Debt Ceiling Absurdity

OK, now I am officially nervous about this impasse on raising the debt ceiling.

A majority of Americans in countless polls want debt and deficit reduction. A similar majority want it without cuts to Social Security or Medicare. And a similar majority want the deficit and debt reduction to come from a mix of spending cuts - though where is the question - and, AND, tax increases. Yet, we are at a stalemate because the GOP leadership appears just crazier enough to risk worldwide economic calamity and a staggering unprecedented default on the most trusted debt in the world simply because they won't agree to any, ANY, tax increase. Even a tax increase that is matched three-to-one on spending cuts. A majority of Americans want this as the plan, a majority of Americans simply want the deal done, nearly all interested parties from the Chamber of Commerce to the ratings agencies say this is the only answer. And, yet, the GOP balks.

I am nervous, and this is a damn shame.

Unemployment from Convenience

On a recent trip to the city of Chicago, I encountered two situations which clarified the idea of creative destruction and its role in unemployment. We decided to enjoy a day at the races, so a trip to Arlington Park Race Track was in order. And I realized how long it has been since I went to the track when I ran in to trouble trying to place a bet. The problem? No cashiers.

The clerks at the betting windows have been replaced by computerized machines where you insert some cash and push a few buttons for the bet. And it was actually kind of complicated ... and you get a voucher for any money you don't spend .... and you can't ask any questions or get any feedback on how to make various bets ... and it was a bit disappointing. How many people lost their jobs for the convenience of computerized betting?

The unemployment became more clear on a trip into the city when I visited one the numerous city parking garages. There is not a clerk to be found. And that is quite frustrating when I pulled into the wrong garage and attempted to turn around. The machine wouldn't let me out for less than fourteen dollars .... after turning around thirty seconds after entering the garage. Who are you going to appeal to? No cops, no attendants, no cashiers. I wonder how many city attendants have been laid off.

Of course, that's the nature of creative destruction. And I'm sure these people who formerly had jobs took advantage of their unemployment to return to school for graduate degrees or, better yet, probably went out and started their own businesses.

Now, do I think the race track or city owed these people jobs for life? No. But is this sort of automation part of our problem? Oh yeah.

Thoughts?

No Hiring Not about Govt

Well, it's official. Even the Wall Street Journal is arguing that the stagnant employment numbers have everything to do with a lack of consumer demand. Well, duh. Businesses hire when business expands and they need to produce more product and/or service. Period. It's, for the most part, that simple.

Yet, for the same twisted ideological reasons that influence most of their naivete about the economy, many "conservatives" argue that business are simply uncertain about government policies and taxes - so they are delaying hiring.

Yeah, right.

As if a business would turn down increased commerce and orders resulting from demand because they are worried about taxes going up. It's supply and demand, people. And demand impacts hiring. That's the way it works.

Great Resort in the Perfect Mountain Town

I love Breckenridge, Colorado.

I mean I know we all do - but for me I think it goes beyond that. Since moving to Colorado eight years ago, Breckenridge has been my family's choice to celebrate the Fourth of July holiday. From its festive parade and run/bike race activities to the kids water fight courtesy of the fire department to coffee and pie at Clint's to wading in the river all afternoon to the free concert and fireworks on the Town Center lawn, an Independence Day in Breckenridge is a truly wonderful experience.

Each year, we drive up for the day and then head back down the mountain with the crowds. This year we decided to stay for a couple days and check out a time-share opportunity at the new Grand Lodge of Peak 7. Having toured it a bit last summer after eating at Sevens Restaurant, we conceded to take a closer look at the resort - and, alas, we became time share owners in Breckenridge. Despite never believing that we could, should, or would buy a place in Breck, the Grand Lodge enabled us to take our first step to becoming more regular visitors and potential long-term residents of Colorado's perfect mountain town.

In addition to having a week-long stay at a great mountain resort in one of my favorite parts of the world, being owners at the Grand Lodge offers us opportunities to use the resort any time we take a day trip to Breck, as well as providing great discount prices for stays outside of our normal time slot. The prices beat any other accommodations we would find in the area, and we're paying less for a condo suite than we would for a hotel room. Additionally, because Breckenridge is such a desirable vacation destination, we have some great bartering room to exchange our time for any of 2,600 resorts worldwide. That seems like a deal we will most likely take, considering we can access rooms at the resort for great prices anyway.

Thus, if you happen to be in Colorado, I highly recommend taking advantage of a great deal to stay two nights in Breck and tour the fabulous accommodations and vacation living at the Grand Lodge of Peak 7.

Haters on My Tax Argument

As you can probably imagine, the email responses to my article on taxes in Colorado were heated. Sadly, many people felt that because I am an English teacher, I have no right to voice an opinion about tax policy - or that my argument could have merit. Many called me a "union thug," though I am not in a union. Others charged me with corrupting the youth with liberal propaganda - though my piece was in a newspaper and not even during the school year. The reality is I made a simple argument about one temporary tax increase proposal and its effect on Colorado.

I wonder if any people bothered to read the study commissioned by the CSPR whose findings I challenged I read the study. I also called the economist and quizzed him on his conclusions for more than an hour. The "economist" predicted that this 0.5% income tax increase and 0.1% sales tax increase - for an expiring limited three-year window - will cause thousands of wealthy Coloradans to literally pack up and leave the state. Do you seriously believe that? He extrapolated their exodus - including any businesses and personal money they spend - to have a subsequent effect of additional tens of thousands of job losses. Do you seriously believe that? If so, then we can dispense with much conversation - because it is an absurd conclusion that thousands of Coloradans will move out of state to avoid these minor taxes that expire in three years.

I challenged the "study" by the CSPR precisely because of the lack of causation that it was "a proven job killer. This point which was conceded to me by the economist when, after reading the actual study, I called him and had an hour-long conversation with him. During this conversation, he acknowledged my point about the lack of causation. He could, in fact, provide no justification in terms of his algorithms, and he backed away from the assertions made by the CSPR. Thus, I'm pretty confident in my criticism of the study.

After my research, I composed my credible argument by citing specific facts about economic growth and taxes during the past forty years. As I noted in my commentary, tax policy cannot be expected to influence the economy in any predictable way. Case in point about those most responsible for stimulating the economy - In 2004, corporations were given a one-year tax amnesty program to repatriate billions of cash reserves held abroad with the expectation that they would "stimulate the economy" by hiring people. Pfizer brought home more than a billion dollars, and then proceeded to cut 10,000 jobs in the next two years. That was two years before the '08 meltdown. GE did the same thing. They dropped their tax burden to effectively zero and cuts thousands of jobs. After the recent 66% tax increase in Illinois, United Airlines moved 1300 back home to Chicago - many came from their offices in "no-tax" Houston. It's not so simple - and thus my point about a lack of causation is pretty indisputable. Wouldn't you agree?

Colorado is not heading the same way as California or Illinois with a modest and expiring tax increase - for our government spending is still quite limited, and no one in the GOP could identify cuts. Thus, I ask my critics: where are your facts? What is your model? Where is the causation? We can go tit-for-tat on states that add and cut jobs, but as I argued very effectively, that is a fallacy about correlation and causation. The economy is far more complex, and you can't count on companies to hire simply because taxes are low - or stop hiring if they go up. It doesn't work that way. Thus, voters and politicians should consider the needs of the community and stop trying to play the "grow the economy" game.

I made a basic argument about how an incredibly small sales and income tax increase for a couple years in Colorado won't cause a determined number of job losses - especially a 150,000. I stand by my assertion.

