Economics trumps rhetoric … always

Lately I have been reading a lot about the proposed "high speed" rail line from Milwaukee to Madison. What has concerned me about the debate on this issue is that I have found many arguments against the train that use facts (as best as we can ascertain), data, economics, and cost-benefit analysis, while most of those arguing for the train have resorted to name calling, rhetoric, and feel-good arguments – completely ignoring any economic rationalization.

One of the main lines of argument from the pro-train crowd I have come across lately is that those of us who are against the train would have been against construction of the $114 billion (almost $500 billion in today's dollars) interstate highway system when construction began nearly sixty years ago. But would we have?

The interstate highway system was constructed without a dime of subsidy, being funded entirely with gas taxes and other highway-user fees. And therein lies the difference: The proposed train is going to require huge subsidies per passenger, with some estimates over $100 per rider. Were I to be convinced that the Madison to Milwaukee train could be financed through fares and user fees, or even mostly through fares and user fees (allowing a small subsidy commensurate with other forms of transporation), I could support it.

But until I see the data that confirms that, I cannot support this endeavor. If those in favor of the train could provide a sound economic analysis in support of it, they would find a very open set of ears and mind in this person. But until then, please stop referring to us as pro-Republican "anti-rail ranters" who would have foolishly been against the building of the interstate highway system sixty years ago. I for one am simply an independent citizen looking for the best ways to invest a finite amount of scarce taxpayer dollars. Period.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics." Twain was ahead of his time – the development of statistics, and our ability to aggregate and analyze data, have come a long way over the past hundred-plus years.

One of my favorite books of all time is "How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff – a classic first published in 1954. In it Huff clearly explains all the different ways one can lie, or at least mislead, with statistics. It is a must read for anyone involved in politics, where statistics are thrown out on just about every issue to justify one position or another.

I am a big fan of charts and find them to be a great way to display data. However, I was recently reminded of one of the main methods of misleading with statistics when I came across this chart just the other day:

This chart, which appeared on the site Downsizing the Federal Government, clearly shows a huge increase in the number of Federal Subsidy programs over the past forty years. Or does it?

The answer is yes, and no. This chart is a perfect example of how to mislead with statistics.

A first glance at this chart would lead one to believe that the number of federal subsidy programs has increased by about a factor of ten over the past forty years. But a closer look shows where the misrepresentation comes from. Take a look at the Y-axis scale. The Y-axis crosses the X-axis at a value of 900. Simply increasing or decreasing that value leads to completely different representations of the data. Consider what happens when we change the value so that the Y-axis crosses at a value of zero, which is more typical:

Same data, but very different visual conclusions. Yes, the chart still clearly and effectively shows that the number of federal subsidies has in fact roughly doubled over forty years (still a great concern), but it no longer appears to show a ten-fold increase, as the previous chart did.

But let's play with the chart a little more. Let's keep the Y-axis crossing at zero, but increase the upper limit from 2500 to 5000. That yields the following chart:

The higher limit smoothes out the increase over time so that it doesn't appear as dramatic. In fact, a first glance at this chart would make one think that, yes, federal subsidy programs have increased over time, but the increase has been fairly slow and gradual – nothing of great concern.

I think these three examples really highlight how simple it is to visually depict different "pictures" of the same data. But just because it is easy to do this doesn't mean you have to mistrust every chart or piece of data you see. For example, I came across the following chart this morning that I think does a fair job of representing the data and the problem without misleading:

This chart clearly shows how public school employment has drastically outpaced enrollment over the past forty years. There has been no monkeying with the axis limits or other portions of the chart to create a misleading pictorial and conclusion about the changes that have occurred over time. The conclusion that one might draw from this chart, which I find valid, is that part of our funding problem in education is that we've drastically grown the size of the employee to student ratio over time. This growth could actually be justified had student achievement also significantly increased over that time period, but unfortunately it has not. And even then, there are more factors at play to consider, such as the make-up of the student body, and other factors affecting outcomes that may have changed over time.

It's wise to always keep these issues in mind when studying policy and looking at statistics. In short, don't believe everything you see, and always take a second look at data and charts to make sure your initial conclusions are valid.

Public policy debates would be much more cordial and trustworthy if those involved would simply remember this: While you can sometimes make a more dramatic statement by tweaking the numbers, the most convincing arguments have always been and always will be those that play it fair. If your case is strong enough, you shouldn't need to create any illusions.

Agreeing with Michelle Obama

Now I just knew that would get your attention! How can a man who so persistently communicates his disagreement towards the President's policies be complimenting Michelle Obama all of a sudden? Well, I'll tell you how.

First and foremost, it's because I don't get personal over politics. I don't "hate" those who typically disagree with me, although I might tremendously disagree with their policy proposals. I don't instinctively attack every statement by my political adversaries simply because they are my adversaries. And when I agree with what someone says, or how they say it, I'm not afraid to endorse that regardless of who said it.

Therefore, when Michelle Obama recently gave a speech asking restaurants to serve healthier foods, my blood pressure didn't boil over as it apparently did for so many other non-Democrats (based on comments I've seen about the story). It appears the first natural reaction of many of those opposed to the President's policies is to attack anything and everything he or his wife say – which to be sure, is sometimes warranted and very easy to do. But not always.

What seems to be lost in the kerfuffle over this issue with her detractors is the following: Michelle Obama asked restaurants to voluntarily change their menu to serve healthier foods. Would that more politicians chose voluntary persuasion over government coercion, the world would be a much better place to live.

At a time when so many of our choices and decisions actually are increasingly being limited via government coercion, it is a breath of fresh air every time I see a key figure using the power of persuasion over the power of coercion in order to achieve a specified end result. So whether you agree with the First Lady's goal or not (and I do), it only seems logical to me to at least approve of her methods in this case. After all, she was just asking restaurants to change their ways, rather than proposing policy to actually force them to do so (which of course has already been known to happen.) The moment she does advocate government policy prescriptions, you will find me first in line to denounce it.

The reason I highlight this story specifically right now is because the use of persuasion over coercion is one of the central tenets of my political philosophy, and thusly I will highlight it and promote it whenever I see it being applied, by friend or foe. It lies at the heart of how I approach all public policy issues.

Therefore, I did not support the state-wide smoking ban that recently went into effect, while I do support persuading smokers to voluntarily quit smoking and persuading restaurant owners to voluntarily disallow smoking by their own choosing.

And while I don't support government dictating what food should be available for us to eat, I do support voluntarily donating a dollar each time I shop at Whole Foods to support their private efforts to get healthy salad bars into school lunch rooms.

While I don't support a state government ban on raw milk sales, I fully support individual and group efforts that try to spread information regarding the risks, or non-risks, of partaking in such activities.

And on the most divisive issue of all, abortion, I have preferred to expend all of my efforts aiding private charities that take in women with unwanted pregnancies, rather than focusing on governmental coercion that is highly unlikely and would have serious unintended consequences if it happened without a necessary change of attitudes and values.

In short, I tend to support voluntary efforts to achieve social goals over government mandated coercion.

