The Politics of Crazy

In the past eight years, I have been greatly disappointed - if not outright disgusted - at people comparing President Bush and President Obama to Adolf Hitler, or the Democrats and Republicans to Nazis. These sort of statements are not only absurd and inflammatory, they are immensely sad and disrespectful to people who actually suffered at the hands of one of the most evil men in history. I understand analogies and hyperbole as rhetorical techniques, but there is a point where political discourse simply veers into the land of "crazy talk."

That is the subject of Rick Pearlstein's op-ed in the Washington Post today. He begins with an irate citizen at a Congressional town-hall meeting. The citizen offered the following to his senator:

"One day God's going to stand before you, and he's going to judge you and the rest of your damned cronies up on the Hill. And then you will get your just deserts." He was accusing Arlen Specter of being too kind to President Obama's proposals to make it easier for people to get health insurance.

Now, that's just crazy. It's not only crazy, but it is so counter-productive and depressing.

Pearlstein's article is slanted toward criticism of the most recent outrage and protests at the town hall meetings. Thus the "crazy" is definitely more represented by conservatives and Republicans in this case. He follows with explanations of other outrageous behavior by conservatives, and he posits that the real craziness seems to happen more with conservatives and Republicans than with liberals and Democrats. As I read his piece, and think back over the past thirty years, I fear he may be right.

Granted, there are some real nut jobs on the left. From the Earth Liberation Front spiking trees and burning down resorts to the bombings by the Weatherman to the conspiracy theories about the Bush Administration allowing, or even planning, the terrorist attacks on 9/11, there are some nuts out there in Democrat-land. However, when I think of the most deadly American terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, I see the right-wing. While the Weatherman and the eco-terrorists have set bombs, they seemed to try and avoid killing people en masse. Not McVeigh. When a man turned up at a town hall meeting on health care with a gun and talked of shedding "the blood of tyrants," he was right wing.

The frivolous talk of "tyranny" - over something like government stimulus spending nonetheless - comes from the right wing. People who - bizarrely - yell at their congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare" (?) are right wing. People who tend to talk about the end of American civilization if we raise taxes are right wing. Immigration brings out rabid responses from the right. On the left, we've had immigration advocates speaking with heartfelt concerns about poor families being torn apart over immigration law, while on the right we had a congressman in Colorado callously say after two latino children who were hit crossing a street, that they wouldn't be dead if they hadn't broken the law. Really? That's a lawmaker's response to two children dying in a hit-an-run accident?

I admit that too many people on both sides let their passion get in the weigh of their politics. But lately it seems that the right is more likely to cross the line into crazy and violence - abortion-rights advocates haven't, as far as I know, bombed pro-life centers. I mean, passion is one thing, but hanging a congressman in effigy - over health care - is downright disturbing. Believing that the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration has sold out American sovereignty to the United Nations is crazy. Fearing that the program Teach for America is going to be used to indoctrinate an "Obama Youth Corps" is crazy. Telling your Congressman you don't want our country to become Russia is crazy. Believing for even a nanosecond about the possibility of "death panels" in a health care bill is crazy. And using violence and aggression to address political issues such as taxes and health care in the United States is crazy.

There is simply too much irrationality these days, and I believe much of it comes from ignorance and naivete. And I have to say that these days it seems like conservatives and the right wing of the Republican Party have the monopoly on "crazy." So, where is the most "crazy" - liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans? Which side is the least rational? Which side is the most likely to spout off bizarre, conspiratorial positions? Which side is more violent? Which side is most likely to be dangerous? Which side is more easily manipulated by their demagogues? Which side is more easily whipped into a frenzy? Which side is scarier? Which side of "crazy" is worse for America?

What do you think?

Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" is a Sham

Well, I just finished Glenn Beck’s “Common Sense,” which, according to Beck, was “Inspired by Thomas Paine.” Beck has clearly never truly read Thomas Paine and knows very little about him, his history, or his beliefs. For many readers, pages one to seven seem to make a lot of sense. There are some general and specific criticisms about government spending and corruption in Congress I agree with. Who wouldn’t? But Beck’s attempt to connect his neo-conservative positions with Founding Father Thomas Paine is shockingly ignorant of both Paine and American history.

Beck uses this book – and Paine’s name – to criticize “Progressivism,” blaming it for much of what ails the country. Sadly, this is a complete distortion of Paine’s legacy. While the extent of most Americans’ knowledge of Paine is “he wrote Common Sense," I teach his work in class every year. I've used “The Crisis” and selections from “The Rights of Man” and “Age of Reason.” If you want to understand Paine and his vision for America, you should read them. Beck doesn’t understand Paine, but he does want to use the credibility of “The Founding Fathers” to promote an anti-government message.

Far from opposing “progressivism,” Thomas Paine is one of the original “Progressives,” though at the time he was called a radical for his liberal views. He is commonly associated with the origins of American liberalism. “Common Sense” was one small piece of his work – it was a pamphlet simply designed to encourage revolution against Britain. Paine later clearly outlined his vision of what he thought American government should look like. This is where Beck falls off the apple cart.

Beck uses this book to openly criticize progressive taxation, public education, social security, and “the progressive agenda.” But readers should know something – Thomas Paine was one of the earliest advocates of progressive taxation, even drawing up tables and rates.

He was also the first proponent of the estate tax. And in Agrarian Justice he proposed combating poverty and income inequality by taxing the wealthy to give jobs and “grants” to young people. He also proposed using this system to provide government-sponsored pensions for the elderly. Paine’s Agrarian Justice can be considered the earliest call for a national old-age pension – ie. Social Security. He wanted to tax the rich and give money to the poor.

He joined Thomas Jefferson in strongly advocating universal tax-supported public education, believing it was necessary to promote an educated electorate and was a necessary way to combat poverty. Paine also sought a federally guaranteed minimum wage, and long before Woodrow Wilson, Paine urged the establishment of, and US participation in, global organizations to help solve international problems and avoid wars.

Yet, this is all lost on Glenn Beck.

Beck criticizes Progressives for leading the United States away from its original purpose. He even goes as far as chastising Teddy Roosevelt. That’s pretty bold for a guy whose only contribution to the United States has been as an entertainer. Has Glenn Beck completely forgotten “The Gilded Age”? While Beck, for whatever reason, is disturbed by progressive ideals, he fails to concede the un-democratic conditions that led to the desire of Americans for the rise of progressive reforms.

