This is the most personal blog post I have written to date. It details a series of emails between myself and a good friend in which our politics, opinions of the United States and the role of government are completely at odds.

My friend is a true believer in the growing role of government and governance over people, while I adamantly disagree, favoring a free market solution whenever possible.

Among the interesting themes within this email exchange is my friend’s growing disdain for the topics being discussed as I respond with statistics, studies and general research. It seemed almost as if my not buying into his worldview, and my not accepting the premise of his statements, caused a corresponding lack of interest in him to proceed further.

I realize this is not the shortest post you will read. But these are the actual letters and they bear review.

If you take the time to read this exchange, I believe you will come away with something important. Read what follows and you will be rewarded.

Please note that my responses to Ross accelerate as the give-and-take ensues. At one point I sent along several emails prior to a single response. This is due in part to my manic behavior, namely, my re-reading his last email and needing to respond with accuracy to his comments. While I pride myself in researching my responses, I fault myself at the same time for having an overwhelming, over-the-top approach to his emails. Whether my tactics were of merit I’ll let you decide.

The following is a complete representation; nothing has been edited.

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

Hi Ross. 

Recently an FDR statue was erected in D.C. It drew the ire of several handicapped organizations because there was no “ramp” access. The government responded by adding a braille inscription on the FDR monument (That, in itself, was insulting, but I won’t go there). 

Unfortunately, the braille inscription was too large to be read by blind people. It turned out that the inscription was “within code”, because it adhered to a government provision requiring all signage must be able to be read from 20 feet. It was braille. Someone help me here. It was braille. 

Of course, poking fun at government is easy, since isolated examples do not necessarily reveal a true representation of the whole. 

But I ask, “When has government provided a genuine, solid, formidable solution that is efficient, thoughtful and effective”? 

Public schools? We live in a country where our kids go to whatever public school falls within your residential grid, unless you are rich or are the President, in which case you send your kids to private schools. This is not the case in many other countries, where people have the right to send their children to whichever school they desire provided they can get them there and back. 

Amtrak? When Nixon took over Amtrak in the 1970’s he said that, while it would cost taxpayers some money in the short term, it would emerge as a wonderful, profitable investment in a few short years. It’s been over 3 decades and currently taxpayers take a loss every single time a passenger boards Amtrak. 

The US Postal Service? Do you remember when the U.S. Postmaster spoke before congress? It isn’t on YouTube, unfortunately, but it is on record. He stated that there was simply NO way to guarantee overnight delivery. He asserted through pie charts and diagrams that it was, unfortunately, impossible for any entity to deliver a package overnight on a consistent basis. He was wrong (He was also unmotivated by greatness). The U.S. Postal Service loses money every year. UPS, FEDX and others continually outperform the U.S. Postal Service. 

The DMV? Oh my. 

There IS a reason why the United States has, in little over 200 years, produced a standard of living and a way of life that far exceeds other nations. And, similarly, there is a reason why other nations, after 4,000 years, remain without electricity and live in mud huts. Bush and Reagan weren’t around back then so clearly our evil imperialistic overseas tactical operations are clearly not to blame.

Our constitution LIMITS government. Ours is a country founded on the rights of the individual, where governmental powers are enumerated and checks and balances are laboriously delineated. All because our Founders knew that without such protections we would devolve into just another monarchy or, worse still, a bankrupt, unsustainable socialist state. 

I do not pretend nor propose that the U.S. hasn’t done questionable things throughout the world during our short life as a country. But when push comes to shove, when there is a massive tidal wave on some foreign shore, when terrorists attack, who do France, Spain and all the other cultured countries turn to for help?

Some people are hell-bent on defining our country based on our worst sins. It would be as if you were asked to describe me to someone. Given 100 known and quantifiable facts about me, you chose to focus on bi-polar, self-absorption and ADD. All of that would be true, but would it honestly describe who I am and what I’ve done? 

Love,

Scot

 

Hi Scott, 

Measuring success and failure often varies with the yardstick you are using.  Let’s look at the examples of what you site are failures of government and let’s examine whether they are accurate and what would have been the alternative to a government program.  Moreover let’s ask whether the program might be subject to successful change and by what mechanism. 

