Blagojevich's Welfare State
Bruno Behrend finds a new study on Canada's Childcare program. Since 1997 Quebec has offered Childcare at subsidized child-care centers for $5 per-day. Bottom line was it pulled kids out of informal family managed childcare arrangemets and the outcomes weren't good for kids. (The study doesn't say how the subsidized child care owners fared).
John McCarron wrote a column yesterday about the rush to auction off State assets:
Before they auction off City Hall or turn the squad cars over to the Pinkertons, isn't anybody going to ask where we're headed, long-term, with privatization?The word privatization stuck in my head yesterday because I was enthusiastic about Bush's Social Security ownership accounts, and Democrats called that privatization; meaning it's something bad.
Social Policy all comes down to power.
Put Child Care subsidies in a private account for a kid and it's bad privatization.
Offer the kid a queue (they wait in Quebec) to a slot in a subsidized child care center and it's good privatization.
Put your retirement contribution in your ownership account, and it's bad privatization.
But lease Illinios assests and give the money to the school system, and it's good privatization.
Give money directly to parents as school vounchers instead, and it's bad privatization.
Common theme here is: if you give funds to individual citzens, it's bad privatization; but turn over assets to contractors, it's good privatization.
And I think the differences have something to do with power.
We really need a study to tell us how the subsidized day-care owners in Quebec made out. Might help us think long-term as McCarron suggests.
22 comments:
Bill, isn't it interesting that democrats support privitization when it helps the government, but doesn't support it when it makes people independent from government? They must think that people are too stupid to live fiscally free....
Your observation is a major conceptual breakthrough.
Bill, it seems like your premise is that the same people who opposed W's Social Security scheme also support like the Gov's schemes to sell the tollway, sell the lottery, etc.
That premise is a straw man. One of the biggest criticisms of the Governor that I hear from Democrats is that Blagojevich is too much like W in his governing style and ideology.
McCarron is absolutely right in insisting that Blagojevich, in his penchant for selling off our state government, be required to lay out his long term plans for privatizing.
McCarron is right from my point of view precisely because it appears that Blagojevich is looking to get immediate gratification (a quick infusion of cash) at the expense of deferring the problem. The people lose, while some connected private firm gets a sweetheart deal.
The problem with Social Security private accounts is that the reform is an attempt to get immediate gratification (governmental obligation for future Social Security payments is immediately taken off the books) at the expense of deferring problems (what if the market goes down?). The only guaranteed winners are the Wall Street firms that get to manage the accounts.
Blagojevich doesn't speak for most Democrats on the issues you raise.
A big issue that nobody has touched on: When the government privatizes something, it also monopolizes something. We take things like the lottery and make it legal for one company to run the lottery. It would be like Vegas being one giant casino. There are also problems, like with Ws recent insurance plan. It was open to every company... that was a complicated mess for anyone dealing with it. When the government farms out projects, it should be contracted on a yearly basis and be required to be open bidding. The most efficient way for the government to farm out jobs, while keeping competition between companies, is creating oligopolies. Instead of selling one lottery. Sell 2 or 3 and let them compete with each other. Privatization might not be the answer for the lottery. But privatizing the lottery with 3 different companies would increase the competition while maximizing government revenue.
Please give Gingrich and the congressional majorities at least a tad of credit for the mid-1990's welfare reform.
Larry, in some areas, absolutely, Bush has been closer to a socialist than everyone since LBJ. I'd give the nod overall to Carter, however, with Bush I and Bush II tied and very closely behind. Carter just wasn't able to enact all the policies he wanted. Bush II has been able to and has expanded federal government spending, authority, and promises of spending more than anyone since LBJ, so your pick is worse depending on the criteria used.
I have been say Bush is a "fiscal liberal" since day one. Although, I would disagree about Nixon being socialist. Bush goes way beyond Nixon's "New Federalism." It is actually quite perplexive. We are going to lower the revenue the government gets, and then increase the spending to see how far we can push the envelope. Everyone labels Bush as a conservative, and it is obnoxious. Although he has appointed conservative justices to the SC, this policy contradicts him. Newt Gingrich is conservative if we traditionally look at what "conservative" has been: free-market, pro-national defense, anti-tax, anti-spend, anti-abortion, and anti-federalist. Bush covers about half. Maybe a moderate? But that wouldn't be good for an image would it? A moderate cowboy. It's almost a Willie Nelson song....
