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?