Month: October 2007

Categories
National politics

GOP Meltdown

I have written previously about my views on social conservatives abandoning the party in 2008 if the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani. I have been interested in the various articles about why they would, or wouldn’t go through with that threat. Some of the people suggesting that this is a bluff, or a poor choice, show that they do not really understand the people who are set against Giuliani. I have read some columnists who think that this is just a childish stunt. Others believe that the social conservatives have been given short-shrift in the GOP coalition and are not surprised by their desire to flex their muscles.

I argued that the social conservatives needed to support a single candidate rather than just opposing a single candidate. It has been nice to see others who feel the same way. Another convincing suggestion for social conservatives is that they need to work harder at winning the hearts and minds of other factions of the GOP coalition.

Based on what I am hearing I would bet on one of four candidates getting the Republican nomination: Rudy Giuliani – if the social conservatives don’t coalesce around another candidate, Mitt Romney – if they are really afraid of Rudy, Mike Huckabee – if they just can’t bring themselves to back a Latter Day Saint, or Ron Paul – if his extremely committed and growing core of followers can break through to mainstream voters (meaning those who are more laid back about their politics and thus are less likely to go seeking a candidate who is not at the top of the MSM listing of candidates).

Because I don’t believe that social conservative leaders are bluffing about Giuliani, I predict that all of the other Republicans have a better shot in the general election that Rudy does.

Categories
politics State

Facts in Debate

I was excited to see the Daily Herald use the text of HB 174 to support their position. That is the way that debates over vouchers should be. Instead of getting teachers who are concerned about their students to speak in ads saying that the voucher bills are vague and full of loopholes, the voucher opponents should demonstrate one loophole that concerns them in the text of the voucher bills. Voucher supporters should be making arguments in favor of the voucher bills rather than guilt-by-association tactics against voucher opponents.

I have determined that I will not post anything more on vouchers without supporting my arguments with the relevant text of the voucher bills. Anyone who wants to add to the debate would do well to read the text of HB 148 and HB 174 rather than sticking to the vague sound bites we’ve been treated to so far.

Categories
politics

Candidate Compatibility

Overall Candidate ResultsI found the results of this candidate compatibility calculator interesting. The calculator consists of 23 issues that you rate your support as Yes/No/unsure and the importance of the issue as High/Medium/Low. I visited to find out what candidate my views supposedly corresponded with. I have been surprised by some calculators before. Aside from the top candidate I thought that the calculator did pretty well with me (My Candidate Matchup). I may agree generally with John Cox on the issues, but I don’t know that he is much more prepared than I am to be President (except that he’s over 35). I was disappointed to see that until I expanded the list of top candidates and found that Mike Huckabee has the same percentage of compatibility with my views followed by Ron Paul. Mitt Romney, John McCain and (surprisingly) Tom Tancredo were tied below that followed by Fred Thompson. I knew that the calculator was right to put Rudy Giuliani at the bottom among the Republicans on my list (below a Democrat no less).

When I saw the results I was surprised to see the aggregate results which show that 55% of respondents lined up with Republicans when the prevailing wisdom is that Democrats have the edge in the 2008 election. Complicating this surprise is the fact that the number one individual candidate with the for respondents overall was Mike Gravel – a Democrat. Perhaps one of the reasons for this interesting combination of results is that the scoring does not penalize candidates who oppose your position on issues of high importance to you – they are scored the same as candidates who take no position on the issues of high importance to you. Perhaps the high success for Mike Gravel is that he is undeclared on most issues where there is not much consensus on the issue. This would allow him to get points with every respondent who did not list the issue as being of high importance.

UPDATE: I used the calculator again and took a stance on some of the issues I had marked as unsure before. This time Ron Paul topped my list. More interestingly Rudy Giuliani was now significantly below two Democrats and tied with a third. (Is it any wonder that I won’t vote for him?)

Categories
politics State

Who Do You Believe?

