Public Education: The problem is the system, not the people

I've written a lot about education lately – in the paper, in my blog, on Facebook. I'm afraid one might come away with the feeling that I am anti public schools. That is not the case, I assure you. However, I am very much anti the public school system. It is 100% the system I object to, not the hardworking teachers, nor the administrators, who work within it. The problem is, the public education system – which, by nature is basically a monopoly – is not conducive towards improving outcomes for children. Rather, like any monopoly, the system is geared more towards helping and rewarding those who run the system, rather than those whom the system serves. When you take a monopoly, and add in a heavy dose of unionization, you wind up with a system that fails to achieve optimal outcomes for the consumer (families and children).

Like any industry, the education establishment has good teachers and bad teachers. The good far outnumber the bad, but the problem is that it is so hard to get rid of the bad ones. That is simply an unacceptable and sad fact. (If in doubt, check here and here.) In the private sector, firing underperformers is relatively simple (although unions can complicate things for certain companies there too).

The fact remains, we have many good, decent, hardworking teachers. But they are teaching within a monopolistic system that harnesses none of the benefits that the free market can generate – indeed does generate – in almost every other industry. I will submit that if you take an honest, decent, hardworking businessman, and install him as CEO of a company, and then give that company a monopoly on the market, you will undoubtedly find that CEO's company turn out an inferior product. But put that same businessman in the same company in the same industry – but subjected to multitudes of competition – and you will find his company turns out a product that is much more valued by the end customer.

The above example is exactly what we have going on in public education right now – many good teachers and administrators, teaching in a system that isn't conducive to maximizing the customer's (families and students) value, and a near impossibility of weeding out bad actors. In addition, the system lacks the inherent incentive structure that can be found in every competitive industry that leads to continuous innovation and improvement. And we wonder why the National Association of Educational Progress test scores have remained stagnant for 40+ years?

So I will reiterate it again – I am not against public schools, public school teachers, or public school administrators. But I will fight day in and day out to end the system that they are forced to work in – the system that creates suboptimal outcomes for our children.

Competition. Choice. Freedom. It works in every other industry, and it can work in education too.

The Left: Private monoplies bad, public monopolies good

Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the Daily Kos, one of the most popular left-wing blogs, recently wrote on his blog that if the Senate health care bill is gutted of a public option, but still includes an individual mandate, then it should be “killed.”

Moulitsas stated, “My take is that it’s unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status.”

But wait - Isn't that exactly what we have going on right now with public education? Moulitsas' statement could easily be revised to "It's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a public entity that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status."

Do we have compulsory education laws? Check.

Does the government force citizens to buy a specific product - in this case, public school education? Check.

Does the public education system effectively enjoy a sanctioned monopoly status? Check.

To be sure, some might quibble with that last statement. Certainly people can and do send their children to private schools, if they choose to pay twice for their child's education. But in effect, when the government confiscates your money, and tells you exactly where you must spend it, that effectively creates a monopoly situation.

This all reminds me of one of Tammy Baldwin's e-newsletters from last spring, where she was trumping up her bill which “would repeal the railroads' antiquated antitrust exemptions protecting freight railroads from competition."

Baldwin goes on to state that "This legislation is long overdue and absolutely necessary to begin to end the railroad monopolies that are driving consumer prices up and service down." (Italics mine).

Now, I have no problem w/ Rep. Baldwin's attempt to rein in any private sector monopolies. But I am completely at a loss as to why she and her Democratic colleagues continue to (correctly) assail private sector monopolies, all the while continuing to coddle and fund government run monopolies? If monopolies in the private sector lead to "driving consumer prices up and service down" shouldn't the same be true for public government sanctioned monopolies?

Indeed it is. It is just that the Left in this country continues to refuse to acknowledge it, all at the expense of our children.

The Daily Kos is right about one thing - it is unconscionable.

Obama: Watch what I say, not what I do

The Wall Street Journal noted today that "This week Congress will vote to raise the national debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion, to a total of $14 trillion," going further on to state that the Democratic Congress and President Obama "have increased the budget by 50% and financed the spending with IOUs." And it's important to note that prior Republican leadership performed no better on deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility than the current Democratic leadership.

The article ends with a quote from then Senator Obama, during the 2006 debt-ceiling debate: "Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

I find myself in 100% agreement with Senator Obama on the national debt issue, and 100% in disagreement with President Obama on the same issue. Or, as John Kerry might put it, Obama was for fiscal responsibility before he was against it.

The Great Manufacturing Myth

Quick: What country has the greatest manufacturing output in the world? If you said China, you're certainly not alone. But you are dead wrong. The United States currently accounts for over $1.8 trillion of manufacturing output each year. China, the second ranked country, accounts for $1.1 trillion - almost 40% below U.S. output. Yet if you only listened to news programs and read the papers, you'd think almost all U.S. manufacturing had been moved offshore - mainly to China.