GOP is Not Normal

David Brooks points out some depressing absurdities among that GOP in its approach - or lack of one - to the debt ceiling talks.

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

And then there is this - which is exactly what I argued in my last piece of commentary in the Post:

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

These harsh realities are what make it so difficult for rational and pragmatic moderates and independents to support the GOP these days. This ideological rigidity - one which has basically made the Republican Party subservient to the demands of one man named Grover Norquist - is not good for America. While it is easy to simply criticize spending and cross their arms over their chests about taxes, the GOP leadership is ignoring the role of governing. The government needs to govern - not refuse to do anything.

Taxes Don't Cause Job Losses

In response to a recent "study" about taxes and jobs in Colorado, I composed the following piece of commentary, which was featured today in the Denver Post.

Let’s be clear: taxes have one purpose – funding government responsibilities. Period. Taxes aren’t meant to manipulate the economy or employment, and don’t reliably impact either. Thus, Colorado voters shouldn’t try predicting potential job gains/losses from the small, temporary sales and income tax increase proposed by Senator Rollie Heath. Despite warnings from some conservative groups, tax rates don’t influence job choices or migration for average Americans.

When I relocated my family to Colorado from Illinois, the primary reasons were lifestyle – outdoor living, great schools, and cultural experiences. So, while statistics indicate we moved from a high-tax to a low-tax state, taxes had nothing to do with our decision. In fact, as I consider the migrations of many former Illinois residents I know in Colorado, the reasons were education, employment, and lifestyle. Taxes were never a factor.

Recently, the Common Sense Policy Roundtable, a local think tank, published a study warning of job losses in Colorado if Senator Heath’s proposal succeeds. However, the conclusions are hardly definitive. Voters should remember that correlation doesn’t equal causation, and the CSPR study proved no causation between tax increases and job losses. Illinois passed a 66% income tax increase last year, yet its unemployment figures are comparable to Colorado’s. Florida and Nevada, with no state income tax, are in worse shape. Additionally, studies confirm that infrastructure and education spending are far more significant in business location than tax rates. Thus, Colorado could see more growth by sustaining its infrastructure and schools than by cutting funding.

In a desire to connect low taxes and economic growth, many conservative pundits praise low-tax Texas for leading the nation in job growth. Actually, it leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs with no benefits, as well as the percentage of children without health insurance. Texas has one of the worst education records, its unemployment numbers are rising, and it’s facing a $20 billion deficit. Even when jobs and population grow, a myriad of factors are involved. Texas, for example, has lower property values and cost of living, and much of its growth is linked to oil reserves.

Economic systems are far more complex than any single tax rate, and voters are naïve to think otherwise. The Bush tax cuts produced a “jobless” recovery and no net job growth after a decade. By contrast, Clinton’s tax hike coincided with America’s greatest economic expansion. Neither situation resulted from tax policy. The 1980s saw two tax cuts and six tax increases. Yet, drops in inflation, interest rates, and oil prices predominantly influenced the decade’s growth. And the Reagan Era also saw a Wall Street meltdown, a housing bubble, a major banking scandal, and a subsequent recession. Clearly, tax policy was not the primary factor of these events.

Voters should make tax policy decisions based on one priority – the needs of the community. Colorado’s strained state budget resulted from revenue drops – not out-of-control spending. In fact, in the last gubernatorial election, Republican candidates couldn’t identify any specific cuts to the Colorado budget, despite repeated media requests. In reality, Colorado’s modest government requires more revenue to meet its communities’ needs. In this regard, Senator Heath’s minor tax increase is actually quite pragmatic precisely because it expires, allowing time for economic recovery. By maintaining well-funded schools, Colorado can continue to promote itself as a great place to relocate businesses and families.

Despite the wishes of conservative groups, government cannot cease functioning when the economy struggles. Regardless of Wall Street drops or rising unemployment, children still go to school, crimes still occur, roads still wear down. Natural forces don’t wait for good economic times, and nature doesn’t limit snowfall based on budget projections. So, even in a downturn the forest department might need more funds for firefighting or CDOT might need more funds for plowing and repairs. In fact, when the economy tanks, the government often needs to sustain spending until the private sector rebounds.

Despite the ideology of groups like the CSPR, tax policy doesn’t drive the economy. And in reviewing predictions about job growth from the economist commissioned by the CSPR, voters should recall the tongue-in-cheek wisdom of Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Samuelson – “Economists have successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions.”

The ideological debate about taxes and economic growth is not going to end - I'm just seeking to promote reasoned and well-informed discussion.

Debt Ceiling Is Unconstitutional?

This week's edition of Time Magazine posed some interesting issues for discussion about the wording of the Constitution. Perhaps nothing was more interesting than a rather simple comment about the national debt, the debt ceiling talks, and the 14th Amendment. Now, it seems the issue is gaining some serious attention. In a few words, according to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, "The validity of the public debt, as authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."

The Constitutional scholars could - and probably will - analyze this for years. But, the members of Congress better start wrestling with it now. For, if the administration suspects in any way that these debt ceiling talks are putting the country's fiscal integrity at risk, they may decide the conflict necessitates bold action - that is, declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and proceeding to finance the debt without congressional approval. For those who favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution - and yes that means the Tea Party - it is tough to argue that the government should be limited in any way to accumulate and finance existing debt. Period. Thus, in one reading of the Amendment, this debt ceiling discussion is over.

Time posed the idea that the United States defaulting on its debt is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. The Atlantic Monthly argued last month that the entire concept of the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. The Huffington Post has picked up on the story, and provides some interesting historical context - especially the Supreme Court case of Perry vs. the United States in 1935. Then the Court ruled - setting precedent - that Congress does not have the authority to default on the government's debt. Thus, they have no Constitutional choice but to raise the debt ceiling.

The discussion and threats and posturing and hullabaloo about the debt ceiling need to cease. The government needs to pay its bills, and if doing so requires borrowing more money until revenue goes up or spending goes down, the Constitution seems clear. Pay the bills. Eliminate the debt ceiling.

Bobby Flay & Bachelor Degrees

While watching the Food Network's show "Next Food Network Star" this week, I heard Bobby Flay casually make a very interesting comment. In discussing one of the finalists who is a high school dropout, Bobby said, "I stopped going to high school after my freshman year." Hmmmm. Yet another tremendously successful skilled service worker and entrepreneur who did not finish high school ... who did not go to college ... who did not need a bachelor's degree.

The story on Bobby is that he dropped out of high school after his freshman year - or at the age of seventeen, the details are unclear - and went straight to work. He began working in restaurants, supposedly working in a Baskin-Robbins and a pizza parlor. After that rough start, he began working at a restaurant in New York's Theater District, where his dad was a partner. Impressed with Bobby Flay, the owner paid for Bobby's tuition to the French Culinary Institute. From there Bobby began an impressive career in the culinary arts that has led to worldwide success and fame with ten restaurants bearing his name. He also secured a job on the fledgeling Food Network, clearly revealing his skill in front of the camera as well as behind the service counter.

Yet another American success story on a young man who did not fit our traditional education paradigm, but had great promise and success based on skills not measured by ACTs or state tests. I'd like to see more support in schools for people like Bobby Flay.

The 8:00 Bedtime

Parents today don't value bedtime enough.