In fact, if you look at American history from 1776 to 1900 and from 1900 to present, you will see that Beck is right in that progressives shaped America into the country that it is. It’s one with a thriving middle class, reasonably safe food and water, no child labor, forty hour workweeks, etc. If Beck wants to dismiss Progressives and return to life under President McKinley or Harding with robber barons running the economy and the atrocious work conditions chronicled by Upton Sinclair in The Jungle, he’s crazy. Beck has never known what it would be like to live in an America not guided by the leadership of progressives. Instead, he lives comfortably in a nation defined by liberal and progressive policies, and then audaciously challenges the very notion of the peaceful prosperity they provide.

Beck ironically praises “our political leaders” that could inspire us to “defeat Nazism and fascism,” and then goes on to criticize that leader - FDR - as helping destroy the country. Beck doesn’t even concede that the United States would never have been able to wage WWII or build the Atomic Bomb or put a man on the moon or wage and win the Cold War if it weren’t for the large-scale ability of the federal government to raise revenue, mainly through progressive taxation. He reviews the original foundation of the United States government in the Articles of Confederation, acknowledging that it failed because it was too weak, and then heaps his praise on the Constitution. However, he doesn’t concede that the significant difference in power given to the federal government in the Constitution was the power to levy taxes. Even conservative Edmund Burke knew that “the revenue of the state is the state.” Thus, weak revenue gathering equals weak government. And a weak federal government would never have been able to respond to two World Wars, the Cold War, and two Iraq wars.

Beck goes on to criticize Hillary Clinton and the public education system for “suggesting the community has a vested interest in what each child is taught.” Who doesn’t believe that? He offers no alternative proposals for how education should be carried out. Though I hardly believe he is proposing the end of public education. That would be so un-Jeffersonian, another Founding Father.

On page 99, Beck shifts from a scathing criticism of public education to promote God and religion in public life. This is completely disingenuous in a book “inspired by Thomas Paine.” Paine was a deist who vigorously opposed Christianity or any organized religion. He often called himself an atheist. Paine was very anti-Christianity. He vehemently opposed the government supporting religion in any way. In fact, in his later life, he was practically exiled from the country because of his criticism of religion in America.

A few other criticisms:

On page 61, Beck paraphrases Barry Goldwater’s (or some attribute Gerald Ford) quote, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have,” and he doesn’t even give the original speaker credit.

On page 17, Beck paraphrases the well-known “You can’t save the poor by destroying the rich” quote from Reverend William J. H. Boetcke and again doesn’t give credit. Historians and English teachers call this plagiarism.

Finally, Beck writes a mere 111 pages, and then re-prints all of Paine’s “Common Sense” which is in the public domain – and he charges $12.00 for the book. What a sham. I’m glad I checked it out of the library, but I hate that my library spent taxpayer funds on it. They should have waited until it was in the bargain bin for $.99

That’s why Beck is disingenuous. He is a hack, and while I occasionally enjoyed some of his earlier work – I’ve read all three of his books – I am sadly disappointed in this mis-use of one of America’s Founding Fathers. Beck says Americans do not know their history, but he is one of them, and with this book he is counting on their ignorance. Ultimately, this book is a poorly-written piece of neo-conservative fear-mongering. Perhaps saddest of all in a book "inspired by" a Founding Father, Glenn Beck says he "fears" the end of the republic. What a profound lack of faith in the very people and institution he praises. What an absolute insult to every true patriot who has ever laid his life on the line for the republic. As Republican Bob Inglis recently noted, "This is a constitutional republic that can withstand any president I disagree with." If the United States has managed to survive all the trials it has - from the Civil War to the Gilded Age to the Great Depression and beyond, it will survive today.

It will even survive fear-peddling "rodeo clowns" who are ignorant of its history.


** And for those of you who haven't heard the latest nonsense, Glenn Beck is at it again.

Farewell, John Hughes

Sad news out of Chicago - or thereabouts - today. According to a press release, John Hughes, the legendary 80s teen-film director, passed away, suddenly and unexpectedly, today at the age of 59. The statement was attributed to Rogers and Cowen, which I assume is a law firm or management company. Hughes was on vacation in Manhattan and had a heart attack while taking a walk.

As a child of the 80s, I am deeply saddened by this news. Perhaps no director in history has more accurately portrayed the lives of teens on film. He almost single-handedly re-defined cinema in the 1980s. Even today, when teens are polled about which movies most accurately resemble their lives, they quote such classics as The Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles. That's a pretty powerful testament for films which are almost thirty years old. A recent documentary-in-progress entitled "Don't You Forget About Me" was meant to be a call to Hughes to come out of retirement and again make films that speak to teens, honestly and without condescension. Sadly, that is not to be.

In the words of Ferris Bueller, "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around sometimes, you might miss it." Hughes helped all of us do that, and his impact will not soon be forgotten.

Rest in peace.

Nothing Is Rotten in Denmark

A recent post in the New York Times' on-going column, "Happy Days: the Pursuit of What Matters in Troubled Times," writer Eric Weiner confirmed and reported on the fact that in many polls the country of Denmark is considered "the happiest place on Earth." Weiner's observations center around his theory that the Danes are such happy people because they have lower expectations of happiness. If you read the story, you'll find that's not nearly as depressing as it sounds. There is, quite simply, a real sense of pragmatism about what life should be and how they define happiness in Denmark.

The story generated quite a bit of reader response, which became its own follow-up column. The general consensus from many who had, at one time or another, lived in Denmark, was that the people truly are among the happiest, and they don't work that hard to make it so. It's simply the way they live their lives. The "lower expectations" seems to be part of it, only in that they are not generally motivated by the "keeping-up-with-the-Joneses" mentality, and rather than dreaming of the happiness they'll have when they get the house they want, they quite simply make the house they have as enjoyable as it can be. And for all the rabid capitalists out there, I don't think this means they don't aspire to greater success. They simply enjoy all the levels along the way.

A bit of research on Denmark turned up information like this:

Denmark, with a free market capitalist economy and a large welfare state ranks according to one measure, as having the world's highest level of income equality. From 2006 to 2008, surveys ranked Denmark as "the happiest place in the world," based on standards of health, welfare, and education. One survey ranks Denmark as the second most peaceful country in the world. Denmark was also ranked as the least corrupt country in the world in the 2008.

One writer to the Times thoughtfully said, "The Danes work very hard at living well, rather than pretentiously. They aren’t interested in displays of ostentation or status. But they are masters of genuine good living, and work very hard to achieve it."

Another posited, "The society and government there actually work for most of the people. In my first visit, I learned that “poor” and “welfare” were not economic terms used to demean people, and that teachers and physicians actually have the same incomes and respect. Those things sound “simple” perhaps, but they create a world of difference."