Why is it that no one, including David Schultz, Northwestern's privatization guru, is bothered that 50,000+ state employees may have trouble getting the pensions they dutifully paid into for years? He stated that the state should find another way to repay the pension funds, not by using the money from the sale of the Lottery. Everyone was so sorry for the Enron employees when their pensions were lost to mismanagement, as well as other corporate victims in the same situation. Only civil service workers seem to be expected to take it without a complaint or an expectation of the debt being paid to the pension funds.
We are citizens of this state who pay our share of taxes, spend money and keep the fiscal wheels turning. Why is our pension fund expendible and our work product subject to ridicule?
I hope this doesn't happen to others outside state government. It's a scary position to be in. And, by the way, I got my job through education and experience, not by knowing anyone.
I wasn't someone that someone sent!
Bill,
As I pointed out at Illinois Review, the "study" that partisan conservative Bruno Behrend found was done by a conservative organization funded by 4 wealthy right-wing families to the tune of $10 million since the 80s.
If you want to trust the findings of an organization which claims to be non-partisan but clearly knows who butters its bread... well more power to ya.
As for your shotgun analysis of privatizing government programs:
- There are currently plenty of great pre-schools and daycares available for those who can afford them. Why are you not complaining about these facilities now?
- You can also put your retirement money wherever you want -- hide it under a mattress for all I care. Social Security ain't a retirement program -- it is our American society's ("social) insurance ("security") for our retirees against living in a box on the corner after a lifetime of responsible, hard work. (And even if it were a "retirement program" I challenge you to find a private broker house with anywhere near as low an overhead as the Social Security Administration -- not only has the program done exactly what FDR intended since it was established, it's done it incredibly cheaply and efficiently).
- The day we can elect the school leadership of parochial and private schools is the day I'll be in favor of giving them my tax money through "vouchers".
(- As for leasing assets to devote funds to education... we aren't there yet. And with several downstate Dems and even M-Madigan questioning it we may never get there. Moot point for now.)
"The day we can elect the school leadership of parochial and private schools is the day I'll be in favor of giving them my tax money through "vouchers"."
So if the state took over the church, you would be in favor of relaxing penalties on private schools? Joe Stalin couldn't have put it better. If only we could rename the local school councils as Soviets, we could correctly identify the agenda of those backing the government monopoly of education in Illinois.
JB,
By "electing" to choose a school, you exercise much more power than the feeble "election" of a school board.
The idea that your election of a school board has any effect of the policies imposed by the Supra-National "Ed-Mart" (always the high price - always) is quaint.
First, the 7-member board/staggered election scheme, combined with the phenomenon of Ed-Mart employees spouses and relatives getting on Boards dictates that no one reformer can impact policy.
Second, should a "reform slate" ever take over a board, Teacher foot-dragging and State Mandates will act to destroy any and all reform.
This is why the District Model is so vile. It gives the appearance of local control when there is nearly none.
In a rational world, you could "elect" the school you want to send your child to.
Once freed from corrupt "Ed-Mart" control, the $500 billion America pays for education may actually be seen educating kids, instead of ending up in piggish Ed-Mart Exectutive pockets. (pensions & payroll bloat, Administrative Waste and Abuse)
If your goal is "an educated populace," there is no intellectually sound argument against school choice. If your goal is to keep shoveling cash into the maw of the corrupt education industry, arguments like yours provide excellent cover.
Extreme Wisdom-
You should really read the comments before posting your long-winded propagandist response.
JB Powers was quoting NW Burbs in the first paragraph to respond in the second paragraph. I think you'll find that JB Powers would support school choice by virtue of his exagerrated extension of NW Burbs statement.
Of course, JB Powers and NW Burbs bring a very relevant question to the topic of school 'choice'. Should public monies be used to support schools that teach values inherent to specific religions?
Gish,
I stand humbled and corrected. I should have recognized the feebleness of the first argument as NW burb's.