In today's society it is frequently not a difference of opinion about the ends to be achieved that creates so much disagreement amongst individuals, but rather the methods used to achieve those ends. Therefore, when a restaurant decides it will no longer use trans-fats in its cooking, no one gets upset. Those who don't like the decision won't eat there anymore. But when the government dictates it to all restaurants through coercion… well, you can be guaranteed there's going to be some angry citizens.

In his essay "Persuasion vs. Force," Mark Skousen states that a "vision of civilized society as the triumph of persuasion over force should become paramount in the mind of all civic-minded individuals and government leaders. It should serve as the guideline for the political ideal." I agree with that philosophy.

Skousen laments politicians who are "too quick to pass another statute or regulation in an effort to suppress the effects of a deep-rooted problem in society rather than seeking to recognize and deal with the real cause of the problem, which may require parents, teachers, pastors, and community leaders to convince people to change their ways." [Italics mine]

Yet it is all too easy to resort to the power of coercion, applied by the only entity with a legal monopoly on the use of physical force: Government. The fact that this coercion rarely solves the root of problems, often leads to unintended consequences, and inevitably fans the flames of division is ignored at our own peril.

I'll conclude with this closing advice from Skousen, which most people likely agree with, but too few actually heed: "You want to persuade people to do the right thing not because they have to, but because they want to … Character and responsibility are built when people voluntarily choose right over wrong, not when they are forced to do so."

This all may seem quite idealistic, and if so, charge me as such. But I find it no more idealistic than the notion that we can somehow achieve the society we want, and the society we long for via laws, regulations, and government coercion. And if you disagree, just try and persuade me otherwise.

Closing the achievement gap (pt. 2)

A friend recently passed a news story my way about a promising new charter school in Madison that hopes to help close the black-white achievement gap in our state. It is exciting to see things like this given that our state currently graduates whites at an 86% clip, but blacks a meager 44% rate (as I reported on last spring). But my excitement is necessarily tempered a bit by the finer points embedded in the article.

Consider this:

"[Cole] and other [school] board members are keenly aware that there's little money these days for much experimentation."

Uh-huh. Might this be because we're spending so much money on the failed status-quo? With a 44% black graduation rate, we've been doing so well under the current system, we've got to be careful about diverting funds from it to newer, fresher, and promising ideas, right? Wrong – it's exactly what's needed.

And here's the real kicker for me:

"Another unknown at this stage of the game is how ... Madison Teachers Inc. would work through what could be thorny issues regarding the flexible, demanding teaching hours that Caire sees as critical to the school's success."

Seriously? At what point do we begin viewing our education system as an education system for children, rather than as a jobs program for teachers? I would say that point is the point at which we realize our current system is leaving 56% of minority students behind. MTI of course will feel differently, and blame everything on lack of funding, even though we're spending twice as much per pupil in real inflation adjusted dollars now as we did in 1970, with no measurable increase in student achievement.

We have great teachers throughout the state, and surely a large part of our educational woes can be attributed to uninvolved parents, but allowing the teacher unions to dictate the structure of the system as it works best for them, rather than how it works best for children, is a grave injustice to the students and parents who ultimately fund our schools. MTI should have no say in whether this school gets up and running or not. The fact that they do have a say, or at least influence, is indicative of the structural problems hampering our current system, preventing us from fully exploring any and all possibilities for improving achievement.

Madison Prep may ultimately be approved, and I hope so. But a look at the bureaucratic obstacles that still stand in the way of such promising endeavors shows how far we have yet to go to improve our system. Most parents want our education system to be flexible, innovative, and responsive. Operating the system as a bureaucratic government run monopoly is the absolute worst way to try and achieve that.

Mayor Dave is wrong on the facts

Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz argued recently in his blog for more federal stimulus spending. According to the Mayor, "We risk a plunge back into deep recession or worse if our federal government doesn't inject another shot of stimulus into our still anemic economic body."

He goes on further to state that "Most economists seem to be on the side of more stimulus spending," and that "I side with the economists."

The Mayor doesn't cite his source for the claim that "most economists" support more stimulus spending. Surely the source wasn't CNN which ran this headline in April: "Economists: The stimulus didn't help." That article claims that 73% of private sector economists surveyed said that the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had "no impact" on employment at their companies.

And certainly it wasn't MSNBC which ran the headline last December declaring "Economists see no need for more stimulus," according to "the majority of economists surveyed."

It couldn't have been the Wall Street Journal, which over a year ago was already running headlines such as this: "Few economists favor more stimulus." Forty-three out of fifty-one economists in that survey were against another stimulus package.

And it couldn't have been based on this anti-stimulus ad which ran in newspapers early last year, and to which 250 economists signed onto (including four Nobel laureates).

Which begs the question: Where is the Mayor getting his data from? The mayor claims that it is "only political types" who are arguing against more stimulus, while most economists support increased stimulus. In fact the Mayor has it exactly backwards, and he himself is a case in point: It is the "political types" who are arguing for more stimulus, with the majority of economists holding the opposing viewpoint. This irony would be humorous were not the ramifications so serious.

But the Mayor is very clear about the real reason he supports more stimulus: Because "it is good for local governments" and "will help us do even more infrastructure projects." Bingo.

Don't get me wrong – I am all for government investing in necessary and smart infrastructure projects. But government also needs to prioritize, spend wisely and within its means, and make changes to non-essential budgets to free up money for essential services. The Mayor, it seems, simply wants a federal bailout for local government to preclude the need for making tough necessary decisions – the same decisions that most families and businesses have had to make throughout this recession.

Mayor Dave believes the federal bailout is "good for taxpayers" because it will help keep property taxes down. But is anyone really buying the Mayor's free-lunch theory? Where does the Mayor think federal money comes from, or who will need to pay it back after it is borrowed? The taxpayers of course! But it sure does make the Mayor look better if he can keep property taxes unchanged here, and instead have taxpayers pay the federal government for local government services. The Mayor hopes that such a delinking of service provision from payment will keep taxpayers from noticing that they are still ultimately paying the bill.

Will Madison voters be buying the Mayor's un-cited claims and free-lunch theories when he comes up for re-election next year? I'm not sure, but I'll bet you one thing: The majority of economists won't be.

Independence Day history lesson (six-year old version)

As I tucked her into bed – for the second time, mind you – Stella asked, "What is the Fourth of July for? I mean, on Easter we celebrate Jesus' death, and on Christmas we celebrate Jesus' birth. On Father's day and Mother's day we celebrate... well, everyone knows what that's for. But what is the Fourth of July for?"

And then it occurred to me: I had not discussed this with her yet. An eminently important holiday in our nation's history, one that has utmost meaning and importance for me personally, and I had failed to begin the process of educating her.

Now, asking me what the Fourth of July celebrates is like asking a die-hard Packer fan to explain who Vince Lombardi was. But it was already after 9:00, and chances are I would lose her if I didn't keep it short and sweet, so that's what I did.

I talked to her about Great Britain and tyrannical government, utilizing euphemisms as necessary.

"You don't like it when people tell you what to do, right?" I asked her. "No," came the prompt reply. "Well neither did many of the British people like their government telling them what to do" I explained to her. This would have to suffice for a six-year old, two-hour past bedtime explanation of "tyranny."