The braille example is simply a lesson in bureaucratic decision making that often effects many large bureaucracies, public and private, that are trying to define simple rules.  It doesn’t really tell us much.  I certainly wouldn’t take this small example to project it out as a way to explain government undertakings or the inherent nature of failure accruing to government.

But the question of what should be the role of government in society is question about values and has to be juxtaposed against the question of what would happen in the absence of government intervention in civil society.  

The first example you raise as a tribute to government failure concerns public schools.  There are tens of thousands of successful public school systems in this country, and they are overseen by the government.  You went to public school in Scituate.  It offers an excellent public school education.  So do hundreds of other towns throughout the Commonwealth and beyond:  Newton, Needham, Wesley, Braintree, Milton, Norwood. Walpole, Canton, Brookline, Winchester, Westwood, Hingham, Cohasset, Sandwich, Wayland, Sudbury, Lexington, Boston Latin, RoxburyLatin and so and so forth.  Public schools were imagined to be the great leveling ground in our society, where everyone gets a chance to receive a quality education, the cornerstone for a successful life.  In many ways, they have fulfilled that role over the years.  The nation’s public schools receive funding, guidance and in some cases must respond to federal requirements or mandates, such as MCAS, they are mostly funded and controlled by local tax base.  That’s why wealthier towns typically have better school.  Could the public educational system be improved, of course, but by and large, the public school system has been a huge success.  I was educated in public schools, so were you and so was Stu. 

Amtrak has been subsidized by the government for many years.  It provides a valuable service to its customers.  I’m sure it could be improved but simply because it doesn’t make money doesn’t mean it is a failed entity.  Amtrak offers many benefits, it’s usage keeps millions of cars off the road, all the pollution that goes with those cars and the wear and tear on public roads which would then have to be repaired and at taxpayer expense. 

With respect to the USPS, I have and continue to believe it is a superb service.  Invariably, I can mail a letter on the Cape and it will be in Boston the next day and for a very reasonable price.  The USPS handles thousands more pieces of mail and packages than it’s private rivals, UPS  and Fed Ex.  It’s not perfect, which carrier is?  

The DMV is one of the most efficient and well run government services in the state and has improved tremendously over the years.  Employees are much more friendly and helpful than they were a decade ago, the DMV is computerized and waiting times are a fraction of what they were a decade ago.  It offers a great example of a well run government agency.  DMV was turned around due to citizen complaints for which our elected officials properly responded. 

There are many more examples of successful government agencies.  For as much criticism as it is subject to, often by conservatives with an agenda to ruin it, social security has been a tremendously successful endeavor that has kept millions of people out of dire poverty, which was the case in this country prior to its inception. Medicare and medicaid are also tremendously effective programs.  Simply because they are not perfect doesn’t mean that they don’t offer many benefits to recipients.

At bottom, underlying the existence and status of social programs and government agencies lies a philosophical question, what should be the role of government in a technologically advanced, interrelated and complex world, where capitalism has produced tremendous vagaries in opportunity, income and wealth, where some people live lavishly and other’s barely live.  What responsibility do we have to each other? (What would Christ do and say, to put it in terms I think you can relate to?) This question is also girded by whether you believein the notion of meritocracy.  That we all start off equally in this society and achievea level of success based on intelligence, hard work, creativity and dedication.  This is an essential part of the fabric of American doctrinal orthodoxy and in my experience nothing could be further from the truth.  But it is used to justify tremendous disparties between the have’s and the have not’s for if you beleivethat we liveina meritocracy and certain groups or individuals fail to achieve success, well then, by definition, it is their own fault.  This is a doctrinal theory that serves the status quo very well, because it justifies social disparity and serves to blame the victim for his or her own failures.  It individualizes social questions.  It is essentially a form of the widely discredited social Darwinism. Moreover, if this is the case, then government has no role in attempting to level the playng field with social endeavors. 

However, I know from my own experiences, that we do not live in a meritocracy.  We live in a rigid class based system which allows for little maneuverability, though there are always exceptions which serve to justify the rule.  So, for example, a poor person of color, Barack Obama, is now the president.  We can now congratulate ourselves, because as conservatives are fond of saying, we live in a post racial world.  This is nonsense.  African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans continue to exist on the bottom of the social ladder experiencing lives very different from their middle and upper class white counterparts. African American’s suffer higher infant mortality and morbidity rates, lower levels of advanced education, often lack health insurance, do no own their own homes at the same level of their white counterparts,  suffer higher rates of incarceration, remain underrepresented in the professional and ownership classes, live in segreagted commmunities, etc., etc..  The same is true for Native Americans. 