The benefits of getting "enough sleep" are indisputable. From health to grades to attitude and general happiness, we need to get a good night sleep. And our children need it as much as anyone. Thus, my wife and I have always committed to consistent and early bedtimes for our children. And that doesn't change just because the sun is setting later or school is out. OK, it changes a little. But for the most part, my elementary age children are in bed by 8:00 with the lights off during the school year - regardless of weekday or weekend. Come summer, we extend the evening a bit, though they are never up past 9:00.

Children benefit from consistent schedules, and meals and bedtimes are probably the most important. Too many children never know exactly when dinner will be on the table, and bedtime is often whenever they decide to go - often that is after the movie is over. Occasionally, kids in the neighborhood will ask why my children come in and go to bed when it is "still light outside." Interestingly, my kids never ask this. Explaining to other kids that healthy bedtimes are linked to the clock, not the sun, really means nothing to them. But, that's no matter. Ultimately, my kids live rather healthy and happy lives, and my wife and I deal with far less drama from our kids than many I know.

OK, lights out.

Experience, Knowledge ... or Not

So, what is it going to be? Do we demand that politicians - especially the President - have experience running a business before they are "qualified" to lead the Executive Branch? I am tiring of the critics who trash a politician with a weak straw man argument by saying, "He's never run a business or hired people, so he's not qualified to be a political leader." Because if that is the case, then Warren G. Harding and Jimmy Carter were great choices as Presidents. Except they weren't. Often critics make loopholes if the candidate has been a governor ... but what about candidates for governor. Do they need to have experience "running a business" or "hiring people" or "creating a payroll"?

Do people need to have personal or business experience with every issue before they are allowed to have an opinion on that issue? Occasionally, when making an argument about taxes and society or unemployment, some annoying and rather obtuse thinkers will ask me, "What experience do you have running a business? How do you know how tax cuts/increases will affect hiring?" And, of course, my answer is knowledge, not experience. If you get asked that question, here are a couple follow-ups:

You're probably not a climate scientist, but I bet you have an opinion on global warming. You're not one of our military leaders, but you have an opinion on how and if to fight a war. You've got no experience in counter-terrorism, but you've got an opinion on how to win the "War on Terror." You're not an economist, but you have an opinion about supply, demand, business cycles, and taxes. You're not a constitutional scholar, but you have an opinion on the document and what it means in American history. You're not a teacher or an administrator or child psychologist, but you have an opinion on how to "fix our schools." You're not a doctor or a nurse, but you've logged on to WebMD and diagnosed yourself. You've never had a weight problem, but you have an opinion on how others should deal with theirs. You're not a lawyer or a judge, but you decide innocence or guilt after watching three minutes of the nightly news.

Few of us are experts in anything, and few have experience with everything. Yet, we can all be informed voters. And obtuse, thickheaded ideologues who disagree really piss me off sometimes.

Privacy versus Anonymity

The Supreme Court is being asked to weigh in on the rights of individuals to be anonymous on the internet - namely when posting critical views. Some companies want the right to identify detractors, and, in many ways defend themselves against libelous but anonymous comments. Critics of the companies claim that identifying the names is an infringement on freedom of speech. I'm not so sure I agree.

The anonymous quality of the internet has always bothered me for a variety of reasons. Everything I post on the internet - every comment I make anywhere in society - has my name and face attached to it. For that reason, I am accountable for what I say. And I never put anything in print that I am embarrassed or reluctant to claim. And I view with suspicion anyone who posts anonymously - or, with ridiculous pseudonyms. I have often considered refusing to post anonymous comments on my blog because I have little respect for someone who will criticize or challenge my public posts, yet refuses to put a name to the comments. It always seems a little cowardly and childish. Of course, I acknowledge the time-honored tradition of anonymous news sources, especially as whistle blowers. But they are not what I am talking about - we can't extend whistle blower, anonymous source protection to everyone who wants to write a negative review of a product on Amazon. Can we? Should we?

One of the biggest mistakes I think Americans make regarding privacy issues is to believe they have a right to be invisible, or a right to not be seen. This weighs heavily in public places like schools, airports, and streets. No one is guaranteed invisibility if they are going to walk down a public street or enter a public building. The right to privacy does not endow invisibility. And, that should probably extend to anonymity. Author Michael Lewis wrote about this years ago in his book Next: The Future Just Happened. In analyzing the unintended results of the rise of the anonymity, he chronicled stories of young people who broke down the walls of the legal profession and Wall Street by using the anonymity of the internet. For example, Jonathon Lebed was the youngest person ever indicted for internet stock fraud after he bought penny stocks and then posted anonymous hype of financial message boards. Lewis explains that his "hype" was believable only because no one knew the financial advice was coming from a teenager with no credentials. Anonymity allowed Lebed to crash the gates of financial advising - and enabled him to generate nearly $900,000 in about fifteen months. Whether that was a positive impact on society, I don't know.

Ultimately, accountability is important. This is especially true in economic situations. Trust is integral to the integrity of a system. And, outside the situation of whistle blowers, anonymity is not a positive quality for American society.

Cut Social Security? Of Course

While it may seem earth-shaking that the AARP has softened its long-held opposition - and congressional lobbying stranglehold - on cuts to Social Security benefits, it shouldn't be. In fact, it's sad that such rigidity ever existed in the first place. Social Security was, is, and always should be a simple safety net to keep retired people/elderly from slipping into poverty. A social insurance system against abject poverty is how it was sold, and how it should be treated. For that reason, cuts are in order, and that should have begun with "means-testing" years ago. Certainly, there could be some incentives against drawing early and often from the fund, and Americans should do all they can to make sure that the government payment is not their primary source of income in retirement. At the same time, it must remain, especially as wages lose ground for the lower classes. It has to be there as a safety net - but it should change.

IKEA Store a Monstrosity

Driving down Interstate-25 to Park Meadows Mall yesterday, enjoying the view of the Rocky Mountains, my mood suddenly shifted to a darker place as the monstrous new IKEA store in Centennial overwhelmed the landscape and blocked my view of the entire West Coast. Though it was heavily courted and promoted as some sort of savior to the local economy, the IKEA "Warehouse" also generated some controversy and opposition from residents who worried about its intrusiveness. The primary concern was about the size of the sign, which is, no doubt, a ridiculously over-sized sign for the area. The store asked for and received an exemption from codes. However, the sign pales in comparison to the blight represented by an enormous blue box of a structure that IKEA calls "a store."

I was already turned off to the arrival of IKEA after news began to surface about IKEA (in America) and its anti-labor practices. In Virginia, IKEA workers have been facing serious opposition to desires for collective bargaining after dealing with dangerous work conditions, discriminatory business practices and low wages. These stories are all the more disturbing considering IKEA's origin in the worker-friendly country and culture of Sweden. Where IKEA's Swedish workers make nearly $20/hour, have excellent benefits (provided by taxes), and five weeks of vacation, American workers are starting at about $8 with no benefits. Certainly, the higher wages and benefits given in Europe didn't prevent IKEA from growing into a strong company. Yet, they clearly had no desire to continue practices that improve society once a cash starved society and government allowed them all the shortcuts.

Certainly, Colorado needs the jobs and the commerce, and everyone hoped IKEA would be a boon to the local economy. But, as I've noted before, there are companies that benefit a society as a whole with a sense of being "stewards of the community" .... and then there are companies like America's version of IKEA.

GOP Shift on Anti-tax Zealotry

When I saw the tagline GOP Shifting on Anti-tax Ideology run across the bottom of my TV during the 9:00 news, I felt a small shimmer of hope rising in my heart. This, as I've noted, is one of the areas where I simply haven't been able to find common ground with the GOP. And, whenever I talk about the truly pragmatic Republicans like Judd Gregg or Tom Copburn or Lindsay Graham, I am always disappointed by the RINO label from the un-thinking and naive ideologues.

