Are you prepared to lead your children though duck-and-cover drills at home? Also, the Democrat VP has finally been announced.
School Choice
I was surprised at the response when I expressed my interest in introducing school choice to the public school system. It was suggested to me that people may have thought I was recommending some sort of voucher system, so let me dispel that idea and clarify the policy I advocate. Then, I’ll address some of the arguments.
The public schools here are divided by districts, and students must attend the school at the appropriate level within their district. In fact, they are looking to strengthen the restrictions to prevent parents from using relatives’ addresses to qualify their child to attend a school in another district. What I suggest is that, if you have a student enrolled in the public school in your district, and you want them to attend another public school in the county, you can send them to the other school, as long as you can provide transportation to the school outside of your district. Students who are attending the prescribed school in their district would still be able to take advantage of busing. Now, to some of the arguments:
- What about the students whose families cannot afford to transport them to a better school outside of their district?
First, this argument seems to assume that families would have to pay some third-party service for transportation, like getting their kid an Uber every day. It costs nothing but time and gas for the parents to drive their children to another school themselves. Alternatively, a grandparent, uncle, cousin or even a friend of the family could provide that transportation, free of charge. If you’re worried about a two-tier system of education, where the wealthy families get a better education than poorer families, that system already exists, since wealthy families can afford to send their children to private schools. There are many more families, however, that cannot afford to send their children to private school but can afford to spend an extra 30 – 45 minutes every morning and/or afternoon to take their kids to a neighboring district for a better education. Though, the simplest response to this argument is: For the families who cannot afford to transport their children to a better school outside their assigned district, their situation has not changed. They are attending the same school that they attended before the option was given. To oppose is to believe that it is worse for all people to be given an option that some cannot exercise than for none to have the option. - Won’t the worst schools end up with fewer students?
Hopefully. I fail to understand why this is a problem. In fact, if the worst schools ended up with no students, I calculate that is an improvement. However, some kind of equilibrium would eventually be reached. All else being equal, personal attention has a positive impact on the education of a student, and as students filter out of the worst schools, class sizes would reach a level where there was some advantage to attending those schools. Additionally, if schools are funded based on enrollment, positive pressure would be placed on the schools to compete with each other to provide a better education to draw more students… and that leads to the next contention. - Shouldn’t the schools that are performing the worst get more/the most funding?
While I understand the logic of this assertion, it creates perverse incentives to provide more funding for failure. Like many government programs, you have incentivized the status quo by making it more beneficial to continue to fail, rather than to improve the outcomes. The incentives in any system should be given for providing higher quality services. If a school performs poorly, replace staff until it succeeds. If there is no improvement over time and the school fails, so be it. - What if the best football/basketball/baseball players all go to the same school?
This is a possibility, but unlikely. There is some advantage for an athlete to be a big fish in a small pond. The two best quarterbacks in the county are not going to attend the same school, because they both want to play all of the snaps. I think school choice is more likely to create greater parity between the schools. Regardless, I don’t think it’s relevant. The issue only concerns high school students, and I’d be surprised if varsity athletes represent 10% of students. - We should be able to make all the schools equal.
Define equal. How would this be evaluated, since equality can only be assessed through things which can be objectively measured? Total enrollment? Student to teacher ratios? Total spending? Spending per student? Graduation rates? Failure rates? Even if you were somehow able to make all of these data the same across all schools in the county, the human factor leaves them inherently unequal. If you provide the same curriculum to two schools with identical objective measurements, there will still be inequality, since students and teachers are individuals. Some students respond better to some teachers’ styles than other students, who will respond better to other teachers. When applied to social institutions, equality is simply a buzzword which can be neither defined nor implemented. “And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.”
My argument is simple: Do you believe that people should be permitted to make their own choices about their lives? Do people have the right to choose for themselves how they will raise their families? If so, does that apply to what school those people attend or send their children? There is only one moral answer to those questions.
US Sets Sights on Venezuela
Are we being prepared for an invasion of Venezuela? Here and there I’m hearing some of the same rhetoric that led up to US military intervention in the Middle East and North Africa. We must not forget that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. Remember my previous article when I pointed out that official US policy states the role of the military in “inter-state strategic competition”? Control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves would certainly give the US an advantage, and it’s the same kind of advantage we’ve been seeking for decades in the Middle East.
The term ‘failed state’ has come up repeatedly as an excuse to engage or continue wars around the world. Often the failed state claim is conflated with an authoritarian regime that is not tamed by the US. The general story is that such-and-such nation has or may become a ‘failed state’ and generate instability in the region or threaten peace with its neighbors; or its internal instability has created a humanitarian crisis. Therefore, the US military must step in, eliminate or drive out the criminals controlling the populace and facilitate a transition to democracy.
This has been the story in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria and even Libya (though that one truly became a failed state after the NATO actions). For most of these, the failure or threat of a failed state occurred after US military intervention and became an excuse to stay engaged. Now, Venezuela is being referred to as a failed state. It’s a fair point, since people are literally eating house pets, zoo animals and rats, because they cannot find bread (but at least the prices are low). The failed state rhetoric is not new, but the coverage has been ramping up.
Last month, Nicolas Maduro was re-elected carrying 68% of the vote, but the election results were rejected by the US before the votes had been tallied, and immediately economic sanctions were laid on the already troubled country. While I cannot make the argument that Venezuela is a fully functioning state, or that it was a free and fair election; and I won’t address the ineffectiveness of sanctions to achieve political aims (especially since Maduro claims that Venezuela’s woes are the result of economic warfare waged by the US; here’s an alternative explanation); I will point out that the election of Maduro in 2013 was also challenged by the US. Venezuela responded to the sanctions by accusing the US Embassy of conspiracy and expelling diplomats. Maduro did not provide an explanation, but there are $15 million dollars appropriated under the Economic Support Fund of Section 7045 of the omnibus “to promote democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela.”