It is not because they are less talented and less able.  In my job as an attorney,  I take many state assigned cases, representing poor people, a disproportionate number of African American, Hispanic and Native American.  I’m educated, understand and havebeen acculturated to the rules of success established by the dominant culture.  Much of this was handed down to me by virtue of the family I was born into and the cultural and economic advantages inherent in such an accident of birth.  You cannot put a social price on the numerous advantages that accrue to you because of the color of your skin and the fact that you were born into a middle to upper class family. The famous sociologist, Herb Ganz, attempted to quantify these advantages and did a great job but suffice to say they are legion.  But I do not kid myself.  I’m no smarter than many of my clients who didn’t have my advantages.  Again, simply an accident of birth.  Most are very smart but ill schooled in the ways of success of the dominant culture.  I often think to myself, as I’m visiting one or another in the house of correction, marvelling at what they know: “If I was born into their family and they were born into mine, we could well be sitting on opposite sides of the table now.  The point is that I believe that government should serve the role of attempting to level the playing field in a myriad of ways.  Conservatives don’t think government should play this role. 

Government has had to step into the breach of failed private enterprises in a massive way recently in order to insure that they didn’t fail completely and send the world into an economic tailspin for the foreseeable future: banking, the auto industry, airlines, insurance have all failed.  Not because of government, but because of the inherent contradictions within capitalism, a system that responds to human greed, not human needs.  Overall, this has been a great boon to the system of private capital which gets to keep profits when times  are good while socializing the risk.  What a fraudulent system.  As far as I’m concerned, key industries should be socialized and designed to meet human needs not short term shareholder expectations.  Industries which should be socialized include: banking, transportation, utilities, insurance and health care.  One of the functions of government is to provide protection, such as police and fire protection.  These are socialized functions.  Imagine if you needed the police or firefighters, called 911 and were asked prior to their showing up whether you had insurance or an ability to pay out of pocket and if not, they wouldn’t show.  American’s would never stand for this.  Poll after poll shows that most Americans want a government run health care system, a socialized health care system like every other industrialized society has adopted.  It has been the economic and political power of the health care industry that has kept us from enjoying the same type of system, and by the way, none of these countries are rushing to adopt a bankrupt system of health care like ours.  In Canada recently, a “conservative” won national elections but in order to win the election he had to promise over and over again that he would not tinker with or change the health care system.  I had to go to the hospital in Italy a few years back where they have a socialized system and it was an incredibly great experience. 

Moreover, the most successful U.S. based companies are, without exception, subsidized by the government including: pharmaceuticals (many of the most  effective drugs and the research behind them are developed at public University laboratories and then handed over to pharmaceutical companies, who than rake in millions, all made possible by the U.S. taxpayer), electronics and computers (heavily subsidized by the US military), farming, etc.  Even the examples you cite, FEDEX and UPS are heavily subsidized by the government.  Who do you think built and maintains the transportation infrastructure? 

There are many reasons why the U.S. has produced a high standard of living over the last 200 years, but you don’t mention even one.  The U.S. possessed incomparably rich variety of natural resources, from oil to rich and fertile farmlands to navigable waters.  But the real key to U.S economic success can be found in the introduction of slave labor, indentured servitude and imperialism, from Mexico to the Philippines (ripping off the natural resources of other countries under one or another noble intent, anti communism, etc.).  

Africans were brought here in chains, separated from their families and indigenous cultures and made to work the most dangerous, demanding and difficult jobs for decades.  It was an extremely profitable system of exploitation which generated millions of dollars in profits which then provided the economic foundation for industrialization.  After WWII we emerged as the only economically advanced country whose industrial infrastructure was not destroyed by the war.  This gave us a huge advantage economically.  We were able to craft an international economic world order around the needs of elites in this country (see Breton Woods, the IMF and World Bank),  we were able to create markets for our goods around the world (see the Marshall Plan), we were able to develop unfair and profitable trading systems with the the Third World.  Others have now caught up for a variety of reasons I will leave for another email.  Suffice it to say that the notion on American exceptionalism, the theme that Rush regularly propounds is a myth, drawn from whole cloth,. In my next communication along with detailing why I’m a progressive and the numerous achievements and social benefits, which make life more human progressive, brought about progressives over the course of the last 100 years, I’ll compare this to the list of accomplishments withthe conservative agenda. 