I had two interesting (and unconnected) thoughts about the arguments being made in the voucher debate. The first thought came as I was hearing the argument again that vouchers take money away from our schools. Of course the voucher supporters argue that vouchers will pump new money into education as parents who use vouchers will have to put some of their own money in to finish paying for private schools. The difference between the price of a voucher and the per-pupil money being spent on public education also means that there more money left in public schools on a per-pupil basis (this is the foundation of the infamous Oreo example). In a moment of clarity, some voucher opponent argued that this equation did not take into account the overhead costs of running a school. It’s certainly true that the cost of lighting an elementary school is the same whether the classes are full of students or only half full. The thought that captured my attention was – if an average voucher leaves $5000 per student extra and that $5000 is not enough to cover the overhead that remains when a student leaves then I see a huge problem with public schools. We should not have 2/3 of our public education money ($5000 out of $7500 per pupil) being dedicated to overhead costs.

The other thought that has percolated in my brain recently is that voucher supporters have focused their defense on the financial aspects of vouchers. This is probably a wise move considering that every time I try to dig into the numbers of the voucher opponents I come away feeling that their arguments don’t wash. Voucher opponents spend an equal amount of time talking about social consequences (or potential consequences) such as desegregation. Voucher opponents – when they are not talking about the financial impact of vouchers put forth pathetic arguments such as “Hillary Clinton, MoveOn.org and Ted Kennedy oppose vouchers.” Sorry, but Ted Kennedy is a huge fan of breathing air and despite how much I disagree with him I don’t plan to give up that practice just to oppose him.

It is up to the voters to decide rationally what they believe about the financial impact of vouchers (where the opponents can’t seem to make a solid argument) and what they believe about the social consequences of vouchers (where the supporters don’t seem to want to bather with an argument). If voters make their decision based on an emotional response to the pro or con arguments then the state will lose on this issue whether vouchers pass or fail.

Personally I think that vouchers make financial sense and I have more faith in the choices that parents will make than the opponents of vouchers do who seem to suggest that parents will pander to their baser instincts until we create an economic apartheid.

Categories
politics State

Arguments Against Vouchers

I enjoyed reading Dixie Huefner’s opinion in the Salt Lake tribune recently. It was one of the more well-considered arguments against vouchers. Despite avoiding the emotionally charged shouting-match feeling that seem to dominate divisive issues like this, she still managed to skew the data to fit her position rather than presenting more accurate facts along with her legitimate personal opinion. (Yes, my support for vouchers does not cause me to think that everyone who opposes vouchers is a mindless zombie big-government liberal.) So here are some thoughts to temper her arguments.

Siphoning off tax dollars to support private school enrollment . . . also siphons off support for the public schools by parents who obviously care deeply about their children’s education.

This is perhaps one of the strongest legitimate arguments against vouchers. What is not mentioned is that the availability of vouchers gives parents who care deeply about their children’s education a lever to demand more accountability from public schools when the schools are not serving their children well.

The subsidy, from $ 500 to $ 3,000, mostly helps families who can afford to pay a significant portion of the private school tuition. Many of the best private schools cost between $ 10,000-15,000 a year. If vouchers are meant to help those who cannot afford private schools, they significantly limit the private school choices available to low- and many middle-income families.

Many of the best private schools – this ignores the fact that the $ 10,000 to $ 15,000 private schools make up a tiny fraction of the private schools in the state. There are many others which cost significantly less (some even less than $ 3000) and still offer a greater range of choices to parents than public schools do. The vouchers are not limited to being spent at the “best” (read “most expensive”) private schools. I would bet that 50% of private schools charge less than $5000 and if vouchers are implemented new charter schools are likely to spring up catering to this within-reach-of-the-vouchers price range. For those who argue that $ 5000 is still a lot of money I argue that:

    • A $2000 voucher brings the cost to $ 250 a month which is a good chunk, but if you are serious about your child’s education you’re likely to find a way (start by ditching your $ 60 cable bill).
    • Voucher opponents do not suggest raising the level of vouchers – they prefer to limit parental choice to the rich.

The provision allocating money to public schools to partially offset the loss of tax dollars for children receiving education vouchers expires after five years.

Why should public schools be perpetually paid for students that they never educate? This argument directly conflicts with the argument that vouchers cost too much. If the public schools were paid for more than five years the vouchers would cost more. Besides, the provision itself does not expire after five years, the offset money expires for individual students who remain outside the public school system for more than 5 years. In other words, the schools quit receiving money after parents have determined that their student really is doing better outside the public school system.

Other parents may determine that their child’s instructional needs have not been met by the school. They may have a child who is harassed or bullied by other children, or they may prefer smaller class sizes.