"What's government?" she asked. After a short pause, I opted for the simple explanation over the one I give like-minded friends over a few beers at the weekend barbecue. "Government is the group of people who make all the laws and rules we have to follow," I told her, gritting my teeth. "Working in government is what Daddy is running for right now."

I told her how some of the British came over to America to start new lives, but that the British government still continued to "tell them what to do." So they decided to form their own nation and government, and they wrote a letter called "The Declaration of Independence" explaining to the British government what they were doing and why.

"And that is what we celebrate today – Freedom. Freedom to be who we want to be and do what we want to do. The freedom to live our lives by our own values."

My summation filled my heart with that feeling one can only feel when talking about something they hold so dearly.

But was my daughter feeling the same way? Did she understand what I was saying? She must be, I thought – she's a smart girl. Like father like daughter, right?

A moment later I got my answer: "But will the fireworks keep me awake all night?" she queried.

Alas, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. But let's face it; she is, after all, only six. And the fact is, she (sadly) now knows more about the history behind the holiday than many adult citizens. I had done my fatherly duty, and I had taught. It's a lesson I shall teach again – and again, and again, and again.

It's a lesson that is not taught often enough these days – in our schools, in our homes, or in our government. Fireworks are pretty, and a day off of work is nice. But that only lasts a day, a weekend at most. Freedom lasts a lifetime, even generations – if we have the courage and wisdom to retain it.

What Toyotas can teach us about public education

Imagine this: The government institutes a new program whereby it will begin confiscating money from citizens via taxation in order to help them buy a car the next time they need one. The car will be "free" but you have to take whatever the government determines is best for you. And right now that car is a Toyota.

"But wait," you say. "Aren't Toyota's having all those accelerator problems right now? I don't want a Toyota right now." Well… yes, but too bad. A Toyota is what you get, accelerator problems or not. Or you could buy the car of your choice – that is permitted – but you are not able to get the money back that the government already taxed away from you for that Toyota.

Fair? Of course not. No American would stand for it. Except that actually we do – every day in fact. We accept this exact same process when it comes to one of the most important aspects of our lives: The education of our children.

The Wisconsin State Journal reported today that statewide 145 schools missed one or more "adequate yearly progress targets" with regards to the federal "No Child Left Behind" law. In other words, they have "accelerator problems." Now, I'm no fan of NCLB for several reasons, but that's not the point of this post, so I won't digress. But the fact remains: Many Wisconsin schools are under-performing.

So what is a parent to do? It's fair to point out that under the state's open enrollment law, parents can choose another public school in another district, space permitting. Some local districts will even allow you to enroll in another school within your same district – again, space permitting. But this is like saying you can get the Corolla if you don't like the Camry. Either way, it's still a Toyota.

It baffles me that state lawmakers and school boards recognize and accept the fact that it may be in a student's best interest to enroll in a school other than his or her assigned neighborhood school, yet on the other hand continue to restrict that student's options. Private schools are off limits, and charters are frequently stymied or have wait lists. Indeed, monopolies rarely like to relinquish control, because with control comes money.

Americans know that it would be unfair to dictate to consumers what brand of car they must purchase. More importantly, they realize that the service levels provided would inevitably deteriorate from any company that was granted such a monopoly, while prices would skyrocket.

It's only a matter of time before they realize that this same logic applies to far more important concern of educating children.

While you were sleeping

Sometime while we were all sleeping last night, the U.S. National Debt quietly surpassed the $13 trillion mark. That's over $42,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. $42,000 is your personal share of that debt.

Unfortunately, that is not the worst part. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that under current Democratic policy proposals and projections, we are on pace to borrow $1 trillion each year over the next decade. That means we will be borrowing more over the next ten years than we borrowed cumulatively from the years 1776 through 2000, our country's first 224 years of existence.

Since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, the national debt has increased by more than $3.5 trillion, a 35% increase in just four years. And this despite the following promise from Nancy Pelosi in her January 2007 acceptance speech to become Speaker of the House for the new Democratic majority:

"After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

Since she made this statement, what have we witnessed? New deficit spending. Mountains of debt for future generations. I don't know that it would be possible to find a more fitting example of hypocrisy and broken promises than this.

The sad thing is, the state of affairs was no better under Republican rule or Republican leadership. President Bush presided over a more than $2.5 trillion increase in the national debt during his eight years in office. The only thing that makes him look frugal is the fact that his successor eclipsed that mark in just his first two years in office.

Many have asked me why I am running as an Independent. To answer that simply, all I can say is I'd rather say what I mean and follow through on it, than tie my fate to any party that says what voters want to hear, and then spends recklessly. And this latter group includes both of our major political parties. We need more people loyal to doing what is right, rather than simply being loyal to a party.

Now you'll have to excuse me as I get back to work – I've got a $42,000 debt to pay off.

Somewhere between “hell” and average

As the end of the school year quickly approaches, our children will soon be bringing home their final report cards of the year. Now imagine your child comes home and presents you with a report card full of C's straight across the board. I would suspect you would smile, pat him or her on the back, and say "Great job kiddo. Middle of the pack. Nothing wrong with that! Now go on out and play and have some fun…"

Oh – I'm sorry. You say you wouldn't?

Neither would I. So why are we so apt to do it in other areas of our lives?

Lately I have been reading a lot about our state's financial situation, specifically with regards to overall government spending and tax burden. Now there are as many ways to slice and dice state spending and tax data as there earmarks in the current state budget, so getting a good read on the overall picture and its implications for future policy is somewhat nebulous. In addition, as Mark Twain pointed out so eloquently over one hundred years ago: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

In delving into the data, and articles summarizing the data, one finds arguments ranging from Wisconsin being a "tax hell" to Wisconsin as a middle-of-the-pack average state. But what you don't find are arguments for Wisconsin being in the upper echelon of fiscal responsibility – or even close to it. That's an important point.

I'm a fan of statistics, and have readily reported some that I feel show we're on the wrong path and that we need to scale back the size and scope of state government. Those who disagree with me may point to other statistics that show things may not be as bad as the rest of us might think, and our state is about average in terms of spending and tax burden. And the reality is… we're both right to a certain degree, depending on which stats you want to focus on.

But just to clarify, so that we can correctly frame the debate going forward: The debate is now over Wisconsin government spending and taxes being somewhere between "hell" and "average." Are we really comfortable with that?

Most parents won't accept "average" when it comes to their children, yet so many of us continue to accept "average" (or worse) from our state legislators.

I don't know why this is, but it needs to change if we are to show real material progress as a state. We don't accept excuses defending mediocrity from our children, and we certainly shouldn't accept them from our state government and other defenders of the status quo.

We can do much than somewhere between Hell and Average. Our children's future depends on it.

What pencils can teach us about health care

I have not yet heard the comparison made between health care markets and the production of pencils, and surely I don't expect it any time soon. Yet I will argue this comparison is not only valid, but is essentially critical at this current point in time. Before you disregard me as crazy, off-base, or otherwise misguided, please – allow me to explain.

