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.