Certainly, private schools have a role in educating children who are not well-served by their public school. But the selection of another public school is also an option for parents who are seeking a more effective school environment for a particular child.

Students are allowed to move between schools within their districts. Their choice of schools are limited to other schools that are directed by the same people who are directing the schools they are trying to get away from. That sounds like Henry Ford telling people that they could have their car in any color they chose – so long as it was black.

Another concern about the voucher legislation is that it will encourage private schools that lack a track record and will not be as instructionally effective as the public schools. Public schools are accountable to the public and must report such matters as drop-out and attendance rates and achievement scores.

The voucher legislation will not provide vouchers for schools that do not have a track record. The track record in private schools is that if they do not meet the demands of parents they lose their students and have to close. Public schools are insulated from that kind of accountability – they just have to report their numbers but there is no risk to their bottom line.

[Public schools] must comply with due process protections and equal protection mandates of the U.S. and state constitutions.

This is a nice scare tactic, but what “due process protections and equal protection mandates” are private schools going to violate?

If all the energy in time and money spent on supporting private school vouchers went to promoting ongoing professional development of educators; [etc.] . . . we might have an education system that better meets the needs of all our children.

If all the energy in time and money spent on oppopsing private school vouchers (that’s much more than has been spent supporting them) we might have an education system that was better, but one size still does not meet the needs of all our children.

As I have said before, there are valid arguments against vouchers. Most of them are based on personal beliefs about the way our children should be educated and what is in the best interest of society. Let’s quit pretending that this is a fight between good an evil. It’s largely a matter of personal preference and social vision. “What do you think is best?” That’s the real question behind this legislative fight.

Categories
politics State

Put Ethics Before Politics

As a voucher supporter I have to agree with Jesse:

As a voucher supporter, I have gone from embarrassed with to disgusted by PCE. This event, going from unethical and sleazy to potentially illegal, is absolutely inexcusable and I would encourage every Utahn to immediately stop donating to them and every candidate to refuse their filthy money and return whatever campaign contributions they’ve been given. Utah businesses should refuse to do business with them and Utahns should refuse to work for them. Astroturfing, phishing, push polling… these are not acceptable. PERIOD.

If you truly support vouchers like I do, you will run as far away from PCE as possible and give them the stern and harsh punishment they now deserve. Starve them for dollars and make them wither and die in this state. They have done more to damage the concept of vouchers than any anti-voucher group could ever dream of. Their loud and visible bad example makes everyone else look bad by association. Thanks to PCE, anyone who supports vouchers, no matter how honest, sincere and open they are, will be tainted with the labels of dishonesty, trickery and ulterior motives.

Besides starving PCE of cash, voucher supporters should refrain from any further reference to PCE – they don’t deserve any further publicity for any of their arguments. Perhaps if the reaction against this is strong enough people will recognize that PCE is not representative of the entire voucher support base. As Jesse said, some of us are honest and sincere and staunchly opposed to gutter politics.

Categories
culture politics

Four Good Criteria

I’m always looking to quantify what makes a candidate acceptable or not. Thus I was drawn to four criteria that Scott suggested we should seek in candidates we would support. They should be Honest, Good, Wise, and Constitutional. Scott does a good job of expanding on each of the criteria, but this qualifier should guide all our political decisions:

All of the criteria we are called upon to apply to candidates is highly subjective and/or runs on a sliding scale. It requires a fair amount of personal effort to find out about each candidate and determine how well each measures up to the criteria. We should avoid a knee-jerk reaction to any candidate.

As I have been thinking about these criteria the idea came to me that we might be well served to apply the same criteria to the laws we sometimes vote on. Doubtless there is plenty of disagreement on whether vouchers are honest, good, wise, or constitutional. Different people will come down to different conclusions on each criteria, but it might elevate the debate if we would focus on those fundamental qualities rather than stooping to political maneuvering and scare tactics.

As citizens we do not directly vote on most of the laws that are made, but if we are able to choose representatives with these four characteristics, and then those public servants were to evaluate the laws they are called to vote on by applying those criteria we would be more likely to get laws that are in the best interests of the people and not merely the best interests of a special interest group, or a lobbyist, or the candidates hopes for reelection.