Two years ago President Obama's nominee to serve as the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Donald Berwick, made the following statement regarding health care in an article in the British Medical Journal:

"Please don't put your faith in market forces – It's a popular idea: that Adam Smith's invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers' choosing among an array of products, with competitors' fighting it out, leads to the healthcare system you want and need."

Furthermore, at a speech delivered in Wembley, England that same year, Berwick also said the following:

"I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do."

According to Berwick, any health care system is immensely so complex that it must necessarily involve a vast bureaucracy of government officials to plan, coordinate, and deliver health care services to consumers.

But here's the deal: Berwick has it exactly backwards. It is precisely because health care markets are so complex that it necessarily requires the absence of central planning in order to efficiently and effectively deliver service to consumers.

Which brings me to the pencil. Over fifty years ago, Leonard Read published his thought-provoking essay, "I, Pencil." If you have never read it, I would strongly urge you to take the ten minutes to do so.

At the beginning of his essay, Read states his purpose:

"I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile, or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because – well, because I am so seemingly simple. Yet not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me."

Read points out that while "millions of human beings have had a hand in my creation," that "there is a fact still more astounding: The absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being… Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work."

And this is where Read, and current bureaucrats and politicians like Berwick, are completely at odds with one another. But I ask you: Read what Leonard Read has written. Read further about what Donald Berwick has written and said. Make your own conclusions. Are you in agreement with Berwick that "leaders with plans" can do a better job of coordinating products, care, and delivery, at the right time, to the right place, in the right quantities at the lowest possible cost? Or are you in agreement with Read that the best way to achieve this is through "the configuration of creative human energies.. configuring naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and… in the absence of governmental or any other coercive masterminding"?

Health care markets are immensely more complex than the production of pencils. Yet Read successfully shows how trying to centrally plan the manufacture and distribution of even simple pencils is essentially futile. And if it can't be done for the simple pencil, how could it possibly be successfully done in health care?

A simple pencil – but a profound lesson: "If you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing."

The “war on drugs” in action

I'm afraid I'm going to ruffle some feathers with this one, getting some significant agreement and disagreement from various folks, but this needs to be seen. But first a warning: This video contains graphic and objectionable content and material, as well as foul language. Do not watch it if you are not comfortable with that.

I certainly don't advocate smoking marijuana – especially when one has children to care for. But I also don't advocate having SWAT teams storm residential houses terrorizing the family inside, firing shots, and killing the family dog simply because the father has a little bit of pot on hand – a drug 42% of Americans have tried.

Agree with me or disagree with me, these are the facts: This is what the war on drugs looks like, and you need to be aware of it.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/05/video-of-swat-raid-on-missouri

Is $12,000 enough?

"You hear a lot of stuff about how we need to run the district more like a business, but the school district doesn't sell a product for a profit. We rely on government money."

Toledo school board President Bob Vasquez, after voters overwhelmingly repudiated a tax hike to maintain funding to the city's public schools

Sit and think about that quote for a minute. Certainly, public schools are not run like businesses. But, ask yourself this: What if they were?

• What if schools had to please parents in order to stay in business?
  
• What if schools had to properly educate kids, and show progress over time, or risk going out of business?
  
• What if schools were forced, like any business, to run efficiently and maintain a cost structure that is sustainable?
  

In short, what if all public schools had to behave more like most private and many charter schools do already? Would these be bad things? Certainly not, in my book. But if you're still uncertain, let's turn the tables.

Take your local grocery store. What if grocery stores were run by the government and funded by taxes? In this scenario, would you expect to see better service from the government grocer than you get from your local for-profit grocer, or worse? More importantly, would you expect to see lower prices from your government grocer, or higher? Would the store hours be more consumer-friendly or less?

Most of us realize turning over our grocery stores to the government would not be a good thing. So why do we accept it for the far more important job of educating our children?

We need to realize that government funded does not have to mean government run. After all, that's how the food stamp program works. In essence, food stamps are a "voucher" that poor people can use to buy groceries at the store of their choice. Yet when it comes to the more important matter of educating their children, politicians refuse to give these same parents vouchers to select the best school for their child. Where is the common sense?

It seems to me the best way to improve our education system would be if they were actually run like businesses – or at least non-profits that couldn't use state coercion to raise ever increasing amounts of money. In fact, most private schools are run as cost-efficient non-profit businesses, knowing full well that they need to sell a product at a reasonable price that satisfies the consumer in order to stay a viable concern.

Toledo voters feel the $12,000 they spend per student each year should be enough to ensure a high quality education. And given the right education structure, laden with choice and competition, it certainly should be. But until politicians get the courage to change the system, our only choices will continue to be more and more spending, or unfortunate cuts for students. It is time to change the system.

Stop the insanity

Back in September of last year, Forbes ranked Wisconsin as the third worst state for business. Given that, yesterday's news that Harley Davidson may consider leaving the state as it searches to lower manufacturing costs by $54 million should come as no surprise.

What is more surprising – and upsetting – is the fact that as of February, Wisconsin now has more government jobs than manufacturing jobs. Year-over-year government employment has increased a half percent (due to increases at the local government level), while manufacturing employment has decreased 6%. (State government employment dropped 4%).

Of course shrinkage in employment in manufacturing, or any private sector industry, is what one would expect during a recession like the one we are experiencing. What puzzles me is the growth of government over that same time period. It appears that in good times, government grows, and in bad times, government still grows – only more slowly.

The reason this is important is because all government wages are paid for out of private sector wages, via taxation. While government employment grew by 1800 jobs over the past year in Wisconsin, private sector jobs fell by 75,000. Thus, we have fewer private sector workers supporting more government workers. And people working and earning in the private sector are the only resource that government has. Because of that, this is not sustainable.

Exacerbating this is the fact that government jobs are more costly than private sector jobs, mainly due to unionization. While the unionization rate in the private sector has fallen from 30% in 1965 to just 7% today, 39% of state and local government workers are currently unionized. The high wages and generous benefits packages that public sector unions negotiate for their members are paid for by taxpayers.

Now, I'm all for workers lobbying and fighting for the best pay they can get in a competitive environment. But have you ever stopped to think about why the unionization rate is so much lower in the private sector than in the public sector? The simple answer is "competition." Private sector businesses are subject to competition, and don't have the luxury of forcibly taking more money from their customer base in order to fund unsustainable cost structures. In contrast, government has no competition. Which DMV are you going to choose? That's right – the only one there is.

It is important to remember that every dollar that is taken out of the private sector in order to fund government leaves one less dollar in the private sector to invest in creating new jobs and increased wealth. No matter how important or vital some of the things government does for us (police protection, transportation infrastructure, etc.), government does not create wealth. But government can help create a positive environment for the private sector to do just that.

Would that our State Legislature was actually doing that, I would not be writing this right now. Unfortunately that is not the case. Wisconsin is projected to have a $2 billion budget deficit next year. Given the past, we know that the likely response of our current state and local legislators will be to increase the size of government, and add more regulations and taxes making it harder for Wisconsin businesses to grow and expand, and harder for hard-working taxpayers to keep their own money.