Yet, there may be hope. Perhaps the Grover Norquist wave is fading just a tad. In Colorado the Douglas Bruce anti-tax zealots have been voted down on their most recent referenda on "no tax increases ever" and "gut government till we look like Somalia."

So, yes, there may be hope. Keep watching.

Corporate Responsibility

If the American economy produces more CEOs and business leaders like Whole Foods' John Mackey and Starbucks' Howard Schultz, then there is reason to be hopeful about the future of the American economy. If not, we are in serious trouble.

In his recent book Onward, as well as a series of speeches and public appearances, about his decision to return to the helm as CEO in 2008, Howard Schultz preaches the importance of corporate responsibility to the people they serve. Rather than being only focused on stock prices and growth, Schultz knows business leaders need to be "stewards of their community." For, if the people in the community do not earn a living wage with reasonable benefits and generate disposable income, they will not be able to afford to purchase products from, and even invest in, American companies.

Certainly, companies can search the world for capital, forever chasing new sources of wealth. However, the country would benefit from businesses investing in people, rather than seeking short-term gains. American corporate leaders could learn from German businesses who made controlling unemployment a priority in the recent recession. In response, Germany weathered the downturn and returned to productivity and growth far more quickly and effectively than the rest of world, especially America.

Let's hope American leaders learn.

History is so ... Past

Some patriotic Americans are, at least for the next day or so, going to be completely outraged over the news that American students' lowest scores on the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) are in history - with fewer than 15% of seniors proficient. Certainly, these numbers are sad, disappointing, even pathetic. But, like all research, the numbers need a bit of qualification and perspective.

I continue to challenge the emphasis of judging our schools and society by arbitrary standardized tests in which the students have no stake - keep in mind that NAEP tests are voluntary, students are asked to miss class to take them, and many students don't even bother to finish. Thus, the top students are often not taking the test - and that may be because, at the high school level, they are busy in their AP Comparative Government, US History, Comparative Government, and European History. These classes are incredibly rigorous, and the numbers of students in them grow each year.

Secondly, history is an incredibly vast subject - especially at the lower levels - where the entire history of the world is covered over the years with great debate over what should be taught. I'd also argue there is a literacy issue, as social studies textbooks are among the most convoluted and poorly written of the content area books. Students are often (way too often) not taught the skills of accessing the knowledge of history, but instead lectured on vast amounts of content which is often out of context for them. And the idea of "history" versus the concepts of "social studies" are at odds for time. Beyond that, few state tests even evaluate social studies, so there is even less incentive for kids to retain the knowledge.

Don't get me wrong - I am truly saddened by the numbers. But I don't see it as the end of American civilization .... or history.

The High School Experience

Time Magazine features an article this week about how much or how little high school defines us. There are so many facets to this idea, and as we move farther away from those years, it seems we definitely are more likely to view them nostalgically. At the very least, as teachers we can offer some objective perspective for our students who are dealing with these intense years - years that, in my experience as both a student and teacher can represent the highest of highs and the lowest of lows. There is all the hope and optimism in the world, and it's tempered by the angst that seems to ground every song, movie, novel, TV show, and blog entry about the high school experience.

John Hughes virtually created the high school movie genre that still fascinates us. Taylor Swift tells us that being fifteen is "who you are before you know who you are going to be." Dan Savage is reaching out the teens struggling with issues of sexuality - and there is no harder venue in which to struggle with that than high school - with his incredible YouTube campaign "It Gets Better." I regularly counsel my students that regardless of whether it's a great experience, or a bit disappointing, these are not, I hope, "the best years of their lives." They should view with suspicion anyone who tells them that - or at least without some honest qualification. A student wrote years ago in a personal essay about a particularly arduous year for her class that "No one reaches adulthood without a few scars." Wise words.

So, here's a question. Good, bad, or neutral, what is your truest observation about high school?

No Regrets from 2008

When I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, it was the first Democrat I'd voted for in the presidential elections since 1992, and one of the few I'd voted for at the national level. Since then, the economy has been stagnant, an all-out ideological battle has begun over the role and size of government, and the 2012 presidential race is a constant source of speculation. With that in mind, many Obama supporters are asked if they have buyer's remorse. It's a necessary question.

In terms of Obama's performance, I'd put him at about a C. The initial push for health care reform was a mistake, but only because it was an over-reach. The bill is a monstrosity, and it was not a priority for most voters in 2008. On top of that, voters supported and the parties agreed on many components - as much as 80% - of the Affordable Care Act. The first major piece of legislation should have been a much smaller bill that covered common ground. It would have been good for America.

In terms of the economy, the idea of a stimulus bill was a good idea, but it was not focused enough on immediate infrastructure spending and labor that immediately impacts the economy. It was also too heavily geared toward tax rebates that produce no visible or guaranteed effects. The money should not have been about bailing out state deficits, and the Obama Administration has been rather inept about explaining the loss of revenue that has caused debts and deficit levels to rise. Military contract spending has not been adequately restrained. Medicare should be able to negotiate prices. Oil, ethanol, and farm subsidies should be closed, and the tax code should be simplified to eliminate wasteful spending such as mortgage deductions on second homes and those valued over one million dollars. Obama's leadership on all this has been mediocre, and I don't like this "lack of leadership" style.

That said, I have no regrets on the vote, considering the alternative. While I strongly supported John McCain in the 2000 election, I could barely stomach the version of McCain-lite that ran in 2008. He had completely sacrificed his pragmatic understanding of finance and tax policy, and had given in to the mis-guided supply siders in the GOP. And, of course, I am proud to have not voted for any ticket that had Sarah Palin's name attached to it. The same goes for the current crop of candidates who are so naive on the history of tax cuts and their impact on the economy that they continue to ignore decades of history.

So, no regrets. But no firm plans to vote the same way in 2012.

The Reality of Sports Recruiting

With my recent post on Colorado high school sports, and the recent implosion of the Ohio State University football program from recruiting violations, I am wondering about the ethics of sports recruiting - at all levels. Certainly, as someone asked, there's not necessarily anything wrong with schools - even high schools - reaching out to students with athletic talents and encouraging them to attend a specific school. My argument about high school is simply that it is against all state high school athletic codes - and private schools are often criticized for sports success when they can be selective about their students. Thus, I wouldn't necessarily argue that there is anything wrong with recruiting, as long as all schools are allowed to do so.

Should high schools be allowed to contact sixth graders about athletic programs? How about offering athletes preferential treatment or guarantees. Private schools can waive tuition based on financial need - but should they be able to waive tuition just based on athletics - or any talent for that matter. Certainly, some private schools already waive tuition for athletes, as that is a common sanction against private schools - providing illegal tuition assistance. Because public schools can't do that, would it be wrong for them to allow perks such as choice schedules or parking places or access to events or private tutoring or anything really? Would that be OK?

At the college level, people have long talked about paying athletes. An argument is that these young athletes are being exploited by the universities. Of course, the reverse is true. The athletes are exploiting the universities for access and exposure. And, if schools do begin paying athletes, they must give up their tax exempt status, which is based on an "educational mission." Many people they should already give up that status, considering the billions of dollars in TV revenue they already accrue.

It's a good question.

