and pensions of the president, vice president, senators, congressmen and all federal judges at a multiple (not necessarily the same multiple for all of them, however) of the 20th percentile of family income. These are folks who are struggling hard to stay in their houses and put food on their tables, so if our congresscritters continue what they have been doing since 1981, their income will either stagnate or decline. Make the salary generous.
Interestingly enough, the income of the president and members of congress have actually been going down as a multiple of the 20th percentile’s family income. For instance, the president’s pay in 1951 was 51.2 times the 20th percentile’s family income (100,000/1953), whereas the multiple in 2003 was 16.6 (400,000/24,117). A fair multiple would be 25.
Congressional salaries, on the other hand, have moved less but still ought to be raised to at least a multiple of 10 times the 20th percentile.
Year Salary 20th per. multiple
1951 12500 1953 6.4
1969 42500 5000 8.5
1979 60662 8000 7.6
1994 133600 17949 7.4
2003 154700 24117 6.4
In order to reinforce this alignment, forbid all outside income, gifts or speculative earnings, irrespective of the source, to all these officials. All outside income goes into the treasury, period. No exceptions. That includes income from blind trusts and retirement income. Officials must live on their government salary as long as they remain in the government. If you happen to own a private jet, you can use it, but you must make the payments for it, maintain it and pay for fuel out of your government earnings. You get the idea ....
There are other provisions that could further strengthen that alignment. For instance, we could add an additional factor - the Gini ratio, a measure of income inequality that has been climbing ever since Ronald Reagan became president. Zero is perfect equality and 1 is total inequality. Subtract the Gini ratio from 1 and multiply the difference by the multiple above, increasing the multiple to meet the initial income target. Then the more unequal society becomes, the higher the Gini index goes, and the folks ultimately responsible for the increasing inequality get a taste of what it is like to see their incomes decline.
Another possibility would be to tie executive and legislative income to the minimum wage. The president’s income has declined compared the minimum wage, but Congress’s income has grown almost twice as fast as the minimum wage since 1951.
Establish a retirement system that enables public servants to retire with a generous stipend, on the condition that they do not lobby or work for the federal government or a corporation that does business with the government until they have been out of office at least 6 years.
Establish progressive tax brackets that are multiples of the 20th percentile of family incomes. In 2007 the 20th percentile earned $27,864, so any family earning less than $27,864 pays nothing, which is a good thing; at that income, taxes literally take food off the table. The brackets would then go $27,865-55,728; $55,729--83,592; $83,593--111,456, etc. If everyone’s income rises in the same proportion, then the brackets would proportionately expand and no one’s tax bite would change. If the income at the bottom stagnates, however, then the brackets stay put and the higher earners suffer tax bracket creep as their income increases. This would have the effect of aligning the interest of the wealthy with the welfare of the far-less-wealthy. It would then be in everyone’s interest to adopt policies to pull up the income at the bottom.
Needless to say, such an arrangement would have to be done by constitutional amendment, as no congress would vote to tie their incomes to the fortunes of the less well-off.
Finally, the money-chase for campaign contributions must cease. It is unrealistic (I originally wrote idiotic) to expect our representatives in Washington to do their job if they must spend most of their time begging the rich and powerful for campaign contributions. All elective federal offices simply must be financed by public funds and those funds must be dispensed in a way that will shorten the campaigns to a reasonable length. Television, radio and cable must, as a condition of doing business, furnish adequate prime time at no cost for the candidates to put their messages before the voters. If it takes a constitutional amendment to make this work, then enact it.
References:
http://www.uscourts.gov/judicialpay.pdf
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01AR.html
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/fedprssal.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blminwage.htm
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html
Here’s a proposal for part of the solution: Pass a constitutional amendment fixing the salaries and pensions of the president, vice president, senators, congressmen and all federal judges at a multiple (not necessarily the same multiple for all of them, however) of the 20th percentile of family income. These are folks who are struggling hard to stay in their houses and put food on their tables, so if our congresscritters continue what they have been doing since 1981, their income will either stagnate or decline. Make the salary generous.
Interestingly enough, the income of the president and members of congress have actually been going down as a multiple of the 20th percentile’s family income. For instance, the president’s pay in 1951 was 51.2 times the 20th percentile’s family income (100,000/1953), whereas the multiple in 2003 was 16.6 (400,000/24,117). A fair multiple would be 25.
Congressional salaries, on the other hand, have moved less but still ought to be raised to at least a multiple of 10 times the 20th percentile.
Year Salary 20th per. multiple
1951 12500 1953 6.4
1969 42500 5000 8.5
1979 60662 8000 7.6
1994 133600 17949 7.4
2003 154700 24117 6.4
In order to reinforce this alignment, forbid all outside income, gifts or speculative earnings, irrespective of the source, to all these officials. All outside income goes into the treasury, period. No exceptions. That includes income from blind trusts and retirement income. Officials must live on their government salary as long as they remain in the government. If you happen to own a private jet, you can use it, but you must make the payments for it, maintain it and pay for fuel out of your government earnings. You get the idea ....
There are other provisions that could further strengthen that alignment. For instance, we could add an additional factor - the Gini ratio, a measure of income inequality that has been climbing ever since Ronald Reagan became president. Zero is perfect equality and 1 is total inequality. Subtract the Gini ratio from 1 and multiply the difference by the multiple above, increasing the multiple to meet the initial income target. Then the more unequal society becomes, the higher the Gini index goes, and the folks ultimately responsible for the increasing inequality get a taste of what it is like to see their incomes decline.