Don't get me wrong – I am not for coddling businesses. I am not for giving businesses special deals to "buy them off" and induce them to stay in our state. What I am for is creating an environment that allows businesses to operate free of the costly regulations and taxes that drive up the cost of doing business and hiring workers.

We simply can't continue milking taxpayers and businesses in order to fund an ever growing government. This year the federal budget deficit alone is projected to be more than the entire federal budget was in just 1995. This isn't just a state or local problem – it is a national problem. The way out of the woods doesn't rest with Democrats. It doesn't rest with Republicans. And it certainly doesn't rest with career politicians of any political persuasion. It is going to require electing common sense citizens with a strong adherence to the principles of limited government, who are willing to make the necessary difficult choices.

Until we do that, we'll simply continue reaffirming the oft-stated definition of "insanity": Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Let's stop the insanity.

Obama’s “Read my lips” moment

As I have heard conservative pundits over the past several weeks insisting that a VAT tax was all but a sure thing in the very near future, I generally tossed it off as an effort to simply rile up their base. Then I see this headline yesterday:

"Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option"

Oops.

Those of us who follow politics closely can't help but recall then-candidate Obama's oft repeated promise to not raise any taxes on those making under $250,000. A VAT tax – which is assessed on goods at each step of the way as they move through the production and distribution system to the retailer – would ultimately raise the price of goods to consumers as the tax is built into the price. Surely, if enacted, this would qualify as a serious and material broken campaign promise then, right?

But then I see this comment by the president from his weekly radio address on April 10th:

"And one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000. That's another promise we've kept." [Italics mine]

It is clear what is happening here. The federal government has once again passed a massive entitlement program which we cannot afford, but was sold to the public as a fully funded deficit reduction package. Most people believe that in reality additional funding sources are going to be needed in the form of increased taxation. So the President is slowly and retroactively modifying his prior campaign promise in order to open the door to a potential VAT tax.

This largely helps explain why a recent Rasmussen Poll found that only 8% of Americans expect a tax cut under President Obama, even though the President campaigned on a promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

The President also recently said that we need to determine "the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that." I couldn't agree more. I'll refer the President to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which spells out clearly the seventeen enumerated powers of Congress, and Article II, Section 2 which spells out the powers of the Executive Branch. This – and only this – is what the Federal government has the power to do. The Tenth Amendment leaves all other powers to the state governments and to the people.

I'm no fool. I realize pretty much all politicians lie and break promises. But that doesn't mean we don't call them out on it when it happens - or when we suspect they might be laying the groundwork to make it happen, as in this case. And it also justifies many Americans' rational suspicion towards the massive "reform" packages politicians of all stripes have been trying to sell to the American people lately. Most of the time the bill-of-goods being sold is not quite exactly what it is purported to be.

Will this be President Obama's "read my lips" moment? Will he really push for a tax that the Senate just voted 85-13 to declare it as a "massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income"? Or will he live up to his campaign pledge to not harm the middle class with any tax increases?

One can hope. Unfortunately it was also "Hope" that got us to this point in the first place.

Tax stats

Given that today is tax day, I thought I'd have a little fun with some random tax statistics, juxtaposed against some other random stats. Here you go:

• $27.7 billion ….. amount spent by Americans to prepare their taxes this year – enough dollar bills to circle the world 105 times if laid end to end

• 3.7 million ..… number of words in the Federal tax code

• 788,000 ….. number of words in the Bible
  

  
  

• 63 ….. number of pages my tax filings were this year
  

  
  

• 127 ….. the number of years the Federal government was able to function WITHOUT a Federal income tax
  

  
  

• 1913 ….. the year the 16^th Amendment was added to the Constitution, authorizing the Federal income tax
  

  
  

• 1% ….. the percentage of the population that was required to pay Federal income taxes after the 16^th Amendment and associated tax laws were passed
  

  
  

• 53% ….. the percentage of the population that currently pays a Federal income tax
  

  
  

• 400 ….. the number of pages in the Federal tax code in 1913
  

  
  

• 68,000 ….. the number of pages currently in the Federal tax code
  

  
  

• 600 ….. the number of pages in a 1945 Boeing B-17 Bomber design spec manual
  

  
  

• 40% ….. the percentage of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of earners
  

  
  

• 66% ….. the percentage of Americans who say we're overtaxed
  

  
  

• 81% ….. the percentage of Mainstream Americans voters who say we're overtaxed
  

  
  

• 74% ….. the percentage of those in the Political Class who disagree with the above 81%
  

  
  

• 95% ….. percent of Americans President Obama said would get a tax cut under his Administration
  

  
  

• 8% ….. the percent of Americans who think their taxes actually WILL be cut during President Obama's term
  

  
  

• 46% ….. percentage of Americans who currently expect a tax hike under President Obama
  

  
  

• 115,000 ….. the number of people employed by the IRS
  

  
  

• $10.7 billion ….. the expense budget of the IRS in 2007
  

  
  

• 6 ….. the number of days the average American has worked so far this year accumulating disposable personal income for themselves and their family. The first 99 days were for the government.

Tax Freedom Day was April 9^th this year.

Closing the achievement gap

Wisconsin boasts one of the highest high school graduation rates in the nation. But does that mean we should just sit back and breathe a collective sigh of relief, and pat ourselves on the back? No, it surely does not.

Consider this: The graduation rate for white students in our state is 86%. But the graduation rate for African Americans is only 44%, and for Hispanics only 48%. This incredible achievement gap is hardly anything to be proud of.

Data shows that Wisconsin citizens who drop out of high school are significantly more likely to be unemployed, need government assistance (Medicaid, etc.), and be incarcerated. In addition, high school dropouts earn on average $10,000 less per year than high school graduates. None of this is shocking – it all makes intuitive sense.

While this achievement gap results in very negative effects for the dropouts themselves, it also has significant negative financial implications for our state, mostly in the form of lower tax revenues and greater social costs, particularly pertaining to health care and incarceration. One study estimates that high school dropouts cost our state almost $400 million each year.

It is clear that increasing high school graduation rates, and closing the achievement gap, would be beneficial not just for the dropouts themselves, but for all Wisconsin citizens. So how do we do that?

We need to reform our education system by adding the elements of choice and competition to what right now is basically a state run monopoly. And we all know what type of results monopolies typically produce - mediocre. Choice and competition leads to better products, better service, and better outcomes, all at lower prices, in every other industry. It's time to utilize the power of the marketplace to improve our public education system.

The fact of the matter is, a lack of choice and competition in education hurts low income and minority families the most, because it is in the less wealthy school districts where we typically find the most problematic schools. To be sure, there are multiple reasons for that. But one thing we do know is that evidence shows that adding choice and competition, particularly in poorer and heavily minority districts, leads to better educational outcomes.

Take Milwaukee for instance, where a recent study just showed that students receiving vouchers in the twenty-year-old Milwaukee school choice program are graduating at a 77% rate, compared to a 65% rate for Milwaukee public school students. If over the past six years public school graduation rates had matched the rate for voucher students, an additional 3,352 students would have graduated, annually adding an additional $21.2 million in personal income for those students, and $3.6 million in extra tax revenue for the state.

And yet the state continues to cap enrollment in this successful program.