To be sure, China's manufacturing output has increased over 700% since 1990, and shows no signs of slowing down. But U.S. manufacturing output has increased over 75% over that same time period (in current dollars). I think the myth that the majority of U.S. manufacturing has been outsourced to China revolves around the fact that a lot of consumer products actually have been outsourced to China. And frankly, it is the consumer products we buy day in and day out that are most visible to us. You can easily see that "Made in China" label on the back or your hairbrush, or your child's toy, or your new coffee mug. But most consumers don't typically notice the origin of some of the more complex, high-tech, non-consumer products.

In a global economy, free trade will cause jobs to move around from country to country depending on each country's comparative advantages. And quite frankly, that is not a bad thing. But rest assured the manufacturing base in the United States is not only alive and thriving - it is growing.

Payback to Big Labor

In a payback to Big Labor, a bill sponsored by my Democratic opponent is signed into law by Governor Doyle the other day:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/21924605/detail.html

Parents no longer need to worry that their children won't be indoctrinated with "the history of organized labor and collective bargaining" directly by one of organized labor's biggest factions itself. Oh happy day!

Even school boards and administrators disagreed with this move, describing it as a State effort to "micromanage" school curriculum. But what the heck - it's always OK to play politics with our children's education in order to pay back our biggest donors, right?

School Choice continues to the best way to allow parents to have greater say in their children's education, so they don't have to worry about state legislators dictating their child's curriculum.

The Case Against Publicly Financed Universal 4K

Today's Wisconsin State Journal ran a front page article on the possibility of a public school 4K program starting up in Dane County. 76% of other Wisconsin school districts already have such programs in place. But are 4K programs worth the millions of dollars they cost each year? And even if so, is it fair to force public financing for them?

Take me for example. My youngest daughter will be four next year, and she will continue to attend her current preschool, which my wife and I pay for. Why should my neighbor be forced to pay for my child's preschooling, when I am perfectly willing and able to pay for it myself right now? Under a universal 4K program, financial responsibility for preschool would in most cases transfer from financially sound, willing and able parents, to taxpayers. That is just plain wrong.

California's recent "Preschool for All" initiative hoped to achieve a 70% enrollment rate. However, 66% of California's four year olds were already attending preschool. So in order to help get an additional 4% enrollment, the California taxpayer should pick up the tab for every four year old in the state?

But where the 4K argument really starts to lose traction is when you consider that there is no solid evidence suggesting that universal preschool programs lead to long-term improved educational outcomes for children. Sure, gains can be seen in Kindergarten. But preschool effects largely fade away by the fourth grade. Oklahoma students tested above the national average prior to implementation of it's unversal preschool program in 1998. Ten years later, Oklahoma's fourth graders are testing below the national average in reading and math.

To be sure, preschool can have positive effects for children - mainly in the area of socialization. However, socialization can be achieved in myriad ways, and in no way warrants taxpayer financing.

If you're still in doubt, and think universal 4K is the solution to our education ills, ask yourself this: When is the last time you heard someone say, "You know what would solve our education problems? One additional year of unionized public schooling." Given the track record of our public schools over the past forty years, it is completely reasonable to be skeptical that million dollar per year universal 4K programs in Wisconsin will lead to any measurable long-term educational gains for our children. And while preschool can have non-educational positive effects for children, is funding that the taxpayers' responsibility.... or the parents'?

Time to Rein in Massage Therapists?

My opponent - the incumbent - for District 76 is now proposing that we require massage therapists get licensure, rather than simple certification, for their profession.

http://www.fox21online.com/news/plan-would-require-license-wisconsin-massage-therapists

According to the article, Berceau's bill "would require certain training standards for massage therapists and body workers, in addition there'd be a state examining board." Excellent - another "board" for taxpayers to pay for and fund. All in the name of protecting you from your massage therapist.

This is really where the difference between my own view of government, and those of many of our current legistlators (including my opponent), becomes crystal clear. I am for a small, limited government. Most of our current legislators favor a large, bureaucratic, intruding government. I don't believe government needs to protect you from your massage therapist. They do.

Our State Assembly does not need to be wasting valuable time, resources, and hard-earned taxpayer dollars debating and passing such nonsense. The next thing you know we'll be requiring state registration for interior designers! Oops, that's right - we already do.

A physical therapist is quoted in the article warning that "someone can read a book on massage, open a business and provide a massage and consumers don’t know the difference." GASP!!! Well, if the massage stinks they will. And then they will take their future business elsewhere. That's how the free market works. I'm just not seeing a legitimate State interest in making sure I don't suffer the consequences of a bad massage.