And another offered, "The Scandinavian countries have high taxation but can actually see their tax dollars working in better infrastructure, education, health care, etc. As a Norwegian American I can say that I find a level of happiness (or I should say contentment) in Norway that translates to every day life. They are healthy outdoors people who also revel in nature. And of course oil revenues help, but they are smart enough to keep many of the proceeds from revenues for a rainy day."

That is some pretty lofty praise, and worth considering whenever we feel compelled to spend some time in national self examination.

Letter to Oprah

As the country seeks school reform, and states scramble to qualify for more stimulus funding in the Race to the Top, I’d like to see Oprah regularly address "what works" and "what we should be doing" in schools nationwide. This should not be a one-time show, but a regular, even weekly, feature of her programming.

Oprah could organize a weekly segment entitled "Best Practice" - which is a buzzword for figuring out what works in the classroom. One week she could focus on literacy and reading instruction by featuring Cris Tovani's books, "I Read It, but I Don't Get It" and "Do I Really Have to Teach Reading." She could follow this with shows on Everyday Math and other controversial math programs, and the issue of a "national curriculum," as well as issues of standardized testing and how much they should matter. She could discuss teacher training, foreign education systems, the importance of arts and activities, and controversies like charter schools, voucher systems, and equality in funding.

Other shows could spotlight "college readiness" and the need for more associate degree seekers and career and technical education. She could feature Dr. David Conley, a Pew Center researcher and author of "College Knowledge" - another great Oprah Book Club possibility. Related to this, Oprah could highlight a reform study called Tough Choices, Tough Times, and spotlight the reforms happening in New Hampshire which may allow high school graduation at sixteen for students entering community colleges and technical schools.

With the theme of "Change" in America, Oprah offers an excellent venue for the regular emphasis that the system needs. If you agree, do me a favor and cut and paste this post into the "Show Recommendation" section of Oprah's website.

Is Discrimination Standardized

One argument against the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor centers around her ruling in the New Haven firefighters case - when she supported the city's decision to throw out the results of standardized test for promotions when only white firefighters passed. The white firefighters sued - and were eventually supported in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Thus, the big question is where the discrimination is happening .... and there are obviously two camps on this.

Mike Littwin of the Denver Post asks some good questions in this article:

This is not a new story. For whatever reason — skewed tests, too many failing schools, too many single-family homes, continuing effects of segregation, some other explanation short of a bell curve — blacks do not score nearly as well as whites on standardized tests.

If standardized tests play a key role in getting into college, in getting into law school, in becoming a lieutenant in the fire department, what are we, as a society that values opportunity, supposed to do if too few blacks and other minorities qualify?

One answer is to do nothing, except quote the Rev. Martin Luther King's line about the quality of our character — as if King wouldn't be on the side of affirmative action.

Another answer is to recognize the problem — as, say, the U.S. Army has done — and find a way to pick out otherwise qualified applicants.

New Haven clearly hadn't offered a test that was meant to discriminate. And yet, the test left the city, one with a majority-minority population, with a new class of nearly all white officers in its fire department. How do you resolve discrimination that isn't exactly discrimination?

There is validity to both sides. The white firefighters certainly don't deserve to have their results invalidated - we can and should be sympathetic to their cause. However, isn't there some pretty obvious problems with a test that seems to be systematically prohibitive to minorities.

Herein lies the problem with discrimination, affirmative action, and the use of standardized assessments.

Obama and Economics

While I am watching the government spending and deficits with interest - as I always have - I think it comes down to two questions:

One, with all we've learned over the past eight, and the past thirty, years: Do you really think President Obama and his economic team are just that stupid? Are they really that naive or clueless? Do people like Peter Orzag and Paul Volecker simply know nothing about economics? Could all their discussion and all their actions just be flat-out wrong?

Two, are you hoping that what the President and his team are doing doesn't work? Not do you fear it won't or think it might not or suspect that it wouldn't or know that it can't. But, do you hope it fails? Knowing that the action will be taken for the next two and four years - and knowing that voters will judge it then - do you hope it doesn't work? Is there something in your heart and mind that hopes two and four years from now the economy is in worse shape?

For my part, I am cautiously optimistic. I hope what the Obama Administration is doing works, and I will vote two and four years from now based on my conclusions about the state of the nation at that time.

Graduation Requirements Across States

The National Center for Educational Outcomes released a pretty comprehensive analysis of the requirements for graduation. Although this report is ten years old, I found it pretty interesting.

Another comprehensive analysis from the NCEST was published in 2004.

Kentucky Reconsiders Diplomas

If a bill by State Senate Republicans passes in Kentucky, they will also be on board with New Hampshire and Louisiana. Why is no one talking about this in the national news?

FRANKFORT — High school students who complete required course work for graduation before their junior or senior years could enroll in college early and get state funding to help with tuition under a plan proposed by Senate Republicans. The bill also would reduce the 22 minimum credit hours for high school graduation to as low as 16, while candidates for early graduation would have to maintain a 2.8 grade-point average to go to a two-year college or 3.2 GPA to go to a four-year university in Kentucky. Students going on to a four-year university also would have to take at least two Advanced Placement classes, the bill says.

It sounds like some real reform is happening at the state level. Wonder what Arne Duncan thinks?

Career Diplomas in Louisiana

Louisiana is poised to join New Hampshire in plans to allow earlier graduation - specifically after sophomore year at the age of sixteen - for students who are not interested in attending four year colleges. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

High-schoolers in Louisiana will soon be able to opt for a "career diploma" – taking some alternative courses instead of a full college-prep curriculum. The new path to graduation – expected to be signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) in the coming days – bucks a trend in which many states are cranking up academic requirements. The legislation puts the state in the center of a national debate about where to set the bar for high school graduation.

Advocates of the new diploma option say it will keep more struggling students in school and will prepare them for jobs, technical training, or community college. Critics doubt the curriculum will be strong enough to accomplish such goals and say it shortchanges students in the long run, given the projections that a large number of future jobs will require a college degree.

While there is much to discuss - and a wide margin for error - there is a lot of practical wisdom in this action. The most significant problems are students who might change their minds later - as well as the notion that sixteen-year-olds might not make the "best" or most mature decision. And, of course, there is a significant chance that this will be disproportionately pursued by - and even recommended to - mainly poor and minority students.

I'd like to see the option available while resources are directed toward making sure each student makes his/her own best decision, and all students are guaranteed equal access to opportunities in education.