Another possibility would be to tie executive and legislative income to the minimum wage. The president’s income has declined compared the minimum wage, but Congress’s income has grown almost twice as fast as the minimum wage since 1951.
Establish a retirement system that enables public servants to retire with a generous stipend, on the condition that they do not lobby or work for the federal government or a corporation that does business with the government until they have been out of office at least 6 years.
Establish progressive tax brackets that are multiples of the 20th percentile of family incomes. In 2007 the 20th percentile earned $27,864, so any family earning less than $27,864 pays nothing, which is a good thing; at that income, taxes literally take food off the table. The brackets would then go $27,865-55,728; $55,729--83,592; $83,593--111,456, etc. If everyone’s income rises in the same proportion, then the brackets would proportionately expand and no one’s tax bite would change. If the income at the bottom stagnates, however, then the brackets stay put and the higher earners suffer tax bracket creep as their income increases. This would have the effect of aligning the interest of the wealthy with the welfare of the far-less-wealthy. It would then be in everyone’s interest to adopt policies to pull up the income at the bottom.
Needless to say, such an arrangement would have to be done by constitutional amendment, as no congress would vote to tie their incomes to the fortunes of the less well-off.
Finally, the money-chase for campaign contributions must cease. It is unrealistic (I originally wrote idiotic) to expect our representatives in Washington to do their job if they must spend most of their time begging the rich and powerful for campaign contributions. All elective federal offices simply must be financed by public funds and those funds must be dispensed in a way that will shorten the campaigns to a reasonable length. Television, radio and cable must, as a condition of doing business, furnish adequate prime time at no cost for the candidates to put their messages before the voters. If it takes a constitutional amendment to make this work, then enact it.
References:
http://www.uscourts.gov/judicialpay.pdf
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01AR.html
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/fedprssal.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blminwage.htm
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html
McCain & Keating & Lincoln S & L
It looks as though the gloves are finally coming off in the presidential race. McCain is excoriating Obama for his association with a former Weatherman, now an education professor, named Ayers, and Obama is wading into McCain’s role in the catastrophic fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, part of the S&L debacle of the late ’80s. My impression then and now is that McCain is lucky that he didn’t spend some time behind bars for bribery and obstruction of justice.
Here is a film from the Obama campaign exploring what happened.
Looks like this election could become very interesting.
Here is a film from the Obama campaign exploring what happened.
Looks like this election could become very interesting.
N. Klein and the Shock Doctrine
Via the Raw Story, Naomi Klein explains on the Colbert Report that the Wall Street collapse is merely another planned disaster to rob the nation of even more money and resources and enrich Bush’s friends.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Naomi_Klein_Bush_admin_invented_no_1003.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Naomi_Klein_Bush_admin_invented_no_1003.html
The VP Debate - Impressions
Oct 02, 2008 23:18 Filed in: Elections
Both candidates avoided the bailout question.
Biden finessed his support of the odious and corrupt bankruptcy bill and Palin was clueless about the details of how the public was screwed.
Biden was knowledgeable; Palin had only her index card notes and her coaching for the past few weeks. That’s a poor substitute for either experience or deep study.
Biden was relaxed, as one would expect from a politician who has been in the limelight many, many times.
Palin was scared s**tless. Anyone in her position would have to be. As a result, her voice pitch was a little higher than it should have been and more monotone. Her pitch seldom varied far from A below middle C. After about 45 minutes it really began to irritate.
When Biden became emotional about his son, Palin’s response was to read another talking point from her notes, so she clearly has a tin ear for detecting other peoples’ feelings.
The 5-minute soundbite format resulted in a frantic quality to the debate, as though the candidates were afraid they wouldn’t manage to cram in all their talking points in the allotted time. The absence of followup questioning saved Palin from the disasters she encountered with Couric, when she was politely asked to explain herself.
I have no doubt that the Republican base was pleased; the general public is not impressed, according to the snap polls by the networks. The next few days of polling will tell the story.
Biden finessed his support of the odious and corrupt bankruptcy bill and Palin was clueless about the details of how the public was screwed.
Biden was knowledgeable; Palin had only her index card notes and her coaching for the past few weeks. That’s a poor substitute for either experience or deep study.
Biden was relaxed, as one would expect from a politician who has been in the limelight many, many times.
Palin was scared s**tless. Anyone in her position would have to be. As a result, her voice pitch was a little higher than it should have been and more monotone. Her pitch seldom varied far from A below middle C. After about 45 minutes it really began to irritate.
When Biden became emotional about his son, Palin’s response was to read another talking point from her notes, so she clearly has a tin ear for detecting other peoples’ feelings.
The 5-minute soundbite format resulted in a frantic quality to the debate, as though the candidates were afraid they wouldn’t manage to cram in all their talking points in the allotted time. The absence of followup questioning saved Palin from the disasters she encountered with Couric, when she was politely asked to explain herself.
I have no doubt that the Republican base was pleased; the general public is not impressed, according to the snap polls by the networks. The next few days of polling will tell the story.
The Free Market Economy - only a small incident
Oct 02, 2008 11:20 Filed in: Economics