But there are some big fans of licensure, surely. Typically they are the people already trained and/or licensed in a field. You see, licensure creates barriers to entry. And barriers to entry restrict supply. And restricted supply leads to higher wages and earnings for the licensed suppliers. ReasonTV has a great video on this.

The article states, "Massage therapists like Ostendorf see another benefit, burnishing their image and weeding out bad actors." But the market can and does already perform these same functions. It's just another example of the ever expanding nature of government. As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Trillion

My 3 year old daughter used the word "trillion" last night. "Did she just say 'trillion'?" I astoundedly asked my wife. Yes, she had. Apparently earlier in the day my little one had asked her mommy what "the biggest number" was, and my wife told her "trillion."

When I was 3, the word "trillion" was not part of the normal vocabulary. When I was just 6, Ronald Reagan spoke eloquently about the word "billion", trying to explain just how big a number that is. Now "billion" is nothing.

So thirty years ago, "trillion" was a number that just never came up in conversations related to government spending. Now "trillion" is simply one Congressional bill. In fact, it's entirely possible that we will have two Congressional bills in this year alone, that both come close to or eclipse the "trillion" dollar absurdity.

Here's to hoping that my grandchildren, or great grandchildren, never have the word "quadrillion" become part of their normal vocabulary.

The Constitution wasn't meant to just be a "suggestion"

Congress continues to run roughshod over the Constitution. I have long argued that the health care reform being considered in Congress is unconstitutional simply because the United States Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate this area of our lives. All Congressional powers are clearly delineated in Article 1, Section 8, and regulating health care is not one of them. The Tenth Amendment further clarifies and enforces that "all powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The current bill being considered in the Senate further ignores Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution which states that "all bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As we all likely know by now, the Senate bill is chock full of new taxes and fees - in other words, it is a bill originating in the Senate that raises revenue.

From the assumption of powers that do not exist, to procedural arrogance, Congress continues to completely ignore the Constitution to which they have all been sworn to uphold.

Health Care Wasted Spending

I read an interesting piece in Forbes tonight about the wasteful spending endemic in our health care system. It only further entrenched in me my already strong belief that as long as consumers continue to have health "insurance" that covers every medical expense, paid for by a third party, with high premiums and low co-pays, we will continue to see this upwards spiral of cost increases.

Procedures, tests, and drugs are all taken and prescribed, even though there may be little to no benefit for the patient. Yet the patient does not have to bear much, if any, of the cost of these activities. There is therefore no incentive not to utilize every available remedy their doctor may be willing to prescribe.

High deductible, low premium, catastrophic loss true health insurance policies, coupled with health savings accounts where the consumer controls the majority of first costs for health care coverage, would eliminate a lot of the waste described below. "Waste" facts highlighted in the article included:

• In 2008, the consultant firm McKinsey found $650 billion in excess medical costs.
• A Dartmouth Medical School study estimates that 20% or more of all health care costs could be eliminated without harming anyone.
• At least 40% of all specialist visits and 25% of all hospital stays are unnecessary.
• We now do 70 million CT scans per year, compared with just 3 million in 1980, all at a cost of $200 or more per scan. The number of scans has doubled in this decade alone (from 35 million to 70 million). Scans are frequently done when not needed, just to be safe, or when other symptoms and factors would otherwise indicate that one is not needed.
• Over the past 5 years, spending on antipsychotic drugs has increased 50%. One doctor states these drugs are prescribed "a little wantonly." Another says their wide use is "one of the reasons we haven't been able to control health care costs" and that the wide use is "without scientific justification."
• Spending on back and neck pain treatments increased 65% (after inflation) between 1997 and 2005, to $86 billion. Yet the Journal of the American Medical Association found no evidence that the increased spending was making people feel any better.
• Surgeries to put in artery-widening stents cost more than $12,000. But studies find many people who get them didn't really need them. Drugs that cost less than $1000 lead to outcomes almost as good as $12,000 stents (only a 1/2 percent difference in the odds of suffering a heart attack using drugs over stents).
• From 1996 to 2006, knee arthroscopy procedures increased over 50%, to 956,000 annually - many to help patients with arhritis of the knee. Yet two vigorous trials show that this $5000 procedure doesn't actually help patients with arthritis of the knee (granted, not all of the yearly arthroscopies performed were solely on patients w/ arthritis). One doctor says "This is one of the most frequently performed procedures in medicine, and we don't know whether it works."

There is much that can be done to help bring down health care costs (and thus insure more people), but clearly one of them is to have a system where patients have more skin in the game, and control the majority of first dollars spent. Only then will consumers begin to ask themselves "Do I really need this?" and in doing so create some cost containment. Until then, as long as a third party is paying, the only words you'll hear will be "Where do I sign?"