Millennials Struggling

According to this report:

The Millennial Generation, those born between 1976 and 1996, the heirs to our economic legacy and ultimately the bearers of our economic destiny, are being disproportionately affected by the crisis, but continue to go unnoticed. This is even though they face unemployment at a rate more than 8% higher than the national average, suffer under a crushing average of $27,000 in student loan, $2000 in credit card debt, and a healthcare crisis that leaves 30% of them without any insurance. In addition, as young people enter the workforce, they are being pitted against individuals with much more experience than they have for the same entry level jobs due to recent layoffs, making finding a job exponentially more difficult.

This perfect economic storm will have untold negative impacts if nothing is done by Congress to address these issues now by truly investing in the Millennial Generation.

Eliminating Seat Time Requirements

In the past year or two, I have come to question the concept of "seat time" or "contact hours" in public education, and I am more intrigued by a focus on accomplishment of core competencies. Earlier, I posted about the Adams 50 district in Colorado that was eliminating "grade levels" in preference for students progressing through skill levels or competencies - this has been found effective for struggling students and is in use at various alternative schools around the US. That, of course, leads me to question why it isn't being addressed at all levels for all students.

Interestingly, this issue came up in the most recent issue of Esquire where former governor Jeb Bush, who is of a similar mind, said, "We should have 'seat time' eliminated . . . You show up for 180 days, you graduate. It should be based on what you learned. People learn differently. It's a simple fact that our education system ignores." While that is a bit of an exaggeration, I was intrigued to hear someone talking about it. Certainly, it's not just 180 hours and a diploma - there are core requirements in those 180 days and thirteen years. However, there have been enough horror stories of illiterate graduates to indict the system for extremely low expectations of how that "seat time" is used.

After a little research, I learned that the state of Indiana feels the same way and has done something about it:

In its first meeting under the direction of Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett, the State Board of Education approved a series of reforms aimed at facilitating student-centered learning and removing unnecessary regulations.

“Teachers and principals have repeatedly expressed to me their frustration with regulations that prevent them from delivering the best possible instruction to their students,” Bennett said. “The actions taken today by the State Board of Education are a first step toward eliminating unnecessary requirements that all too often get in the way of our primary focus which is the achievement of students.”

Among the actions taken by the state board today was the elimination of a requirement for 250 minutes of instruction per week to earn credit for high school courses. The removal of this requirement will give schools much needed flexibility in developing curriculum and creative scheduling options that best meet the needs of individual students.

“We need to measure success by what students are actually learning, not by how many minutes they’re sitting in a particular class each week,” Bennett said. “Principals, if they’re willing to be creative, now have a powerful new tool to help maximize educational opportunities for students.”

That sounds about right, and I am surprised there hasn't been more discussion of this type of change. It is an important part of the reform discussion, and one that I hope to see Colorado address this year as well. This scholarly paper notes:

The obsolete nature of current school structures is evident in the way large groups of students with the same birthdays move from subject expert to subject expert in incremental blocks of time, in the way success is measured by seat time and rote return of information, and in the way what is learned during the "school year" is lost during the summer, perpetuating the difference in learning levels for various socioeconomic groups. In this article, the author calls for a reinvention of how citizens are educated rather than continuously trying to improve the existing education "systems."

There is no doubt that students progress at different levels, and simply establishing thirteen years with a 1080 hours of teacher contact time a year as the standard model is nothing short of inefficient. As I've noted before, many of my AP students are certainly "ready" to start working on their bachelor degree - both in terms of knowledge/skill and maturity. Thus, there is little sense in restricting their ability to do that.

"Seat time" might need to become the next big discussion on the education reform stage.

Community Colleges and the Future

As I've noted before, the current emphasis on four-year colleges and bachelor's degrees is hugely inefficient, ignoring a myriad of realities in the US economy and education system. The focus is myopic at best, and it does an incredible disservice to many skilled students and workers who could be educated and trained in far less time for far less money with much greater success.

Clearly, many students do not need seventeen years of education - as most professions don't require it - and students should be empowered to get training and get on with their lives whenever they are ready. With many people never finishing bachelor degrees, the education system needs to re-evaluate associate degree programs. For, a student who quits a four-year college after two years has nothing, while a two-year program offers a degree and the option of applying the credit to a four-year degree.

Time Magazine is taking a look at this issue in this article, "Can Community Colleges Save the US economy?" My answer is yes.

Tech Free Vacation

For the past couple of weeks I have been out of the blog-o-sphere, as I was on vacation. Surprisingly, I was without regular access to a computer, and thus I gave up on blogging, though there was much to discuss. Perhaps I should just give in a get a Blackberry or iPhone - or not.

Several thoughts on my trip:

I love my Pontiac Montana. Six states, 4000+ miles, and running like a dream. Say what you want about American cars, but my GM is truly a fine automobile and I absolutely lament the loss of the Pontiac brand. Several years ago, they did away with the Montana - which is an exceptional mini-van (if it is even a minivan) - and my wife and I were truly saddened. And then it got worse. The new GM will not feature Pontiac - how sad.

Through no planning on my part, I was in Los Angeles during the Michael Jackson Memorial. In fact, I drove past Forest Lawn Cemetery, on my way to the Observatory in the Hollywood Hills, during the actual memorial. Luckily I missed all the hysteria, and traffic. The highlights of my time in LA included Santa Monica Pier's carousel, Sprinkles Cupcakes in Beverly Hills, and the La Brea Tar Pits.

There is a lot of space in Utah. A lot.

Can Charters Save Us?

Time Magazine asks the "profound" question, "Can Charter Execs Turn Around Failing Public Schools?" Of course, this is nowhere near a yes/no question, as the past twenty years have shown that some charters can dramatically improve student achievement, while others perform as poorly - and at times worse, with cases of abuse and corruption - as the neighborhood schools they were created to oppose.

As I've noted before, I think Colorado's model of open enrollment and generous support of charters is the best approach to the issue of school reform, especially in relation to the issue of "school choice." The issue with charters now, is not whether they can create a new "start-up" and provide an alternative for kids, but actually go into failing schools and improve them as is by applying their "charter model" to an existing student population.

Remains to be seen.

License to Graduate

Thomas Friedman, writing for the New York Times, offers this:

Craig Barrett, the former chairman of Intel, [when asked] about how America should get out of its current economic crisis. His first proposal was this: Any American kid who wants to get a driver’s license has to finish high school. No diploma — no license. Hey, why would we want to put a kid who can barely add, read or write behind the wheel of a car?

There is a lot of sense in this idea, though it must be in conjunction with proposals to allow graduation and entry into trade schools and associate degree programs after tenth grade, at age sixteen.