State Championships in Colorado

What a year for Regis Jesuit High School athletics in Colorado. They won state championships in boys tennis, golf, basketball, swimming, lacrosse, baseball, and a second-place finish in football. Of course, there's no reason to suspect athletic recruiting at this school of 900 students - except they actually admitted illegal recruiting practices to CHSAA last fall. Though Regis has dominated boys swimming for years, they’ve made a dramatic leap to domination in all sports in a very short time. And, it’s not a question of if they are recruiting – it’s a matter of how extensive the violations have been. The coincidence between the recent string of victories and the illegal recruiting admission last fall should not be ignored.

Unfortunately CHSAA has taken no serious action toward private school recruiting, and public schools are understandably troubled by this trend. Last fall, the Florida High School Athletic Association fined Mandarin Christian High School $142,000 - a penalty so harsh it may destroy the school's entire sports program. While it may seem extreme, Florida should be applauded for taking the issue seriously. It’s worth asking how a similar hard-line might change high school playoffs in Colorado.

At one time, Jesuit schools had a reputation for a rigid code of ethics and a devout focus on education. Hopefully, that hasn't changed in Colorado, though recent results certainly cast suspicion. The problem with recruiting is it's difficult to prove - thus, when it's discovered, regulators need to make it hurt. By not doing so, CHSAA is condoning behavior detrimental to high school sports.

Austan Goolsbee and the Truth about Taxes

In news today, Austan Goolsbee, one of President Obama's top economic advisors, is leaving his job at the White House to return to his position as an economist at the University of Chicago. Goolsbee is probably best known for his "White Board" speeches in which he sketched out economic policy of tax cuts - criticizing the GOP plan for continued tax cuts - in a short videotaped speech. Here's a look:

Sadly, far too many Americans are naive to even the simple truths of this two-minute video. And if that sort of thinking continues, the US economy will continue to be mired in the backwaters of ideologically produced debt and deficits.

English Class - Business or Pleasure

Recent comments from a reader, as well as curricular discussions with colleagues, have led me to recently ponder the English classroom and the phrase "life long lovers of reading."

That phrase has always bothered me, especially when it is used in reference to the job of an English teacher and the role of the English classroom. There is a clear line between reading for pleasure and the study of literature, and no English class/curriculum should be designed with the goal of "creating life-long lovers of reading." We can, and should, teach them to "appreciate literature," but not to love it. No math teacher is tasked with making students "love" the "joy" of a "wonderful algorithm." No social studies teachers is expected to pursue the goal of "loving" the timeline of the Civil War. No science teacher is expecting "love" for the beauty of a graph or chemical reaction. We don't expect for schools to create life long lovers of jazz music or basketball or writing or texting or nursing or fixing pipes or installing software or filing or calculating or .... or anything.

English classes are about developing literacy and critical thinking skills - not developing hobbies. Simply because there is an "artistic quality" to the content, does not mean that "loving" the art is the purpose of the class. Literary analysis is not about discovering the joy of a wonderful book, though that can certainly happen -it's about understanding important societal themes and appreciating effective use of language. And no author ever wrote a novel or poem with the intention of it being assigned to students to read and deconstruct. It just so happens that great literature is the perfect content for students to practice the higher level thinking skills of rhetorical analysis. And the themes of great literature also allows schools to be purveyors of culture and sources of character instructions as the stories allow students to understand literature as a "record of the human experience."

But loving reading? You can't teach anyone to like something. And you shouldn't try.

Teaching and Facilitating

Darren at RightOnTheLeftCoast addresses the issue of "teaching" versus "facilitating learning." Here are my thoughts:

Years ago, when I agreed to take on a student teacher, I first heard the term "learner facilitator" from the college's education department chair who introduced candidates that way at a meet and greet. And I mocked the term endlessly after that. In the classroom, I have always been a traditional, classical instructor, and am wary of "foo foo" education.

In my high school honors freshman English classes, I spend 3/4 of the year instructing my students on how to study literature as high school students, rather than the middle school language arts focus of simply reading and commenting on stories. We learn to analyze language and literature by focusing of diction, syntax, tone, mode/genre, allusion, allegory, rhetorical strategies, as well as thematic analysis. We also develop skills of rhetorical analysis in our writing, focusing of modes of literary analysis, style analysis, and argumentation.

In the final quarter of the year, I literally use the terms "sage of the stage" and "guide on the side," as well as "teacher/learner facilitator" when I expect them to put into practice the skills they have learned during the year. With the final works of the year - pieces such as Old Man and the Sea and Beowulf - the responsibility is on them. They lead discussion, research the scholarly work, develop a research assignment, and prepare for the final evaluation of their skills. Of course, I am there for guidance and will not let them miss an idea or perpetuate a misinterpretation. But they really need to walk the walk and put skills into practice. And the evaluation is literally weeks long.

The focus is on skill, not content, and they must apply the skills to all content. So, there is a time and place for "facilitating learning" in the classroom. That is true for my students as they work toward the AP language exam where the content is a mystery and they must be able to apply the skills I have "taught" them to any content. My pass rate of 94%, with more than 3/4 of students receiving 4s and 5s, validates the success of this model.

That said, teaching or facilitating isn't really the point, as long as learning is happening. Thus, in the grand scheme of public education, "Best Practice" is really about whatever works.

Politics and Double Speak

In this era of partisan politics run amok, there is no greater time for citizens to be attuned to what George Orwell called the politics of the English language. With that in mind, I always seek in my classroom to help my students become "people on whom nothing is lost." It is an imperative that they become astute and aware to manipulation by language. The example I give them at the beginning of the year is the clever wording that a Gingrich-led GOP was able to institute regarding taxation on inherited income. By effectively switching the terminology from the traditional "inheritance" or "estate" tax to the more negatively connoted "death tax," they re-framed the issue and fundamentally changed the debate. The problems of this were nowhere more evident than in a national poll where 75% of Americans said they supported the estate tax, but 75% of them opposed the death tax. It was the same poll to the same group of people - these potential voters were so manipulated by language, they didn't even know what they believed.

With this in mind, I think it's worth taking a look at what is arguably one of the greatest example of political doublespeak in the history of American politics. It's the infamous "whiskey speech" by Mississippi legislator Noah Sweat. This speech was delivered on the floor of the legislature in response to questions about his position of laws limiting the production and sale of alcohol.


My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

Spoken like a true politician - a unique species always worthy of study.

GOP and the Party of Crazy

According to former Colorado Republican congressman - and occasionally ranting lunatic - Tom Tancredo, President Obama withheld his birth certificate on purpose to "make the GOP look nuts."

Hmmm ... ya' think?

Then again, I don't think the GOP has needed any help looking like the "party of crazy." They've been handling the nutcase side of politics rather well on their own. Though, even if it wasn't intentional, once the nuttiness began, I wouldn't doubt Obama was shrewd enough to allow it to happen. Yet, if he really wanted to go that route, he would have let the whole thing run throughout the primaries of 2012.

Tom Tancredo continues his analysis by exclaiming that Obama pulled the ultimate Muhammed Ali "rope-a-dope." I wouldn't disagree, though the most amusing part is Tancredo identifying the GOP as "the dope." He, of course, would be leading candidate in that race from his extreme comments and rather pathetic runs for president and governor of Colorado in the past few years. I mean, seriously. Anyone who identifies President Obama as "a greater threat to the United States than Al-Qaeda" is either a truly extreme politician, or a conspiracy nutcase who is holding on by a very thin thread.

And, so we're left to continually ponder where this stuff comes from. A decade ago, I was completely comfortable dividing my vote between the Democrats and the GOP, always choosing the most moderate and pragmatic leader. Alas, it has become increasingly difficult to walk that line. From seemingly aloof and misguided positions on tax rates and foreign policy to education and immigration reform to clear naivete about foreign policy and the true costs of government to intentionally ambiguous takes on labor, the "free market," and health care, I just can't find common or moderate ground with the GOP.