But let me leaveyouwith another provocative thought Scott.  You were lucky to be born into a family of wealth where your parents left you a great deal.   What if that didn’t happen?  Would you have been able to go to college? Would you own a house?  Who would assist in helping you with your disability?  What about other people, not as lucky as you who have a similar disability and they need medical and pyschiatric treatment, should they be left to their own accord, adrift, or should we, as a society, assist in their care through taxes and government? 

Lastly withrespect the Constitution, it is a wonderfully crafted and expansivedocumentthat provides for the cornerstone of our relative freedom in this society.  But it was purpossfully written by the founders to contain elasticity in order to modify and update its provision in response to a dramatically changing world.

Ross, 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. As I get older I find myself appreciating the conversations I have with friends more and more. 

On these matters, and on the role of government, I simply believe your world view is that there should be equality of outcome, and that is not only wrong but dangerous and cruel. 

As for public schools, original intent was wonderful. As you aptly put it, the public school system was designed to be a truly effective equalizer. Knowledge is power and an education is an incredible thing. We can differ on content taught, however the overall effort was a remarkable achievement. 

But look at how public education has devolved. Teacher unions, a lack of vision, drive and simple monetary incentivization and you are left with an antiquated educational system that is wholly unable to compete internationally. Our young people rank behind many other nations in all key metrics, the school year is still based on the farmer’s calendar, and the monolithic bureaucracy stifles the kind of innovation taking place in charter and private schools throughout the country. There are many examples where even home-schooled children out-perform their public school counterparts. (I have some wonderful details on this if you are interested). 

So when you say there are tens of thousands of successful public schools I’m not sure what measurement you are using. How are you defining success when discussing a government monopoly? Public schools continue to fail against those of the top 20 richest countries, they fail against charter and private schools in terms of performance and the dropout rate is extremely high. Moreover, the alternatives I have mentioned have also proven that you can get better results even when you spend a fraction of the money currently being spent per public school child. 

As for Amtrak, it is an expensive failure. No transportation business can survive when it literally loses money every time a passenger boards. To say that it can get a person from one location to another without a crash or that it reduces pollution is, quite frankly, setting the bar of expectation far too low. It costs hard-working people a lot of tax dollars to run; it is inefficient and often dangerous. It is also another example of a stillborn government operation void of incentives to excel and brilliantly demonstrates what you get in such a model. 

The USPS is one of the many inventions of Benjamin Franklin and, while a stunning achievement logistically, has long since become a slow-to-respond government-run monopoly that is simply too expensive. The private sector could do a better job at a lower cost, as is demonstrated every time it is given a chance. As with Amtrack, you seem satisfied withwhat the government forces you to accept without being provided an alternate, free market choice. You celebrate bothofthese examples when you must know a private, for PROFIT operation would produce a much leaner, meaner, service. Don’t you deserve a choice? 

You asked me in your response what the role of government should be in a technologically advanced world. My answer is that it should be minimal. 

We are a beneficent country, but when we look to government, to central planning, to address and solve all of our problems, we will ultimately create a fiscally unsustainable model in which, rather than open the flood gates for dreams to be realized and risk to be rewarded, we instead drag ALL people down, in the name of fairness, to a level of mere survival. 

When you stifle the individual, the dreamer, you remove the incentive to create the innovation and wealth that allows, if only temporarily, the kind of world you seem to envision. Without the risk-takers, without the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, you are left with a beaten class of subordinates who exist, not thrive. 

Our country was founded on the notion that the individual should be free to pursue, unimpeded, his or her dreams without constant, over-arching government control. Take that away Ross, and you take away everything. 

Freedom of opportunity is NOT the same thing as freedom of outcome. A person who chooses to work a 40-hour week, play it safe and take no risks should not and WILL not have the same result as the person who risks it all on a dream, free to fail or succeed beyond their wildest dreams. That person, the one who took a risk, should have an appropriate and corresponding reward. My dad, for example, risked everything. In so doing he created many jobs, helped his local economy, and despite the 70% tax liability levied by the Carter administration, managed to survive and indeed prosper. 