In Praise of Work II

As I noted in a previous post, Mike Rowe of the Discovery Channel's "Dirty Jobs" is challenging the culture of America that has "waged war on work." In the speech featured on Ted.com, Rowe offered the enlightened view that "we have collectively agreed, stupidly, that work is the enemy." This is a problem - especially in a country devoted to overspending on the over-education of many people as it shames many skilled workers into thinking they need a bachelor's degree to bring meaning to their lives, and jobs.

In a challenge to this conventional wisdom, Rowe works hard on "Dirty Jobs" to honestly and accurately portray the lives of working people. And there is much insight to his commentary - as he asks us, "Why does the guy picking up roadkill seem like a more enjoyable sort to sit down and share a beer with?"  To that end, Rowe has launched a website devoted to the acknowledgment - if not praise - of work. Check out his site and commentary at MikeRoweWorks.com

The United States is facing a serious problem with its demeaning attitude toward labor - good old fashioned "work" as a career.  I've been writing about the area where this is most serious which is the myopic focus in schools on college-for-all.  As the nation faces a serious shortage of skilled labor - four million jobs by some counts - millions of young people are steered toward college as the key to "a better job."  However, most people don't need a bachelor degree for work that is meaningful and lucrative.  As the nation lacks welders and electricians, we are putting out too many people with general education degrees.

By the way, a great read on the value of labor is Shopcraft as Soulcraft by Matthew Crawford.  This is an excellent reflection on work, and is well worth the read.

Sean Hannity is No Good

When I was in college, a friend of mine used to sarcastically warn my girlfriend, "He's no good for you. In fact, he's no good for anybody."

The more I listen and watch, and the more I think about it, the more I realize these comments accurately describe Sean Hannity. This revelation dawned on me the other day as I listened to Hannity continue his daily condemnation of every single move of the Obama Administration.

Certainly, I expect that Hannity is going to criticize the President - that is the nature of his job - and he has made tens of millions of dollars working in the "preaching-to-the-choir" field. In fact, the criticism is why I tune in. However, there is something unseemly about the disingenuous nature of Hannity's rants. The other day, he pointed out that the Obama Administration's actions have done absolutely nothing to mitigate the recession, evidenced clearly because the unemployment rate has continued to rise. That's his evidence - and he delivers it as obvious. Yet, there's a disconnect. Did unemployment not continue to rise during the Recession of 1982-83 - topping out at 10% - following the Reagan tax cuts that Hannity regularly praises as saving America? Would he argue that the tax cuts did nothing for two years? Isn't it more complex than that?

It's the disingenuous over-simplification to which I object.  Several years ago, I penned an op-ed for the Denver Post in which I exposed and criticized The Mis-Education of Sean Hannity. That criticism is still appropriate, for he has certainly not become any more "fair and balanced."  And, keep this in mind: he's not supposed to. Sean Hannity has made an incredible amount of money "preaching to the choir," and it is his job to sow dissent and profit off that. To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure Sean believes most of what he says because nothing in his youth indicates a strong political leaning. His reason for being on the radio and FoxNews is simply to make money - he found a very willing market for his brand of pessimism, and he has profited extravagantly from feeding people's unease.

Unlike many commentators, he is so reviled by his critics that numerous websites have sprung up to criticize and mock him.  In fact, there is speculation that he is not even liked in his own camp at FoxNews.  Most of the criticism is geared at the fact that Sean Hannity doesn't really think for himself - or even care about the issues - but simply serves as a lap dog for conservative media. I'm not really opposed to that perspective because I've truly always felt that this is just a lucrative deal for Hannity. And while I don't always agree with Bill O'Reilly, I don't feel that way about him. He is conservative, but he has his convictions, and like Chris Matthews he is likely to skewer both sides and complement either ideology or party when it's, in their opinion, correct or doing a fair job.  But that's not Hannity.

Hannity's no good for us.

Louisiana Joins the College-is-not-for-all Plan

Joanne Jacobs spotlights this article about Louisiana joining New Hampshire in plans to move toward a new educational model which is in line with every other industrialized country in the world. The state plans to offer an early graduation diploma for students who "choose" with "parents permission" to leave the four-year-college track and enter trade schools instead.

As I noted in this article in the Denver Post, the college-for-all track is biased and incredibly inefficient. While we certainly want every child to have an opportunity to take his education as far as he desires, we should not assume that college is for everyone - especially when only 29% of the country currently has a bachelor's degree.

Clarence Thomas is Crazy

There are times to stand on principal - and I guess offering the lone dissenting vote poses no danger - and there are times that doing so just makes you look like a complete idiot. Exhibit A for today is the dissenting vote from Clarence Thomas in the decision to rule an Arizona middle school's strip search of a thirteen-year-old girl unconstitutional. According to the Denver Post:

The case, Safford Unified School District #1 vs. Redding, began when another student was found with prescription- strength ibuprofen and said she received it from Redding.

Safford Middle School assistant principal Kerry Wilson pulled the honors student out of class, and she consented in his office to a search of her backpack and outer clothes. When that turned up no pills, he had a school nurse take Redding to her office, where she was told to remove her clothes, shake out her bra and pull her underwear away from her body, exposing her breasts and pelvic area.

No drugs were found, and Redding said she was so humiliated that she never returned to the school. Her mother filed suit against the school district, as well as Wilson.

Justice David Souter rationally argued "there was no indication of any danger to the student from the power or quantity of the drugs, no any reason to suspect [she] was carrying any pills in her underwear." In the dissent, Thomas mindlessly argued "judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in a school environment."

However, judges are allowed to use common sense and rational. Maintaining "quiet"? I've never really thought highly of Thomas' perspectives - this is just reason number 75 why he aligns himself with the crazier side of conservatism.

Look to Portugal on Schools

According to Don Tapscott, an author of thirteen books on the positive influence of technology, the United States should look to Portugal for a model to reform the education system. In 2005, Portugal was struggling economically, and its students were struggling with some of the lowest test scores in Europe. At that point Prime Minister Jose Socrates invested heavily in technology and tech skills to bring the people of Portugal more in line with the advancement of the 21st Century.

Some interesting comments on equipping kids with laptops and allowing them to regularly access the information they need in class, as opposed to lecturing them on it, and requiring they remember it for later.

Senator Graham's Deceit on Health Care

While I generally like much of what Senator Lindsay Graham has to say, I was rather disappointed in his comment on ABC's This Week concerning the "public option" in any health care reform bill. While much debate is necessary, the country can do without truly disingenuous and ideological statements like this.