I have hope .... but it's wearing thin.

Atlas Shrugged ... So do I

The rise of interest in Ayn Rand's monstrous and fantastical ode to the wealthy elite - Atlas Shrugged - has baffled me for a while. It seems that many don't actually read it - but rather check the Wikipedia entry - and if they do read it, they don't read it with any sense of reality. For the one thing everyone - including Rand - seems to miss is that no true capitalist would ever pursue the principled stand of John Galt. In fact, if Galt is as principled as he seems, he never would have become successful in the first place. The reality is that innovators and business leaders like Galt are driven by, for lack of a better word, greed. And they aren't going to walk away from making more just to prove a point to the government and all those needy, lazy workers who are sucking them dry.

It's just such a preposterous thesis - and a truly disconnected viewpoint from someone who claimed to preach the gospel of unfettered capitalism. The creative and economic elite wouldn't shut everything down - they'd do what they've always done - buy politicians. No one is going to stand on principle and stop making money, though they may grandstand about it. But if I know anything about business leaders it is this - they would pretend to join the crowd, all the time planning to back out and take over in the vacuum that would result from all the business leaders walking away. And, of course, many of the innovators are people like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, who are calmly creating away in their garages and dorm rooms, and not worrying that someday the government will take away all their riches, so they just won't create in the first place. That'll show 'em!

What a bunch of hogwash.

Military Mis-Appropriations

I wonder how serious the debt and deficit would be if, twenty-three years ago at the end of the Cold War, American voters and legislators had taken an honest and realistic look at defense spending. My guess? Trillions of dollars would have been saved, and our country would feel safer and more secure than it does now. A recent feature investigation in Time Magazine asks - and answers - the same questions.

For at least a decade, I have argued with debt and deficit critics about the need to cut military spending. From unnecessary and unproved or outdate weapons systems to convoluted and secretive appropriations programs linked to local jobs with military contractors to hundreds of thousands of soldiers stationed around the world in stable societies, the military is a behemoth of spending that results from lack of oversight. As Time points out with the famous quote from Truman about the "military industrial complex," the nation needs "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to carefully analyze and budget for our military needs and peaceful goals.

Thoughts on Taxes and Deficits

Some thoughts from a discussion over at Darren's blog - RightontheLeftCoast.blogspot.com

Of course, higher taxes won't end our debt in a year or two, and no one is proposing it could. And no one is proposing 100% confiscation, which is absurd. Of course, marginal rates of 89% existed during the country's exceptional economic boom from 1945-1965. Not that I'm arguing higher rates solve the problem - just that they don't necessarily cause more problems. The economy is about far more than marginal tax rates.

However, had rates not dropped to historic lows over the past decade, the debt would be far, far less. Extrapolate the lost revenue over twenty years and the case is obvious for allowing rates to rise for the wealthiest. If, for the past thirty years, capital gains and dividends had just been taxed as income, as uber-rich people like Buffett and Gates have proposed, and FICA was not capped, this current debt crisis would hardly exist. So, raising taxes on the rich - over the next decade or so - will do wonders in paying down the debt. And the garbage about "killing jobs" by "punishing the job creators" is exactly that, garbage. Supply and demand doesn't work that way - and no effective business owner turns down a good investment or refuses to expand his business simply because he might pay 19%, rather than 15%. A good deal is a good deal and business investments are made on timeliness first.

Budget criticisms about foreign and PBS/NEA/NPR are political not fiscal, and they don't have much relevance to the debt/deficit concern. As are comments on Ponzi schemes and socialism. Social insurance is a good investment for any society - just look at the economies of Singapore and Germany - and the debt problems are essentially solved through means testing and allowing the government to negotiate with providers. Just look at prescription costs for veterans if you disagree. And we've actually been "printing money" since the 1970s and the boat is afloat.

Taxes are the revenue the state uses to fund state business. The greatest percentage of revenue will come from its greatest concentration of it. The wealthy can simply afford to pay more for the functioning of the state, and they have clearly gleaned as much from a society that has been stable enough - because of said government/society - to create such wealth.
No wealthy business owner amasses wealth in a vacuum - it accrues from all contributers along the supply/demand line. And the infrastructure that allows that to occur and flourish is maintained by a government of representative democracy.

Limit/end corporate welfare (agree with you there), means test the safety net and allow for negotiations and cuts without hysterical "killing grandma" cries, cut back the military/security behemoth, don't cut taxes to "spur growth," plan to pay for wars while fighting them, and have a nice day.

Taxes and Growth

In response to the budget plan by Paul Ryan and the GOP which cuts taxes by $4 trillion, both Charles Blow in the New York Times and Walter Mondale in the Washington Post attempt to clarify the issue of taxes and growth. The question is whether Americans can do the math, or whether they are still deluded by either sound bite ideology or simple ignorance of economic facts, rather than theories.

The TEA Party likes to claim that Americans are "taxed enough already." Yet, as Mondale points out, taxes are at their lowest rates in forty years - and, consequently, is government revenue which leads to deficits and debt at both the state and federal level. Sadly, too many voters don't see the connection, and they are reluctant to pay for what they want ... and that's precisely because politicians and leaders have convinced them they are already paying for what they don't want.

Obama versus Ryan

Let's be clear - I am not enamored of Obama's deficit reduction plan and budget for 2012. While the message and philosophy of his speech was honest and fundamental to promoting "the general welfare" of the United States, the plan falls short in several areas of necessary spending cuts and tax revisions. However, while Obama's plan disappoints me, Ryan's plan is, in my opinion, far worse. The Path to Prosperity is a specific budget cutting proposal, no doubt. However, the assumptions it makes about future growth and prosperity are ideological and naive at best, but more likely reckless.

The audacity of crying bankruptcy and slashing social spending is simply wrong when it is being balanced by $4 trillion in tax cuts. If the problem is being broke and not having enough money, the answer is most definitely not to cut revenue further. Of course, the Ryan plan is taking that course on the misguided notion that the US can't tax the "job creators" as Colorado representative Mike Coffman calls them. Keeping the 01/03 tax cuts has no definitive impact on job and economic growth. It simply doesn't. That ideology has been discredited time and again. Increased demand grows jobs, and investors create new businesses whenever they want. There is no shortage of investment capital right now, and no shortage of business who could hire people. And it's not taxes that are preventing that from happening.

Obama's plan on the other hand is not clear enough on the tax increases that need to happen. But the deductions problem is pretty clear. Deductions are meant to ease the tax burden of people whose living allowance margin is thin. And the more deductions they have, they greater chance they will buy a house or purchase consumer goods. That's simply not the case with people earning more than a million dollars. They need no incentive to spend their extra cash. They spend whenever they want. Arguing that fewer deductions means these people have less money to hire people and start business is simply wrong and ideologically bullheaded.

Thus, I predict that Obama can win the next election with this plan - and I think the Democrats can even take back some lost seats. But that doesn't mean I think it's a great plan. It's simply not the disaster that Mr. Ryan presents. As I've noted before, you can't trust economic policy from a man who rants about the high corporate tax rates and seems willingly naive to the idea of corporate tax deductions.

