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.