You are correct, I should have read the post better, and will be more careful in the future. Apologies to all involved.
____
As for your point about specific religions...
Currently, schools are teaching 'religion' in that they are promoting a "value system" and/or "worldview" that is no less religious in nature than any church.
Further, to the extent that any teacher denigrates any religion, they are engaged in "religious instruction" no different from Sunday School (only it's Monday thru Friday School)
Public monies are being spent foisting proven ineffective curricula on kids.
Public monies are being spent having kids required to read books that would get me kicked off the air if I read them.
Public monies are being spent on end-of-career bonuses and pensions that no one in their right mind can justify.
Public monies are being wasted in 1000s of ways by "Ed-Mart."
The Supreme Ct. of the US as much as said that the decision of the parent in deciding on a school passes the Constitutional test.
It's this simple. Vouchers are Constitutional. Of course, a State Sup. Ct. chosen by teachers Unions and Trial Lawyers may find differently on a state-by-state basis, but notice that the FL Sup ct. didn't use Church/State grounds in their recent vile decision.
Extreme Wisdom-
Can you explain how schools are teaching a 'relgion'? I know you do not mean that literally but I ask for clarification if possible.
What curricula has teachers denigrating religion? I ask because individual teachers doing anything is not an indictment of a whole and I am not aware of what curricula you may be referencing.
As a matter of fact I see I am probably looking for more specifics with regard to most of your post. It is nice to have simple summations but not very good for the purposes of debate.
At least the one place, I can easily agree with you on is the ridiculous end-of-career raises and pensions but, correct me here, pension monies do not come from monies earmarked for education. Oh I am sure it could be argued that that is money education could use but then again road monies could be viewed in the same sense.
Gish,
State control over religious entities is a definition of soviet (Soviet) control. It is no exaggeration.
There are a great number of people out their, such a NW Burbs that support a Soviet style managed state. They will screech like howler monkeys for this type of accusation, but they are certainly demanding state control of religion.
I, for one, think that parents are much more likely to chose a proper course for their children than teachers, boards of education, and "elected" officials.
JBP
JB-
I oppose vouchers for religious schools. I do not advocate governmental control over any religion. You as an individual are perfectly allowed to send your children (hypothetical) to be educated by whatever religion you so desire. I, however, say don't expect me to foot part of that bill. I am already providing for the education of those who will be my future doctors, lawyers, etc.
You are trying to exaggerate the situation. I personally prefer the laissez-faire method. No control from government for religion and no money from government for religion. I guess if you prefer to still call me a 'Soviet' then so be it.
As to whether parents can choose a proper course that is far from absolute, While you, me and many like us may make wise decisions for our children (hypothetical) there are quite a few parents out there who cannot or do not.
There are more than a few parents who could care less. They do not read with their children. They do not assist with homework or even make any effort to ensure it is completed.
That ultimately is one issue that even Extreme Wisdom does not seem to deal with in his quest for vouchering and school choice. How will school choice ensure that All of our chilldren are educated?
Gish,
Putting aside your preference for soviet control of religion, by no means does school choice guarantee 100% success. It does guarantee that there is some parental input on education and competition, which tend to be more successful than command and control systems.
The issue comes down to paying twice for education. I send my daughter to Lutheran school. Yet I pay for public schools, whether I use them or not. I don't want your money to support our school. But why should I have to pay for a failed public school, when I have chosen to utilize a working Lutheran school?
It is a government monopoly, plain and simple. It does not work, and it is not worth my time to try and fix it. I can opt out, and have chosen to do so..so why pay for it? And why can't others chose to opt out? They can't because there is an enforced monopoly that would not stand on its own. Give the people some choice. It works for a variety of economic decisions, and can work for education.
JBP
Gish,
Removing all religious references from books like "Red Badge of Courage" denigrates religion.
I suppose you may disagree, and engage in the pretense that schools are "religion neutral", but I take the position that they are not.
An extended debate on the issue is in order.
Though some one may accuse me of stretching, I take the position that anything taught in schools that is anti-religious is akin to "religious teaching/religious indoctrination," whether it is through a broad ideological bias, or an indivdual teacher attacking faith (I have heard plenty of evidence of both).