Taylor Swift Gone Wild

Just out of curiosity - because my kids are such fans - I checked out the price and availability of concert tickets for Taylor Swift's show on September 27 at the Pepsi Center in Denver. I was initially surprised to see tickets were still available. And then I was shocked to see the cheapest - and worst - seat available .... at the back of the venue ... in the nosebleed seats .... on the venue's website .... not from scalpers ... were ... $125 each. Gasp!

That is, in my opinion, completely beyond the pale.

Taylor Swift is a phenomenally talented musician and a seemingly very genuine young woman. I am impressed with her songs and her public demeanor, and I don't question my children listening to her music. "But, Girl, you concert prices are out of control." Taylor is forgetting where she came from. And she is forgetting who her fans are. And she is neglecting to take an active interest in the business side of her career to ensure that regular folks have a reasonable shot at sharing in her live performance of the songs they made popular enough for her to charge whatever she wants.

Professional sports is no different. A lifelong St. Louis Cardinals fan, I was supremely disappointed in the stalemate between Albert Pujols and the team over his next - and final contract. Reports claim he expects to be the highest paid player in the league and that equates to a 10-year, $300 million contract. That is a bit ridiculous - especially because he will be in his forties at the end of the contract. This is as a member of the same team as Stan "The Man" Musial - a player who once signed his contract without looking at it, and when the press asked him if he wanted to review it first, he said, "I'm getting paid to play ball. I'm sure it's fine."

Let's hope the air someday goes out of the entertainment bubble, and prices return to a reasonable rate. But I'm not holding my breath.

Economics Plans

The White House says President Obama is set to release his budget and/or deficit reduction plan sometime this week. If that's the case, then both David Brooks and Fareed Zakaria are correct about the Ryan Plan forcing the discussion and throwing down a gauntlet on government budgets that must be addressed. Yet, I still far that Zakaria and Brooks are far too generous in identifying the bill as courageous and forward-thinking. It's still too naive in terms of growth and the role of tax rates, and it is simply unconscionable in terms of the faith it plays with the free market and insurance companies concerning health care for the elderly.

Yet, my gut instinct tells me that the President's plan is going to be equally naive concerning spending. And he is going to lose the battle on taxes if he keeps targeting as low as earners making more than $250,000. While I do feel that amount is comfortably wealthy, it is not an vast sum of money, especially in places like New York and California. He could certainly argue for higher rates on people in the million dollar tax brackets and address the revenue problem more rationally. Better yet, it should, as both the Wyden-Gregg and Ryan Plan argue, focus predominantly on the deductions. Certainly, we can come to consensus that the mortgage deduction is a reasonable tax break for many Americans, but it is unnecessary for people making more than 500 Gs, or for purchasing more than one residence.

So, if we could focus on that. We'd be getting somewhere. Broaden the base, flatten the rates, narrow the deductions for all, end them for the top 20%, and be done with it.

Pepper Spray & Eight-Year-Olds

By now, you've probably read about the unruly eight-year-old boy who was pepper sprayed and cuffed by school police officers in a Denver suburb. I know, I'm still trying to get my mind around it as well. Yet, arguably, this story is much more complex than you might initially think.

Everything in my adult/teacher/parent mind tells me that there is no reason to pepper spray an third grader. My son is eight, and short of him having a gun, I can't think of any situation where I couldn't restrain him, even taking away from him a "sharpened stick" like the boy in the story was wielding. Some middle school and high school kids might be reasonable targets for pepper spray or even a taser if they are "threatening school personnel" and "throwing TVs and desks" at a door behind which the teachers had barricaded themselves. But an eight-year-old?

Yet, the district superintendent has defended the action as not only "legal" but in the best interest of the safety of the boy. Police officers are trained to take down the most dangerous and aggressive of people, and there is every reason to think that in restraining and removing the child, he could have ended up with bruises or a broken finger or wrist or arm or a concussion. And we can predict the lawsuits coming from that. In fact, the boy's mother wondered why the police didn't just talk to him as they had done on the two other occasions when they had been called to deal with this child.

And therein lies the complexity.

Clearly, this child is a problem. And previous "talking" may have led to the escalation, as the boy has learned he can get what he wants. The mom - who does not come off well in interviews - has clearly failed in almost every aspect of parenting. And she has burdened her son with issues he will struggle with for years. She claims doctors have refused to medicate him because it's not a medical problem. I agree. It's a parenting problem. And while the boy "never acts that way at home," I'd conclude it's because he gets everything he wants. My guess is the boy comes home each day and sits on the couch for hours watching SpongeBob or playing video games while his mom brings him every bit of junk food his heart desires. I'd guarantee homework is not an expectation in that house.

Thus, the boy was subdued, cuffed, and transferred to an alternative school for behavior disabled schools. Well, that's certainly appropriate, albeit about ten referrals and two police visits too late.

Oh, that we could have some discipline for mom as well.

The Ryan Plan and the Future

The Ryan Plan ..... hmmmmm.

The Ryan Plan is a starting point.

The Ryan Plan is the end of effective government.

The Ryan Plan is visionary and courageous.

The Ryan Plan is draconian and shortsighted.

"The Ryan Plan isn't perfect, but it's forcing Americans to confront reality ..."

"The Ryan Plan is simultaneously ridiculous and heartless."

I don't know what to think of the 2012 budget proposal from Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, but it makes me uneasy. And I don't like to feel uneasy about plans the government is making. At the same time, I've been feeling uneasy about the growing debt and deficit since about 2003 (unlike many who suddenly found God on government spending in 2009). In response to the budget, which Ryan is somewhat smugly calling a "Pathway to Prosperity," and which is a more concise version of the "Roadmap to the Future" he published two years ago, liberals and conservatives are weighing in. David Brooks and Paul Krugman of the New York Times have offered some contrasting commentary on the Ryan Plan, and Matt Miller of the Washington Post has criticized the plan with specific numbers breakdowns from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Ryan Plan intends to cut $4 trillion over the next decade from the budget and make sweeping changes to the way the government funds health insurance for the poor, disabled, and elderly through Medicaid and Medicare. Basically, the plan would retain Medicare for all people 55 and older, and would shift to a $15,000 voucher to buy health insurance in retirement after that. It would turn federal funding of Medicaid into "block grants" to states which they would fund according to their own plans and abilities. It would balance the budget by ... wait for it .... 2040. And it would accomplish all of this by making no cuts to military spending. It would accomplish this by not raising taxes. And it would accomplish this by lowering the unemployment rate to about 3%. That number, it should be pointed out, is a projection from the Heritage Institute - a rather ideological group who is basing the projection, not on numbers from the GAO or CBO, but on theories about supply side economics.

Overall, I concede Brooks' point that the Ryan Plan is a bold starting point. But I hope that's all it is. Because it truly is a ridiculous plan. No one on the recent debt commission has rationally argued that we can fix our long term deficit problems without raising some taxes. Ultimately, a revision of the tax code can lower some taxes, raise others, and close loopholes. And social insurance in the form of Medicare and Social Security could and should be fixed through simple means testing and more credible indexing. Beyond that, any proposal that doesn't seek to cut military spending or agricultural and corporate subsidies is either incredibly naive, myopically ideological, or just disingenuous.

We'll see.

Reverse-Read Poem - Lost Generation

Working on a "multi-genre" research project with my class today, and a student introduced to the idea of a "reverse-citation poem" - one that can be read forward to reveal one message and backwards to reveal the opposite message. Fascinating.