There are many people who have a genuine hatred for this great country. They point to every crack in the pavement as further justification for governmental control, all in the name of “fairness”. Life is not fair. It should be, and I believe we are more compassionate and enlightened today than even 50 years ago, but we are, in the end, the imperfect man, and the Constitution is clear on enumerated governmental powers. 

Please note that, unlike many famous economists and free market hacks, I believe that the private sector is clearly not without its share of serious problems, when left unimpeded. So yes, SOME government oversight is necessary to ensure our lakes do not become permanently polluted and that kids aren’t eating lead and mercury candy bars, but in the end, it is our pioneering spirit, the celebration of the individual and God that is so replete in our founding documents that will lead us to greatness, not a pursuit of equality of outcome. 

Love, 

Scot

HI Scott, 

I have been meaning to respond to your emails and blogs but the pace of my work schedule, family life and other obligations sometimes makes timeliness a challenge.

 I was disappointed in your response to my last communication.  It seems that you either didn’t read what I wrote or chose not to respond to the substance and instead manufactured a straw character, called “equality of outcome” that you preferred carve up. away. 

This is not honest discourse and is something that I would have expected from Rush or O’ReilIy who pretend to be experts on everything from global warming to stem cell research and then when challenged on substance seek cover by claiming to be just entertainers.  I never wrote or said or implied any belief or promotion of the idea of equality of outcome in the social, economic and cultural lives of the inhabitants of this country. Such an outcome is not possible since we are born withdifferentlevels of intelligence, creativity, skills, impulses, personal preferences and personalities.  I talked about the pervasive myths that operate in this society, such as the notion of meritocracy, which are used to justify the gross inequality that exists here.  I talked about the huge and undeniable benefits of being born white into a middle or upper class family and how a rigid system of social class operates to perpetuate an unjust status quo and the role of capitalism in exacerbating the disparity between the have’s and the have not’s.  I also talked about the need to socialize certain functions of private enterprise for the benefit of our citizens, including banking, utilities, health care, pharmaceuticals and energy and likened this to police and fire protection.  I also spoke about the mythofthe market and private enterprise and gave a number of examples of how private enterprise capitalizes and is in fact dependent upon government subsidies, socializes risk, and privatizes profit.  You didn’t appear to respond to any of this. 

Public schools need to be improved though over the last 15 years, they have been improving as evidenced mainly by test scores.  Teacher’s unions have played a pivotal role in this advance by working with administrators to identify challenges and responses, helping to design better cirricula, providing protection to their members against arbitrary and capricious disciplinary measures by administrators for creative and unorthodox teaching methods and they have been in the forefront of protecting a real science cirriculum against religious fools who want to introduce such nonsense as creationism into the schools. 

Interestingly, you note that the US has fallen behind our “competitors”.  I assume you mean the educational systems in Europe, Scandanavia, parts of Asia such as China and Japan.  Almost without variance, each of those societies relies on a robust and well funded public education system as opposed to elite, private schools.  The biggest difference between those societies and ours is the level of stratification and disparity that exists in this society, one of the highest in the world and growing.  In this country, the top one percent of the population owns and controls as much wealth as the bottom 50%.  This is grotesque and is hardly based on merit ( see my last communication).  The fact of the matter is that good suburban schools in this society do as good a job educating students as any other place in the world.  Education is an ongoing dynamic, it occurs not simply between school hours but more specifically at home and in one’s community.  What role do you think stratification plays in the success of the public educational system? 

Additionally, it is unfair to compare public with private education.  The public educational system in this country is required to educate everyone, regardless of their level of intelligence, emotional and physical disability, the rich and the poor and children who have been abused and neglected who live marginal economic lives.  Private schools get to cherry pick their students.  What’s needed is a renewed commitment to public education as it is the only national institution that can play a role in leveling disparity and give citizens a measure of equal opportunity.  Elevating private education by such measures as tax vouchers will only exacerbate the problem of social inequality and injustice.  So if you care about those things, and most “conservatives” don’t, then you wouldn’t propose measures to weaken public education and exacerbate social inequality. 