Graham criticized a proposed system where "the bureaucrat sits between the doctor and the patient" and "you'll wait longer to get treated and you'll get the treatment the government decides for you, not your doctor." How that is any different from a system where "the insurance adjuster or HMO executive or financial manager sits between you and your doctor"? How is that different from "the insurance company or HMO deciding what treatment you get and not your doctor"? How is that different from the current system where I wait seven weeks to see a specialists and a colleague waits a year for an MRI and another for the necessary back surgery?

Clearly, his opposition to the "public option" has validity, but his comments are simply dishonest, and that sort of ideological use of sound-bites doesn't contribute to the discussion. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Senator Graham's comments is that he has government-sponsored insurance. Is he having problems with bureaucrats (namely himself) getting between him and his doctor? Is he having his care rationed? Is he letting the government decide which of his treatments are covered? The FEHBP preserves the private sector by allowing providers to bid to a pool of nine million employees, including Congress. Satisfaction with the plan is extremely high - Senator Graham certainly isn't pushing to change his plan.

I hope the Senator will consider revisiting his position on the public option, and seek to build a comprehensive understanding of the issue. He might also consider the reality that polls show 70 - 75% of Americans support the "option" of a government plan, and those statistics include Republicans. Therefore, in the spirit of a democratic republic, I am opposed to Congress refusing to give voters "an option." That doesn't mean people will have to choose it or will want to. But fearing the giving of a choice to voters shows a real lack of faith in the American people.

That said, I am not in favor of a public plan, but I think Senator Graham and the Republicans are missing a real opportunity to offer a comprehensive plan that legally "preserves" the private sector control of providing health care and insurance. This could be found in the bi-partisan Wyden-Bennett Plan, also known as The Healthy Americans Act (HAA). It is, in many ways, an extension of the FEHBP to all Americans where as many as 300 providers bid to serve a pool of 300 million Americans, and people purchase as much or as little as they need. It is a good plan, it resembles all the best parts of the American system, and it blends in the positive qualities of systems such as Switzerland or France.

If nothing else, I hope Senator Graham will answer the questions about his own health insurance and refrain from truly disingenuous and ideological malarky when discussing the issue - or just refrain from talking about it at all. I'd rather he be silent than actively deceiving people.

Free Speech Fights Hate

The Missouri legislature took the free speech fight straight to the neo-Nazi groups that trouble many communities when they seek to sponsor sections of highways. We'll see how the Nazi's like taking care of a highway stretch named after a Jewish rabbi and civil rights advocate.

Health Care Wake-up Call

Congress is "utterly asleep" and "clueless" on the whole health care debate, and the members need a wake-up call about the realities of the system, according to Dr. Jeffrey Feldman, editor of political blog Frameshop, and contributor to the Huffington Post. Ultimately, there is a lot of blowing smoke and soundbites on the issue, as well as entrenched outrage and suspicion. Thus, I am with Dr. Feldman on the need to cut through the politics and solve the problem.

Supposedly, the health care debate is between one group of people who make fortunes via the insanely profitable insurance and pharmaceutical industries and another group of people who want to make sure everybody in American has access to 'affordable' health care. Consider this simple fact: The number of Americans without health care coverage is so big, and has been growing for such a long time, that we can now simply say that the United States is a country with a systemic lack of health care for its citizens.

This is a salient point that needs much honesty. The reality is that America has the best available health care in one of the worst possible systems. And that's just not right. So, how to maintain the quality care without sacrificing it for efficiency and universality.

In a nation with a systemic lack of health care, there is a radical divide between the haves and the have-nots. Those with health care live in a world that is radically different from those who live in a world without it. The haves are able to treat their health like any other good or service in the economy. Because health care is a privilege of income, the haves can go out and buy health care whenever they want, even to the point of excess. And so health care becomes not just a means to feeling better, but a luxury good to be consumed with lavish abandon.

As much as the tone of this can be disconcerting, and it invokes passionate ideological responses, there is much validity to the statement.

Those without health care, by contrast, live in a much different world. For the have-nots, appetite for procedures and pills in the health care market is replaced by constant concern about a future health crisis or incident. Life without health care becomes a constant game of odds making: I if I spend X dollars on this procedure, will I be able to afford Y and Z 18 months down the road? How long, at my age, would it be wise to go uninsured? Can I risk coverage for my children, but not for myself? Is 5 years too long to go without getting a full physical? How about 7? If the lump in my breast does not hurt, can it be that bad? And so on, and so forth. What happens when millions of people spend decades without health care is so shocking and so heartbreaking, that anyone who thinks about it would be instantly offended by the current Congressional debate.

Again, I understand the emotional and ideological hairs going up on the back of some necks. Yet, the only conclusion I can draw is this: It's just not right. This sort of discrepancy and systemic failure is just not right. What the answer is? Well, that's the problem. But the fact is we have a problem. And the realities of today are just not right.

Charters Avoiding Special Needs

Interesting development on the "charter-school" front, as the Denver Post reports:

Colorado charter schools on average enroll fewer students with disabilities than noncharters — lending weight to long-held criticism of the publicly funded schools that are supposed to serve everyone.

While I have advocated Colorado's focus on "open enrollment" and charter schools as the best possible approach to reform, the long-held criticism that charters succeed simply by cherry-picking the best students away from neighborhood schools is definitely still a viable criticism. Even in Colorado, where the law states allegedly states there can be no conditions put on acceptance, it's obviously true.

Is this the problem that critics make it out to be?  Does it diminish the arguments of "choice" advocates for competition improving schools?  Does the "choice" movement simply ensure that some children will be "left behind"?

According to the Denver Post, Gov. Bill Ritter says his administration is working on a master plan to change the face of education in Colorado and that he'll present his proposals to lawmakers in two years.  Ritter says too much money is being wasted without substantial improvement in education.

I'm hoping he takes into consideration the op-ed commentary I had published in the Denver Post a few weeks ago, when I argued that reform should break from the obsession with bachelor degrees and consider offering graduation at sixteen for those entering associate degree programs and trades.  There is much to be done in the field of education to bring about a more efficient system, the likes of which is common in Europe and Asia, and which is mentioned in books like Tony Wagner's "The Global Achievement Gap" and Richard Rothstein's "Grading Education."  

Additionally, there has been much discussion about the need for all students to pursue at least one year of education beyond high school.  While that seems reasonable to some, I see a glaring discrepancy in efficiency in that idea.  It seems a bit ridiculous, to me, that students are not prepared for many opportunities as adults after thirteen years and more than a $100,000 invested in the education of each individual.  If that is the case, then that is the starting place for reform.