Here's the example he shared. It's called "The Lost Generation" by Jonathan Reed:

Supply Side Shortcomings

It's no surprise that the business and economic news of the week is focusing on how the United States' economy is recovering and growing, yet it is not producing significant job growth. In fact, despite stronger economic gains than world trading partners, other countries are outpacing the United States in putting people back to work. The growth in the US is seen in a robust stock market and a corporate profit report that reveals profits setting records and operating at a twelve percent gain over the numbers prior to the recession. The reality is that American workers are more productive, and companies which shed jobs during the recession have realized they can make due with fewer workers. And so they will.

This realization leads to serious questions about the promotion of supply side economic policies as a way of generating job growth. The basic question is this: Who can argue that job growth is the goal of any business? In reality, it's not. Certainly, the correlation between increased business leading to a need for more workers is relevant. However, because labor costs are the greatest cost for most businesses - and that only increases as benefits' costs rise - no business is actively looking for a way to hire more people as its goal.

Expanded market share and profits are the goal of any business. Increasing sales and production while limiting costs is the predominant focus. If a company can increase profits without increasing labor or costs, it will - it must. Thus, to argue that governments can implement pro-job growth policies - especially in terms of taxes - defies basic economic sense. The current growth of the US economy validates this - albeit this is a simplified explanation.

To argue that a tax policy will spur more hiring makes no sense. Supply is only increased to meet demand. A generous business tax policy does not increase demand, and it's ambiguous that any tax cut will increase demand in any specific business sector. The economy and the spending habits and productions needs of the economy are far too complex. The economy is an emergent system, and identify specific factors of emergent system is not really possible, at least from a tax policy standpoint.

The Dark Side of Reform

When Steven Leavitt published Freakonomics years ago, he raised some eyebrows - and blood pressures - by arguing statistics reveal that teachers and sumo wrestlers are among the professions most likely to "cheat." The high stakes "testing" and "ranking" of each profession was indicated as the likely factor.

Now, in the DC public schools - the domain of reformer Michelle Rhee who blamed low standardized test scores on poor teachers protected by unions and tenure - it appears more data supports Leavitt's argument. In an investigative story in USA Today, the examination of rising test scores and student achievement is linked to an unusually high number of erasure marks on students tests - erasures which revealed huge percentages of wrong answers being changed to correct ones.

We should all be disappointed in this reality - but we should view it with an intent to understand the broader message. If true, the teachers of these "diligent self-checking students" should not be excused or exonerated because the pressure to show results led to poor decisions. However, this story should influence the discussions about standardized tests which are "high stakes" for schools and teachers, but zero stakes for students. And the mythical panacea of "merit pay" based on such tests must also be scrutinized.

Teen Athletes Eating Right

On numerous occasions each year, I rant about the importance of healthy eating, especially during the teenage years. From the pizza and cookies for lunch to the random snacks of donuts and chips to the way students sit casually sipping a sugar-filled Powerade, too many young people eat for crap these days. In fact, they are eating crap these days. And there is no doubt these habits will have negative long term repercussions on their health. Yet, the prevalence of low-quality processed foods is ubiquitous, and despite my rants and a semester in health class, students aren't really getting the education they need.

However, there is hope. And a recent local news feature gives my hope that my rant just might be making an impact. The fitness section of the Denver Post spotlights two local teen athletes who have seen the light. These two young men battled weight problems for years until they made the decision to beat the battle of the bulge. One of the students was a freshman in my Honors English class four years ago - and I was shocked when he came to see me last fall at the start of his senior year. He'd lost fifty pounds and was the captain of his varsity basketball team - one of the top programs in the state.

This story is great news, and it's exactly the type of story we need about young people. Yet, I worry about opposition to health information. Despite the best of intentions, the First Lady Michelle Obama has been targeted with endless criticism for attempting to promote healthier foods in schools. Certainly, it's mainly political - though it's veiled in the guise as an "assault on freedom." That, by the way, is patently ridiculous. And, hopefully more schools and kids and parents will begin to pursue healthier choices.

High fives to these young men for being an inspiration to us all.

Corporate vs. Public

Jon Stewart "gives up."

In a informative sketch, Stewart once again expresses dismay about the GOP-led campaign against public workers as "budget busting" leeches, while ignoring any sense that our corporate tax structure is integrally linked to the fiscal crisis. This is an argument that simply doesn't seem winnable by Democrats - and neither Stewart nor I can figure out why.

How many times have I heard conservative pundits and politicians decry our outrageous corporate tax rate - "highest in the industrialized world" - while completely ignoring (or being shamefully clueless) about the discrepancy between tax rates and taxes paid. Yes, the corporate tax rate is officially 35%. But NO corporation pays anywhere close to the rate .... and 2/3 of US corporations pay no corporate income taxes. That's none. Zero. And to make matters worse, the top earning corporations receive additional tax benefits in the from of subsidies and rebates.

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

It is astonishing, I know. How can such a profoundly corrupt system be completely lost on voters and Republican congressman? And I get the criticism of the Democrats. It is absolutely valid. Liberal leaders do try to accomplish too much, and they are reasonable targets for out-of-control public spending. But this double-standard is just too much for an unaffiliated, moderate voter like me.

I sympathize with Stewart, and I wonder how Democrats can be so clueless about educating the public on this. Unless they don't really want to. What would be wrong with a series of commercials - especially during elections - that is committed to exposing the corruption of the system? Why is that so hard? Where are the Democratic versions of the Koch brothers?

Revenue or Spending

In the ever-going state budget discussion here in Colorado, conservative columnist John Andrews argues in the Denver Post that Colorado doesn't have a revenue problem and should, surprisingly, emulate states like Wisconsin and Texas. My thoughts:

In a column addressing the budgetary challenges facing Colorado, the recommendation that we adopt our tax system from Texas is quite baffling, especially for someone who's generally pretty well informed about issues of politics and government. Texas is currently facing a projected $27 billion shortfall in 2012, which aligns it squarely with the budgetary disasters in states like California and Illinois. This fiscal tsunami is in spite of increased job growth and business relocation to Texas in the past decade. Thus, Texas - which has no "out-of-control spending" and an austere, Colorado-like budget, is clearly inhibited by a revenue problem.

The revenue problem is no different than in Colorado. Certainly, as he notes, spending in Colorado has increased over the years. Yet, his criticism is ignoring a myriad of factors that lead state spending to expand - increased population, increased wear and tear on infrastructure, natural disasters from epic storms to massive fires to uncontrolled pine beetle devastation, greater demands on education for expanded testing and security and special education, rising demands of Medicaid and public health as private sector workers face increasing premiums or lose benefits while wages remain stagnant, etc. Simply put, as the years go on, costs go up. They always have - that's why I used to pay less for everything, and now, even with wages increases, costs have gone up. The economy is so much more complex than Andrews' knowledge of it, and his inability to look beyond a basic prejudice toward taxes is the foundation of the state's revenue problem.

And then we turn to Andrews' mythologized "Reagan" reference as "visionary" in terms of deficits? That's the same Reagan who cut revenue and ballooned not only the deficit but the national debt. That's the same Reagan who sought to repair the budget with eleven subsequent revenue increases between 1983 and 1987, and still left a debt and deficit that cost his successor a second term.

As an educator who urges to my students to be "people on whom nothing is lost," I am worried by voters like Andrews who take an ideological, rather than pragmatic, real-world approach to the budget. His naive recommendations simply validate one of Winston Churchill's greatest insights:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Coloradan's votes on Ref C & D, their rejection of 60, 61, & and 101, and their election of John Hickenlooper over a notoriously inept and rather clueless GOP field seem to indicate they're not as naive as his friends at CUT (Colorado Union of Taxpayers) and the Independence Institute.

But I still worry.