Categories
politics State

Despicable

I’ve come out in support of vouchers, but not very supportive of the often weak efforts of the pro-voucher groups. Not supportive and downright disgusted are two different things. This makes me downright disgusted. So far the misleading email has not been conclusively tied to any official pro-voucher group but I don’t trust them enough to abandon that possibility. I would like to think that this is the work of a weasel who thought he’d do his part to help the cause – if so then someone needs to track him down and shout “Hey, you’re not helping!!”

At the risk of having someone throw eggs at my house I just have to consider the slim chance of reverse-psychology logic leading voucher supporters to pull this trick to manufacture yet another black eye for their inept opponents.

Isn’t politics lovely?

Categories
culture politics

Someone to Believe In

After talking about my opposition to Rudy Giuliani and the dangers of the “select someone electable” mentality I thought it would be a nice change to talk about the kind of candidate that I would like to back. My example is Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, who I recently learned about. Much of the discussion about cleaning up national politics comes in the form of the need for an outsider or a newcomer. Condidates in both parties like to lay claim to being an agent for change. One of the tough aspects of political office is that the outsider who gets elected often becomes an insider very quickly. Governor Palin is a refreshing exception to this trend. Before her election she gained a reputation as a whistleblower against insider political activities. After a year of being governor she shows no signs of resting in her efforts.

This week, it was Palin who singlehandedly killed the leading symbol of Republican spending excess in Washington: the Bridge to Nowhere.

The Bridge to Nowhere was actually a state project, to be built with funds earmarked by the state’s powerful Congressman Don Young. Last week, Palin killed the $398 million bridge to Gravina Island (pop. 50), directing that the money be spent on more “fiscally responsible” projects.

In a small state that generally votes Republican, the divide between Alaska’s Republican elected officials could not be more clear. Palin was elected as a whistleblower, and routinely rails against the state’s transactional Republican establishment. Don Young has screamed “It’s my money!” when conservative lawmakers challenge his pet projects and blamed the Republican loss of Congress on conservatives who want to cut spending. And Senator Ted Stevens’ record as a porker is rivaled only by the patron saint of the West Virginia highway system.

With Palin now in office for the better part of a year, we have some data points to evaluate whose brand of politics works better. A poll out last month put Palin’s approval rating at 84%, and Fred Barnes has noted that she probably America’s most popular elected official in any party.

One of the things that makes newcomers become insiders is the perception that you have to join the system to get things done, and that you have to bring home the pork to get re-elected. Real change can only come about when we start electing people who are more interested in doing the right thing than they are in retaining their seat.

For voters, we have to vote consistent with our conscience even at the cost of losing the election. If the majority of the country disagrees with me then I have to accept that. I don’t do any favors by voting for someone who can win if they are not the kind of person that I would like to see in office. The political image of this country is taken from the reflection we cast in the voting booths. If we intentionally distort the reflection we can’t know the real character of the country – all we can see is that it is grotesque, like the monsters we see in fun-house mirrors.

Categories
National politics

Build Your Own Cage

Thinking about the idea of a split in the GOP makes me wonder about how we got where we are. Why is the leading candidate for the party unpalatable for a large segment of the party base? I am reminded that “parties are simply alliances of groups that can put aside their differences sufficiently to focus on a few areas where they mostly agree.” Considering that it is not so surprising that the fiscal conservatives are ready to back Giuliani after years of being out-shouted within the party by the social conservatives.

The real dynamic of the nomination process is that the Democrats are united in their desire for a large government that will protect us from negative consequences with social programs to help us go to school, pay for necessities when we lose jobs, ensure access to health care services, legislating social tolerance, and promote international good will by throwing money at the problems plaguing poor nations. Social conservatives have been content – even excited – with a large government that will protect us from change by spending money to wage war against radical Islam around the world, building fences at our borders, listening in to our private conversations in case someone expresses an idea they deem dangerous, and regulating our public conversation against indecency. There is a third group who wants less government and more personal responsibility – including the possibility of suffering the consequences of poor social or financial choices. This group is so tired of being pushed to the side that they are willing to settle on any candidate who will at least promise to keep the growth to a minimum.

The ability of this third group to make Giuliani the frontrunner is what has lead to the warning by social conservatives that they might not support Giuliani. After so long in power they seem to forget that this was a coalition. They don’t seem to care that Big Government is the Enemy of Freedom. They want to coerce the nation in to following their vision of what this nation should be and forget that their coercive tactics would lead them into this very trap.