Jobs for High School Grads

Of course we've all heard about the projected life time earnings difference between high school and college graduates.  People who dig deeper discover the caveats as well.  While some estimates run as high as one million dollars, others conclude that if you you factor out issues like mega-billionaires and the cost of tuition at elite schools and the time taken to earn the degree and the difference between associates and bachelors degrees, it might be less than two-hundred thousand.  Not chump change to be sure, but there is the practical reality of who can earn the bachelor degree and how many of them the economy can truly support.

For those looking no further than high school. MSN offers this story, or list, of good jobs for high school grads.

Is SAT stress good?

File this one under the "Give-me-a-break" category:

According to Time Magazine, "Stress and Exhaustion May Improve Test Scores."

I can think of countless ways that this story can be a problem.  At least I don't have to worry about discussing it - and its myriad of implications and complications - for nine weeks.  School's out.

Perspectives on Health Care and Politics

The Denver Post devoted the cover of its Sunday's opinion section to the controversy over plans for a public option on health insurance. Featured were a Canadian clinical psychologist named Rhonda Hackett who focused on "Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths" and a local citizen who asked "What Do We Pay for, Anyway?" Both of these pieces offered important insight and perspective, and simply reinforced the idea that reform is necessary and change is coming. What that is remains to be seen. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that many people who are still clueless about the current system and alternatives. I recently spoke with a man who lambasted national health care and said we should pay for ourselves, ignoring the fact that he has, has always had, and is very satisfied with his veterans benefits.

For some perspective on the public option, there is much debate and commentary going on in the papers and on the blogs, though sifting through it all could take hours, if not days. One notable piece recently featured on the Huffington Post argued "Fixing Health Care Does not Require a bi-partisan Bill - It Does Require a Public Health Insurance Option. Creamer offers some insight into the politics involved when he says, "it won't matter one whit to average Americans whether the bill passed by Congress is "bi-partisan." That's true. He goes on to explain that while the bill may not be bi-partisan, the feelings of country are. For example:

A poll conducted earlier this year by the highly respected Lake Research Partners found that voters overwhelmingly want everyone to have a choice of private health insurance or a public health insurance plan (73%), while just 15% prefer everyone having private health insurance.

And the preference for a choice between public and private health insurance plans extends across all demographic and partisan groups, including Democrats (77%), Independents (79%) and Republicans (63%). So in fact, President Obama's proposal that creates a choice of a public health insurance option is a bi-partisan plan - whether is has "bi-partisan" support in Congress or not.

I'd say Creamer is right especially when he notes:

If private insurers can't compete with an efficient public health insurance plan, they have no business being in the market place. After all, they would be the first to argue that the "private sector" is always more "efficient" than government.

What they're really worried about is that in order to compete they would have to cut massive CEO salaries like the $26 million Cigna paid last year to its CEO - a figure that is 65 times higher than the salary paid to the CEO of the Federal Government - President Obama. Insurance companies are worried that they would have to become more efficient and cut their profit margins in order to compete. Of course from the point of view of the taxpayer, that is one of the major goals of health care reform: to control skyrocketing costs and incentiv-ize efficiency instead of waste.

Newsweek's List - Top Schools

Well, here it is:

Newsweek's annual list of the top high schools, based on Jay Matthew's Challenge Index of ranking schools simply by dividing the number of AP exams taken and the number of graduating seniors, has been released for 2009. The "formula" has been quite controversial among the education crowd, though it has generated some great discussion of what a "top school" is, and it is based on Jay's firm belief that "the best education for the best is the best education for all."

We'll see.

Getting Accountability Right

We should hold public schools accountable for effectively spending the funds with which they've been entrusted. But policies like NCLB, based exclusively on math and reading scores, have narrowed the curriculum, misidentified both failing and successful schools, and established irresponsible expectations for what schools can accomplish.

Instead of just grading progress in one or two narrow subjects, we should hold schools accountable for the broad outcomes we expect from public education - basic knowledge and skills, critical thinking, an appreciation of the arts, and preparation for skilled employment - and then develop means to measure, and ensure, schools' success in achieving them.

Grading Education describes a new kid of accountability plan for public education. It relies upon both higher quality testing and professional evaluation. This new plan is practical and builds upon capacities we already possess. It requires a big commitment, but one necessary to fulfill responsibilities to provide for our youth and the nation's future.

After reading, Tony Wagner's The Global Achievement Gap, I have launched myself into Grading Education by Richard Rothstein, just in time for summer. It looks for some engaging reading, simply from the back of the book posted above. The concept of "broad outcomes we expect" - but don't evaluate - is important, and I am intrigued by the premise. Hopefully, many will be reading and discussing this book.

Charter Growth in Colorado

Colorado charter schools continue to grow — adding schools, students and more diversity, according to a study released Tuesday by the Colorado Department of Education.

"It's fascinating to see as time goes on, statistics and laws of nature take over and charters end up looking like everyone else," said Jim Griffin, president of the Colorado League of Charter Schools.

As I've noted before, in Colorado, open enrollment and the growth of charters is the preferred model. This is preferable to a general statewide voucher system which is not needed or desired because for at least three quarters of families, the neighborhood school is preferable, and people move into neighborhoods for the schools. Thus, a voucher system isn't necessary, nor in demand, though I would concede that some voucher advocates want the option of private schools, and that concern should be addressed.

It's also important to remember there is regular opposition from the communities of struggling schools when districts attempt to close them. Thus, the support for the neighborhood model is still high. I applaud the growth of charter schools as well, and I will continue to support the system of choice that exists in Colorado.

Evaluating Teachers is the Problem

According to the Denver Post:

Excellent teaching goes unrecognized and poor teaching is ignored across the country and in Denver, according to a national study that says failed policies make teachers as interchangeable as widgets. The two-year study called "The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness" examined four states and 12 school districts, including those in Denver and Pueblo. It found common patterns: that teacher effectiveness rarely factors into decisions, such as how teachers are hired, fired or promoted.

"If you ask a superintendent and head of a union to name the top teachers and the bottom teachers, they couldn't tell you," said Dan Weisberg, vice president of policy for the New Teacher Project — the national nonprofit that conducted the study. "It goes back to the widget effect, which is the flawed assumption that each teacher is as good as the next."

While there is much to criticize in teaching today, there is much more to criticize in school administration. Granted, there are many stories of the difficulty schools face when they try to dismiss or discipline teachers. However, that does not excuse districts from managing their staff. Far too often, stories are revealed of all teachers receiving "satisfactory" evaluations when there are clearly ineffective and underperforming teachers on staff. In fact, Tony Wagner recounted, in his book the Global Achievement Gap, the story of his first evaluation in which he was called into the office to sign his "satisfactory" report, though he'd never been observed.

Again, start at the top people. The Rockies just fired their manager because the team was losing. Take a memo.