___
As for your view that my "summations" are not good for debate, I've been all over this fine blog, asking Rep. Fritchey, DJW, YDD, Skeeter & others for an opportunity to debate in other venues. The invitation extends to you as well.
Name a time and place anywhere in Illinois with an audience, and I'll be there. So far, I have no takers. I suspect it is because they a) have all the votes they need, and b) know that the current system is indefensible.
Why lose votes? Why let someone show an audience that the Emporer (Public Education) isn't wearing any clothes?
Fund Children, not Bureaucracies.
Gish wrote:
There are more than a few parents who could care less. They do not read with their children. They do not assist with homework or even make any effort to ensure it is completed.
EW writes:
Though my parents read to me a bit, I rec'd precious little help with home work - yet some how, I learned to read and got educated.
Today's Education system isn't happy with unwarranted pension schemes and undeserved high pay - they now want the parents to PAY THE TAX and EDUCATE the KIDS!! This lend credence to my view that all the schools want to do is indoctrinate.
Gish wrote:
That ultimately is one issue that even Extreme Wisdom does not seem to deal with in his quest for vouchering and school choice. How will school choice ensure that All of our chilldren are educated?
EW writes:
And what guarantee do you offer that kids in the current system are well educated today. None!
This is frankly your weakest argument, and I enjoy pointing it out.
Today's education is failing this nation miserably, and you have the chutzpah to demand that any alternatives MUST OFFER PERFECTION!! ("All our children are educated.")
!! Your !! system certainly isn't doing the job, so how do you get off demanding such a high standard from people who support school choice?!
No one I know in the "school choice movement" says that school choice is a panacea. We simply argue that is a far better system than the current system.
Interestingly, it is the current corrupt education industry that DEMANDS a panacea, and when none is found, states that more money for the corrupt education industry IS a panacea.
I can make this simple claim, and I'll make it using your standard.
I can ensure that a choice system will BETTER educate MORE children using LESS money that the current model.
You know as well as I do that the moment we have a chance to prove it, the game is up for the corrupt education industry. That is why it is so hard to even have a chance. As I said earlier, you have the votes.
Fund Children, Not corrupt education industries.
JB-
I see your point. My thoughts are this (although they may not justify my position any better):
1) Taxes levied to fund education are for the good of all, although I realize 'good' here will be subjective. You are not being taxed in order to pay for your child's education but to provide education for the hundreds/thousands of individuals who will inevitably provide your social fabric. I guess it is considered part of the social contract.
2) While you as an individual are more than welcome to send your child to a religious institution, you are still required to provide for the public's education. You pay a premium for 'education' that you consider in some fashion to be more beneficial for your child.
By the way, your Soviet jibes aside, I was raised as a Christian Scientist so I would hardly place myself as a 'government control over religion' person as you seem to try so hard to want me to be. I am fairly confident, in some way, shape or form, that my tax monies go to further medical research yet which I will not likely participate in the results. Should I demand that my tax monies be returned to me or, instead, is there some broader benefit to society?
(Anyway pardon my half-formed thoughts. I trying to return comment.)
Gish,
Yes, demand your money back. It is being taken from you without your consent. The demands of the majority by no mean should require minority funding.
Please show me some evidence that my tax dollars actually go to education. I can calculate thousands of ways that they are not, and the flimsiest of evidence that these precious greenbacks are spent wisely.
Why not allow people to use their own judgement via their own wallet rather than political campaigning? There are vast number of people that have no problem taking my money...why should I let them?
69% of Americans support price controls on Gasoline, a violation of every economic principle (as well as the 8th commandment). Why would anyone want majority rule when it means the majority can steal at will from the minority?
JBP
Vote for school boards of private schools, ie eliminate private schools. Why should I be forced to pay into the public school system if my kid's don't utilize it? If it is for the good of society, let people who send their kids to private schools opt out and get vouchers. The money will still be going to education. This will not be that big of an issue where the public schools are actually educating the students.
As for social security, spin it however you like, a lifetime of responsible work includes responsible saving for retirement. I challenge you to find a private firm that can successfully operate a pyramid scheme, divert funds and not be under indictment.
Post a Comment