Other studies that look at voucher programs across the nation frequently show the strongest statistically significant gains occurring for minority students, particularly African Americans and Hispanics. It is no wonder then that some of the strongest supporters of vouchers are minority parents.

Private and charter schools across the nation have frequently shown successful models for educating our most vulnerable children. One need only look at American Indian Charter School in Oakland, CA, or the KIPP Schools, or the Edward Brooke Charter School in inner city Boston (which boasts some of the highest test scores in the city), the D.C. Voucher Program, or any multitude of religious and other private schools that typically spend less per student than the local public schools, but achieve better results. The reason they are able to do this? They are free of so many of the shackles, rules, and restrictions that stifle our public schools and prevent them from innovating. That and the fact that they have to compete for students, please parents, and produce results - or risk going out of business.

So here we have a problem – a great achievement gap between white and minority students – and we have proven techniques for closing that gap in charters and vouchers. Yet our state legislators continue to defend the status quo, protecting special interests within the education establishment at the expense of our children – particularly our most vulnerable children.

How long before we stand up and say "Enough is enough!"? Choice and competition in education is good for our state and our economy. But more importantly, it is great for our children.

Springtime

Ah, springtime: Trees budding on the tips of branches. Flowers poking their small green stems out of the ground. Birds chirping happily in the sunlit morning. Trash littering the side of the highway. Oh the trash.

If you've lived in Wisconsin long enough, you're aware of the embarrassing and disgusting sight that adorns our highways each spring after the snow melts. The trash that has built up all winter long, hidden by the beautiful fresh fallen snow, is finally exposed and displayed for all to see. It's not pretty.

In a way, it is quite indicative of the political landscape right now too. Politicians are the kings and queens of snow jobs. Politicians will invariably tell us that their intentions are as pure as the wind driven snow. But whether that be the case or not, often lurking beneath the snow is a lot of trash.

Nancy Pelosi recently said of the health care bill that "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it." Both sides of this issue have been laying on the snow thick for over a year now. Does anyone really doubt what's under it? Take a drive on the highway and you'll get a hint.

Some will say, "Sure it's a flawed bill, but we'll fix it after it's passed," just as the motorist who throws his garbage out the window says "Someone will clean that up in the spring." In addition, both sides have proven that facts frequently get buried along with the trash.

Politicians do a great job of keeping the snow falling, and keeping the trash hidden. Maybe that's why the President is still out there campaigning for the bill even after stating that, "Everything there is to say about health care has been said." Then why is he still crossing the country talking about it? Best not put your skis away for the season just yet.

I know good and decent people can and do disagree on the health care issue – I have wonderful friends on both sides. But I think one thing we can all agree on is that we've certainly experienced a horrendous blizzard from both sides this past year. And political blizzards are usually created to hide one thing, and one thing only: Trash.

It's time for American citizens to elect true public servants that will bring the heat to melt the snow, expose the garbage, and clean it up. Just as we experience each spring, the clean-up job won't be easy. And we'll certainly be fighting an uphill battle against the career politicians who littered the landscape in the first place. But there is only one way back to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" – and that is for the people to take back the government.

Happy Spring to everyone. Now let's get to work on that garbage.

“Right track, wrong track” and what it tells us

Rasmussen Reports' recent "Right Track, Wrong Track" poll shows that just 25% of Americans believe the country is on the "right track." While I happen to be in the majority opinion here, I sometimes wonder about how to interpret results like this.

Upon seeing such low poll numbers, one might conclude that the vast majority of Americans are against President Obama's agenda. But is that really the case? Consider the following four individuals:

Jane is a strong Democrat and an Obama supporter. She voted for Obama and very much wants health care reform to pass. However, she is increasingly disgusted that her own party, with its majorities in Congress and the Presidency, cannot get this bill signed into law. In addition, she is irritated at what she calls "the obstructionist Republicans" who are making it harder to get anything done. Jane thinks we are on the wrong track.

Steve is a life-long Republican and is against almost everything on the President's and Congress' agenda. He sees them as trying to socialize medicine and cripple the economy through cap-and-trade environmental legislation. Accordingly, Steve thinks we are on the wrong track.

Mary is an Independent. She doesn't pay much attention to politics, but when she does all she sees is bickering, finger-pointing, and politicians handing out favors to special interests. In fact, that is why she doesn't pay much attention – it's just too damn depressing. She thinks the government needs to take some action to fix some problems, but isn't sure what should be done. But one thing she does know is that our current politicians are unlikely to be able to work together to figure out a solution. Mary thinks we are on the wrong track.

Torrey is a Libertarian, and is completely disgusted at the growth of government under both Republican and Democratic leadership. He sees glimmers of common ground on some issues in either party, but largely views them both as Big Government adherents, limiting individual liberty, and straying from the small, limited government dictated in the Constitution. Torrey thinks we are on the wrong track.

Ok, so here I describe four fictional people (well, three fictional and one real), all who feel the country is on the wrong track, but for potentially very different reasons. It is because of this that I just don't know what to read into a dismal poll number like this.

I guess the only thing one can read into it with any confidence is that the American people simply don't believe the government is on the right track to solve the myriad problems we're presented with these days. There may be many differences of opinion within this "wrong track" group as to what the best course of action forward is, but overall these people just don't have confidence that the government can "get it done" on major issues.

Which is my point exactly. Strong centralized government has never been good at solving problems. The great libertarian economist Milton Friedman once said:

"The great advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science or literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government."

And I assure you, the next great advances, whether they be in health care, poverty reduction, education, or anything else, will also not come from centralized government. Those things will come from free individuals working together, charitably and with a great sense of personal responsibility, free of government interference. Government can get in the way – and it often does. Government can come to the table with the best of intentions – and it often does. But government, by its nature, simply cannot efficiently and effectively solve these problems – and it often doesn't.

Luckily, a free society can - or at least has the best chance. My hopes will always rest on a free, responsible, and charitable society, protected by a small and limited constitutional government.

An open letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama,

Today, on the anniversary of your much hyped "Stimulus Package", your 'Organizing for America" campaign at barackobama.com sent me an email titled "Have You Seen This?" with the following graphic highlighted in it:

US JOB LOSS BY MONTH (DEC 2007 to JAN 2010)

This appears to be your attempt to prove to Americans that your Stimulus is working as intended. However, while the graphic does indeed look impressive, astute readers will still note that what you are actually tracking here are continued job losses. Your chart shows continued job losses month to month, albeit at a declining rate.

If one were to look at the same data in another way – say, the national unemployment rate – they would see a graphic that does not look so impressive. This graphic shows that rate continuing to increase since you took office, and since your Stimulus was passed:

Like I said – not so impressive. Especially in light of your estimation that the Stimulus would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%. You are correct in that the rate of job losses has been declining, and that is good. But you would be incorrect to conclude that it must be due to your Stimulus. Anyone with a decent understanding of economics knows that this is the natural course for unemployment this deep into a recession - without any government "stimulus."

But I do agree with you – a picture is worth a thousand words. So since your team started this process with an email to millions of your supporters today with the headline "Have You Seen This?", please allow me to continue in that vein.