Random School Drug Testing in Colorado

It appears that the country's paranoid hysteria over drug use continues to dismiss the "innocent-until-proven-guilty" component in our legal system. From the Denver Post, "Springs school district weighs random drug tests:"

A random drug test program being considered by Cheyenne Mountain School District 12 would be the first such program in the Pikes Peak region and only the fourth in the state. The policy, which had its first reading at a May 20 school board meeting, would allow random drug tests of high school students who are involved in district extracurricular activities, including sports, clubs and musical groups.

Discussions about adopting such a policy grew out of an investigation last fall that revealed what police called a "significant" heroin problem at Cheyenne Mountain High School. Police arrested former students and Mexican nationals in a bust linked to the school, but no students were arrested. District officials met with students and parents to determine how serious the drug problem was at the school, offering counseling and other services to students using drugs. About 25 students were involved in the drug incident involving black tar heroin, a potent form of the drug trafficked through Mexico, district officials said.

The board and administration in January began to consider a random drug testing policy. Such policies are controversial because some people believe they are an invasion of privacy and aren't warranted to ferret out the small number of students who abuse drugs.

The interesting component is the focus on activity-involved kids. It may seem to be the one thing districts hold over the kids' heads. But are they just not concerned with the uninvolved kids who are smoking across the street while the activities kids are at meetings and practice?

NCEE Thinks They Have the Answer

According to an op-ed in the Washington Post today, William Brock, Secretary of Labor in the Reagan administration, Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor in the Carter administration, and Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), have the answers for a "world class" education system. However, excuse me if I hold my applause for their basic recitation of the regular mantras of "better teachers" and "accountability" and the ever-present, and slightly clueless obsession with "preparation for college." Their proposals are not so radical as they think, though some of their assumptions are off the mark. For example:

The key to U.S. global stature after World War II was the world's best-educated workforce. But now the United States ranks No. 12, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and today's younger generation is the first to be less educated than the preceding one.

A dubious claim, as I've noted countless times, when the rankings are based on international tests that are voluntary for American students and are often blown off by the test takers. The real test is truly the economy and the state of society. In this regard, the American system is still the place of innovation it has always been, and its college system is still the envy of the world. Ultimately, with 85% of Americans saying they are satisfied with their education, the system is obviously serving its populations to their satisfaction. And isn't that the point? Couldn't we be more like Europe and Asia in test scores if we eliminated sports programs and the arts and theater and student government and recess and physical education and proms and homecomings and fundraisers, etc., etc., etc.? Do the communities want that? I don't think so. But, of course, I could be wrong because I'm just a parent and a teacher in a very successful school district, and not a former Secretary of Labor or head of a "think tank."

Additionally, the authors note a regression from sixty years ago, yet high school graduation is up and more diverse and the top students are breaking down the walls of higher education with AP/IB programs ever expanding with more and more kids doing college-level and even graduate-level work in high school. There is much success in the current system, and the variables for arguing that the population is "less educated" than their parents is dubious at best.

Hold faculty accountable for student achievement. Take over every school that, after three years, is unable to get at least 90 percent of all major groups of students on track to leave high school ready to enter college without the need to take any remedial courses.

Accountability. Of course. But 90% in college. If that means technical schools, maybe. But the country has maxed out at 30% with a four-year degree, and their is no evidence the economy needs or could even accommodate more than that. Remedial courses may say more about the student, than the system.

Make a range of social services available to children from low-income families and coordinate those services with those students' school programs. We have the most unequal distribution of income of any industrialized nation. If the problems posed by students' poverty are not dealt with, it may be nearly impossible for schools to educate the students to world-class standards. The state cannot eliminate students' poverty, but it can take steps to alleviate its effects on students' capacity to learn.

Offer high-quality early-childhood education to, at a minimum, all 4-year-olds and all low-income 3-year-olds. Students from low-income families entering kindergarten have less than half the vocabulary of the other students. In kindergarten and the early grades, those with the smallest vocabularies cannot follow what is going on and fall further behind. By the end of fourth grade, they are so far behind they can never catch up.

This, I admit, is intriguing. There is certainly evidence for its validity with the Harlem Children's Zone and its Promise Academies. We'll see if taxpayers are willing to pony up for the equality of funding and extra services for struggling populations.

Health Care Choice

According to the Denver Post, Howard Dean was in town on Friday stumping for health care reform:

Howard Dean, calling himself a "counterweight to the insurance industry," rallied a Denver crowd Wednesday to push for a public, government-subsidized insurance option for all ages. The former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who is traveling the country to talk about health care reform, said Americans also should have the option of keeping their private insurance.

Of course, if Dean really wants to help the Obama administration's efforts, he didn't do them any favors when he says things like, "Republicans try to act like it's some kind of socialist, communist plot. Welcome to socialized medicine. It's called Medicare." People don't want to see socialized medicine - they want to see national health insurance. People want the doctors and the hospitals and the drug companies operating in the free market where the consumer has choices on who he sees and what he's willing to pay for. They perceive "socialized medicine" as single-payer systems in Canada and Britain where the doctors work for the government. That won't fly here. And Obama didn't help himself when he recently said of reform, "If we don't get it done this year, we're not going to get it done." Not a good idea to throw down ultimatums. We don't like being scared or threatened, and we want change, but not hasty change.

Thus, I am still baffled by the Administration's refusal to offer consumers another "choice" with a logical blend of public and private care. This is best exemplified by the Healthy Americans Act - also known as the Wyden-Bennett plan - or the extension of FEHBP - Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan - to all Americans. In these systems, the free market exists and health care providers bid to serve a pool of 300 million Americans. Each person can choose to purchase as much or as little as he needs or wants, but no one is denied access. No one is forced to give up his doctor - as I was in our current private employer-based system - and all medical decisions remain between the doctor and patient.

The problem for critics of Dean and Obama is that the country wants change, and it will come, and if conservatives are not careful, they could end up with single-payer simply because they provided no logical alternative that maintains the free market. HAA and FEHBP do this. Let's get on it.

Health Insurance Industry Cuts Costs, Too

WASHINGTON — A major health insurer says the government can save more than $500 billion in Medicare spending by sending patients to less expensive, more efficient doctors; reducing hospital visits by the elderly; and cutting unnecessary care.

Those are among 15 suggestions made Wednesday by UnitedHealth Group Inc., a Minnesota-based health-management company that is the biggest participant in the government's Medicare insurance program for the elderly.

So, when the government talks about cutting health care costs by avoiding wasteful and superfluous spending, it's "rationing," but when private industry does it, it's just efficient and good business?