I could add layers to this story ad nauseum, but the point is this: We have seen this pattern before. A nation led by an authoritarian is not engaged in the world economy as dictated by the WTO, either by being isolationist or protectionist, despite having a valuable natural resource. A crisis is discovered or created. The state falls into chaos, often forcing the leader to become more despotic to maintain order. A humanitarian crisis is declared. If the US government does not believe they can intervene militarily without its citizenry noticing, and there is not enough support for military intervention, the state is declared a threat. This can come in many forms: The crisis has created refugees that are a threat to our border, or the lack of government authority has created a haven for terrorists, or opposition that is even more unfriendly to the US may seize control, or the nation has dangerous weapons that are unaccounted for or… well, you get the point. If none of that is enough to get Americans riled and ready to fight, there will be a chemical weapons attack or something equally outrage-worthy targeting civilians.
Then, there will be ‘no choice’ but to send the US military and oust the ruthless leader who is the cause of all this strife. And, you may have noticed, our adventures in regime change have not worked to our advantage. Regime change has been a topic for Venezuela under Chavez as a supporter of terrorism and during the demonstrations of 2014. I suppose the point of all this is as a warning. Recognize the propaganda that leads to intervention. We cannot permit our government to engage in another aggressive war, regardless of the public excuses provided.
-M
Congress Shirks Responsibility, Refuses to Stand in the Way of War
While the UK Parliament argued PM Theresa May should not be able to enter war without their approval, the US Congress argued why President Trump should be allowed to enter war in Syria without awaiting the Congress’ constitutional responsibility to declare war (or at least approve the action). The US Constitution places sole authority to declare war on Congress (US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8). The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces only when they have been called to service by the Legislature (US Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 2).
Our Founders were concerned with the power of the Executive and took measures to prevent PotUS from becoming a de facto king. The separation of war powers with the President waging war but the Congress declaring war is an important distinction. A king, of course, has the power to both undertake and execute war, while the President has only the power to execute war. James Madison wrote, “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts. demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it.”
I read, yesterday, about the US’ “retaliatory” strike on Syria after the alleged chemical weapons attack. I wonder if this would have happened if we enforced The Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. I suspect not. At least the last three Presidents have been elected on anti-war platforms. G.W. Bush said he would not use the military for nation building. Obama promised to end the wars. Trump also promised to only wage war when “absolutely necessary.” While this is clearly ample evidence of Tom Woods’ Law (‘No matter who you vote for, you always wind up with John McCain’), I believe it is also ample evidence that the American people are not interested in expanding military action.
Herein lies the reason our Representatives and Senators are seeking to abdicate responsibility. All of the Representatives and one-third of the Senators have elections looming. They want your vote and the best way to get it is to not be on record with any opinion, whatsoever. Without a vote providing unequivocal proof of their position on the conflict, they are shielded from culpability. They can tell you whatever they think you want to hear. Then, they have at least two more years of ignoring you.
What’s more, they can continue to collect contributions from the big defense contractors. The defense industries spend less on both lobbying and political contributions than several other industries, such as health, education, oil, gas and utilities; but if you think that the lobbying expenditures of $16.7 million for Boeing, $14.5 million for Lockheed Martin, $12 million for Northrop Grumman and $11.5 million for General Dynamics don’t yield a return, then you just don’t understand economics. A lot of people would like to blame these ‘evil companies,’ but they are not to blame. They are only doing what they can to generate advantage for themselves in the market. The Congress is to blame.
My opinion: Fire them all. Do not vote for an incumbent. Polls show most people approve of the job their Representatives and Senators are doing. However, the public approval rating for Congress, as a whole, hovers around 15%. If it seems a mathematical impossibility that so many should be satisfied with the jobs their officials are doing, it’s because it is. The problem is that your elected federal officials are not doing as good a job as you think. War is not the only responsibility that Congress has abdicated to the Executive. Last year, I attended a town hall held by my current Representative, Bradley Byrne. A question arose concerning the budget, and he responded by saying that President Trump had not delivered the budget to Congress. That’s not PotUS’ job! All budget bills are supposed to originate in the House of Representatives(US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 7). Did you know the Senate is supposed to vote on treaties negotiated by The President, before the compact is in force (US Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 2)? Monetary policy is the purview of Congress, but they have abdicated that responsibility to the Federal Reserve, which is technically a private entity.
Leaving aside the legal issue of whether any branch of the federal government has the authority to transfer its responsibilities to another branch (they don’t), what is Congress doing? Well, they spend half their time fundraising. While they aren’t doing their constitutionally-prescribed duties, they do spend a lot of time on pointless legislation. Search congress.gov for the word ‘condemn.’ Here’s an example of what you’ll find. Their salaries are taxpayer funded; they say they work for us. If I spent half my work day squandering my boss’ money and performing unproductive busywork and the other half of my day asking for more money, I’m pretty sure I would not keep my job very long. Let’s hold Congress to at least that standard.
We have elections in a few months. It is time to make a change, as Congress seeks excuses to evade their duties. Our Representatives have, once again, sidestepped the responsibility to represent the people and protect our investment. The current Congress has demonstrated at best incompetence and at worst embezzlement. Fire them all! Personally, I don’t think the situation will improve as long as Republicans and Democrats still control our federal government; but make your own choices. I know if we elect the same people, we’ll get the same result.
-M