President Obama, I ask you, have you seen THIS:

As I had already stated, it was your administration's estimation that the $787 billion Stimulus Package would help keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%. The above graphic shows your administration's estimates of unemployment with and without the Stimulus, along with what we have actually observed. Hardly the compelling "success story" you are spinning it as.

President Obama, have you seen THIS:

Your administration has already increased the national debt by $2 trillion. That's over $6000 for every man, woman, and child in this country – in only your first year. The situation is forecasted to get much worse under your current proposals.

President Obama, have you seen THIS:

I realize the monetary base is not something most people keep tabs on. In simple terms, it tracks the amount of money in circulation. The Fed has pumped an enormous amount of money into our economy, more than doubling the monetary base. Long term this can lead to high inflation, a devaluing of our currency, and possibly another bubble boom-bust cycle.

President Obama, have you seen THIS:

Who you choose to be in your Cabinet is your prerogative, and I respect that. But when your administration is intervening in the private sector economy at unprecedented levels, and you are setting and changing the rules for millions of companies nationwide, I assume you understand why those of us actually in the private sector are just a tad bit nervous.

And finally, President Obama have you seen THIS:

These are my two precious daughters, who mean more to me than anything in the world. You are racking up debt that they will someday need to repay. They have not asked for this, nor do they deserve it. They are still 20 years away from their first jobs, and I fear the tax rates they will have to pay in order to fund today's excesses will be unconscionably burdensome.

If you are going to spend with wild abandon, raise taxes now. Yes, that's right, raise them now. Let the American citizens truly see and experience the effects of your policies, rather than putting them off to a future date, and onto our children. I think what you will find is that the American people have very little taste for those effects. I suppose that is why you are putting off the day of reckoning, all the while spinning your policies as a "success."

President Obama, you truly inherited a mess. Neither your predecessor nor the Republican Congress were any better at controlling runaway spending than you and the Democratic Congress are proving to be. I carry no torch for George W. Bush, nor the Republican or Democratic parties. Instead, I carry a torch for Liberty - for small, limited, Constitutional government. Which, I might add, is the same thing you swore to do on a cold day in January 2009 – to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

As a citizen, and on behalf of my children, I implore you to do just that.

Sincerely,

Torrey Jaeckle

Power corrupts, not money

Much has been written and spoken throughout the media these past few days lamenting the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money in exercising their right to free speech. The vast majority of those criticisms have focused exclusively on the effects of the decision, frequently mentioning that it is "bad for democracy."

However, the Supreme Court's duty is to rule on the Constitutionality of a case, not on which outcome the public (or President) deems "best" or most pleasing. I applaud the Court for doing just that.

People may have opinions about how good or bad the effects of the ruling will be for the nation's electoral system, but until they can show how the Supreme Court's ruling was not in line with the Constitution, their arguments hold no water.

Last night the President called out the Supreme Court in his SOTU address – a move which I found in poor taste. Once again, we had another member of government opposing the ruling based solely on the grounds of its alleged effects. A Constitutional scholar such as President Obama should know the Supreme Court's sole duty of interpreting the Constitution, not making law based on desired outcomes.

Worse yet, the President stated that the ruling "will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections." Again, even if that were the case, the President has made no attempt to show that that Court's ruling was not in line with the Constitution, that the First Amendment would have been better protected by a different ruling. But as it turns out, the President was wrong on that assertion anyway. Justice Alito justifiably was miffed at the President's lack of understanding of the case, and the effects of the ruling.

The few critics who actually do try to attack the Court's ruling on Constitutional grounds seem to take issue with the treatment of corporations as "citizens." What they are implying is that rights that apply to a single citizen should not apply to groups of citizens. But it seems to me that any rights we grant to the individual should also apply to a group of collective individuals. If that is not the case, then the floodgates are open to deny the Bill of Rights to every group entity in existence. Good-bye to due process, trial by jury, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. That of course is the ultimate extrapolation if we are to deny individual rights – the Bill of Rights – to groups of individuals such as corporations.

In the end, the effects of the ruling boil down to this: Are you more comfortable with corporations, unions, and other groups having the power to freely spend money to speak in the marketplace of ideas and opinions, or with having the government retain the power of who can say what, when, and where with regards to political speech? I know where I fall.

What the Court struck down was a section of the 2002 McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Now I ask you this: Has political campaigning gotten better, or worse, since 2002? I believe it's hard to argue things have gotten better. The point is, for two hundred years prior to 2002, campaigns were conducted without tragically ending the republic. Sure, they may frequently leave a bad taste in our mouths; indeed even turn us "off" to politics at times. But they sky did not fall then, and it won't now.

The real problem with money in politics is that government has too much power, thus encouraging the very lobbying and influence peddling we all despise. As P.J. O'Rourke once said, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

As long as the American people continue to vote in big government career politicians beholden to special interests, we will continue to reap what we sew. It's time to wake up and realize there are alternatives.

Say WHAT???

This past week contained no shortage of examples of the ignorance and stupidity that causes so many of us to be turned off by politics these days. Whether you are left, right, libertarian, or somewhere else on the political spectrum, no doubt there was something said last week by someone that made you cringe. I can't decide on the worst statement, so I'll just list them here and let you be the judge. Here are the entrants:

Pat Robertson: "They [the Haitians] got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."

Seriously Pat – "true story"?

Rush Limbaugh: "Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel, we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands -- humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their -- shall we say -- credibility with the black community, in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community, in this country. It's made-to-order for 'em. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there. Could not wait to get out there.'

Rush Limbaugh (again): "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax."

Yes, we have Rush. And if you want to argue federal policy on foreign aid there is a time and place for that. But when a nation is in crisis and people are dying by the minute, making a statement that suggests to your listeners that they should not donate to Haitian relief organizations is not just ignorant and cold – it's just plain stupid.

Ed Schultz (liberal radio host): "If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd try to vote ten times. Yeah that's right – I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. Because that's exactly what they are."

Just to make sure he was clear, Mr. Schultz started off his Monday program with an apology: "I misspoke on Friday. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I meant to say, if I could vote 20 times, that's what I'd do."

Classy.

Anthony Weiner (New York Democrat), speaking regarding the fate of the health care bill if Scott Brown wins the MA Senate race: "We're going to have to finish this bill and then stall the swearing-in as long as possible."

Boy, that "change of tone" we were promised in Washington is almost palpable now, isn't it?

Sarah Palin, looking like a deer in the headlights on the Glenn Beck show when Beck asked her who her favorite founding father was: "All of them."

Hmmm... Now where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, when Katie Couric asked her on the campaign trail which newspapers she reads.

Danny Glover, blaming the Haitian quake on global warming: "I hope we seize this particular moment because the threat of what happened to Haiti is the threat that could happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know. They're all in peril because of global warming, they're all in peril because of climate change and all of this.... When we look back at what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying?"

No, Danny, I really, really don't.

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC: "In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States."

Very constructive Keith. Should win a lot of people over who disagree with you. What was that saying again about catching bees, and honey…?

The Marxist-Leninist.com, regarding the U.S. military's relief efforts in Haiti: "The U.S. military's mission is to preserve the reactionary social order for U.S. corporations and to protect the wealthy few. [They are just] worrying about maintaining their military might."

Bingo. Don't be fooled by the marines handing out food and water to disaster victims. It's all just an evil ploy.

George Bush, while raising money for Haitian quake relief: "Just send your cash. One of the things [former President Clinton] and I will do is to make sure your money is spent wisely."

Don't get me wrong – no matter what you think of either of them, I think it's great that both Bush and Clinton are out there trying to raise money for relief. Seriously. But still, I couldn't help notice the terrible irony in President Bush promising to spend my cash "wisely."

I'm not big into ripping into other people for their statements, or mis-statements – God knows I've said enough stupid stuff in my life. After all, we're all human. But when I saw the onslaught of ignorance and silliness I saw over this past week, I simply couldn't let it go by without some commentary.

Thanks for reading.

Health care, the Amish, and the story of Valentine Byler

It seems it's taken as a given these days that individuals in society could not successfully navigate life's challenges without at least some government assistance. After all, isn't that what Social Security, Medicare, and the current health care proposals are all about? It would thus seem a near impossibility to find a non-wealthy segment of our society that is getting by without government assistance. And yet we can do just that. I speak of course of the Amish.

The Amish have a religious opposition to commercial insurance, as well as an opposition to accepting money from government welfare programs. Yet you do not see a crisis of lack of medical care in the Amish community. According to one group of Amish bishops, "It has been our Christian concern from birth of our church group to supply those of our group who have a need, financial or otherwise." And according to Amish Country News, "the care of the elderly is seen as the responsibility of the family and community, not the government." The Amish pay for all medical costs themselves.

So the Amish won't purchase insurance and won't accept welfare. But isn't that exactly what Social Security, Medicare, and ObamaCare are by definition? True enough, and that's why – after a long fought battle (that is nicely summarized here) – the Amish are exempt from both Social Security and Medicare taxes and benefits. And, as I learned on the news this morning, from ObamaCare too.

The Amish's fight for exemption from these programs was not without resistance from the government. With the passage of Social Security, the government was insisting that the Amish buy into a program and accept assistance which they did not want – and were personally and religiously opposed to.

The fight culminated in 1960, when the IRS forcibly seized three horses from Amishman Valentine Byler while he was out plowing his field for spring planting, and sold them at auction to satisfy Byler's $308.96 in unpaid Social Security taxes. That's right – Mr. Byler's sole means of subsistence were forcibly confiscated from him, in order to ensure the government could care for him later in life – care which he did not want, or need.

A public relations disaster for the government ensued. The New York Herald Tribune editorialized, "What kind of 'welfare' is it that takes a farmer's horses away at spring plowing time in order to dragoon a whole community into a 'benefit' scheme it neither needs nor wants, and which offends its deeply held religious scruples?" The Ledger-Star in Norfolk, Virginia said the event marked "a milestone in the passing of freedom – the freedom of people to live their lives undisturbed by their government so long as they lived disturbing no others. It was a freedom the country once thought important."

The government finally gave in, and granted the Amish an exemption from Social Security. And when Medicare was passed in 1965, a line was inserted into the bill exempting the Amish from that program too. Now, with ObamaCare on the cusp of being passed, we learn the Amish will be exempted from that as well.

Valentine Byler's story is as clear an example as there can be of government forcibly taking away personal liberty – the ability of one to live their life as they see fit. But the most important lesson to take away from this entire saga is that it debunks the myth of the necessity of cradle-to-grave government welfare for our nation's citizens. Life is not easy, and sometimes people need help. The Amish have proven that help can be provided absent government intrusion. As one Amishman was quoted as saying in the November 1962 Reader's Digest: "Allowing our members to shift their interdependence on each other to dependence upon any outside source would inevitably lead to the breakup of our order."

Is that what we going to let that happen to our nation?

I’m part of the problem

That's right, I admit it. But in my defense I'm only responding to incentives just as any other human being would. And I don't feel guilty - after all, when something is "free" I tend to maximize my use of it, just like you. I'm talking about health care here, and I have a little story to demonstrate.

About three weeks ago I quickly developed a good size growth on the floor of my mouth. I called my doctor, and, after agreeing to give it a few days to see if it disappeared, made an appointment to see him.

At the appointment he put me at ease regarding the cancer issue, and told me he thought it was just a cyst, and that I should schedule an appointment with an ENT to get it removed. I scheduled the next available appointment two weeks down the road, and resigned myself to walking around with this small grape in my mouth for the next few weeks over the Holidays.

Fortunately, over that two week span the growth slowly but progressively got smaller and smaller, eventually disappearing almost entirely by the day before my appointment. Which brings me to the part about incentives.

What is one to do when they schedule an appointment with their doctor to have an unusual symptom checked out, but that symptom disappears before the appointment? I can tell you what I did, and why I did it – and why that makes me part of the problem.

Rather than cancelling my appointment, I went in to see my doctor anyway. You see, I'm fortunate and have pretty good health insurance through my wife's job. There was no cost to me to go to this appointment, other than time. Since it had taken awhile to get the appointment, and since I wasn't a hundred percent convinced that the symptom would not reappear, I figured what the heck, I'll go talk with the doc anyway just in case. And as it turns out, the doc did nothing but give me some ideas of what that lump might have been, tell me it's nothing to worry about, and to call him if it ever returns.

That appointment was not necessary for me to keep. But I had no incentive not to keep it. I had no financial interest in the transaction at all – after all, someone else was paying for it. Why not keep the appointment and get checked out, just in case?

Now, I've long argued that high deductible catastrophic loss insurance plans coupled with health savings accounts are one of the best ways to rein in costs, and thus make health care more affordable and accessible. If I had had such a plan, and was paying the several hundred dollars for that appointment today out of my own pocket, I can guarantee you I would have cancelled that appointment. My financial stake in the transaction would have been high enough to force me to think long and hard about how necessary it was for me to see the doctor that day, and I would have had a strong incentive to keep my money in my pocket, saving it for a potentially more urgent health issue down the line.

This is why I've always said that incentives matter, and why our current system whereby most people have "health coverage" as opposed to true "health insurance", where their plans cover every small health issue they encounter as opposed to just the catastrophic issues, is part of the problem. I was only responding to the incentives built into that system.

Now, my little story certainly didn't affect health care costs for anyone else overall – after all, it's just one minor instance. But when you consider that potentially thousands of other people made the same decision as me today, responding to the same incentives, you see how it quickly creates an overall macro-level cost-containment problem. I'm certainly not naïve enough to believe that correcting this incentive structure would magically cure all of our health care woes, but it most definitely is a big piece of the puzzle.

Somewhere today some people who truly needed to see a doctor didn't, because they couldn't afford it. And some (like me) who really didn't need to see a doctor did, because they didn't have to pay for it, thus driving up costs even further for the first group. The only way to change that defect in the system is to change the structure of the system itself, and put more consumers in charge of more of their own health care dollars. It's unfortunate that the current plans in Congress only seek to take our current poorly structured system, expand and subsidize it further, and force people buy into it. Good intentions do not guarantee good results. We're going to learn that lesson the hard way.