With respect to children who are home schooled, that is a great alternative for some, but very few families.  In this day and age, both parents often have to work and can’t afford to have one stay home and school the children.  Additionally, not every parent is skilled at teaching.  Like any other vocation, training and experience matters.  Moreover, there is an indispensably important and obvious social value to schooling with others.  Most of the people who home school their children around here turn out to be right wing religious whack jobs whose children do not get a balanced and challenging education where they are taught to think critically.  This makes them poor citizens for participation in a democracy. This is not good for society as a whole. 

With respect to Amtrak, like I said previously, I don’t mind subsidizing them because I believe there is a reasonable public benefit (As opposed to subsidizing military production such as the creation of new weapons systems, tactical nukes, cluster bombs, biological and chemical weapons, land mines, a new round of Navy destroyers and over 700 military bases around the world etc, which confer little public benefit and threaten us with our own annhiliation).  If a private company wants to compete with Amtrak, that is their choice, however I believe that it is the role of government to look out for the public good.  So placing certain competive restrictions makes sense, whether that means assuring that certain health and safety standards are adhered to or that noise and pollution are minimized, that the carrier is properly insured, that it’s operators/drivers are properly experienced and licensed, this is the role of government.  Just like it is the role of government to keep us safe from unsrupulous profiteers by regulating food, medicine, environmental health and safety, work place safety etc.  You probably don’t recall what a terrible job the marketplace did in this respect before government was forced to act. 

Have you ever been on the subway system in Washington D.C. or to any of the national museums or on the public ferry system in Washington state.   They are not run for a profit but for public enjoyment and convenience and in each case, government does a magnificent job. 

This is not a good time to be lauding the virtues of the private sector, always ready to socialize failure and privatize profit. See my last communication.  

To suggest that we are a benificentcountryis laughable, in what respect?  We give less in foreign aid, economic aid, per capitathan any other industrialized country in the world.  What history shows we are good at, is invading other weaker countries and ripping off their resources and setting up unfair trade schemes.  We are also the world’s biggest producer and exporter of death, in the name of weapons.  We have a defense budget that exceeds the rest of the world combined though we are about 5 percent of the world’s population, vastly disproportionate to our real defense needs.  Having said this, the American people have many great qualities, there sense of adventure, humor, willingness to work hard, creativity, the democratic nature of local government, sense of fair play, the Constitution, etc.  It is usually the government, in the service of private power, that presents problems. 

Most of the rest of what you wrote is standard, if not mindless, conservative ideology, devoid from the real world: “but when we look to government, to central planning, to address and solve all of our problems, we will ultimately create a fiscally unsustainable model in which, rather than open the flood gates for dreams to be realized and risk to be rewarded, we instead drag ALL people down, in the name of fairness, to a level of mere survival.”  The economies of China and Japan, far more successful than ours in the last 20 years, rely on much more intensive government planning in the economy.  The notion that the promotion of fairness in the society will “drag all people down, to a level of mere survival” is empty sloganeering without evidence and is simply a way to justify gross disparity in the society that can’t be explained by human variation. 

Progressives havebeenin the forefront of nearly every positive social development in this society: the abolition of slavery, extending voting rights to people of color and women, all manner of health and safety regulations connected with the workplace, the development of social security, medicare and medicaid, veteran’s benefits, public access to the public airwaves, environmental and food production, minimum wage and ending child labor, eight hour work day, healthcare expansion, etc., etc, at each step, so called conservatives have fought these measures using similar themes and arguments contained in your communication, namely that one or another government measure in the name of fairness or decency will be the ruination of the society. 

With respect to taxes, this is a canard.  The US has the most regressive tax system of any industrial country.  Tax rates have to be evaluated in light of loopholes and deductions.  Many U.S. enterprises set up phony off-shore, shell headquarters to avoid paying taxes while exporting jobs to the 3rd world where there are lax workplace and environmental standards, where workers are paid unnacceptably low wages and unionization could bring death.  Moreover, when President Kennedy was in power in the 1960’s corporations paid as much as 22 percent of the entire tax burden in the country.  They now pay about 7 percent, which reflects the growing political power of corporations. 

Again, I do have choice when it comes to sending a letter or a package as do millions of other Americans who, like me, find that their is no substitute for the USPS. 

What should be the role of government in regulating the excesses of private enterprise?  To what extent should government promote and extend measures to ensure equality and fairness in our culture, especially in light of the nature of capitalism to bring about the opposite effect?  What should be the commitment of the government to our public educational system?  How many weapons and bases do we need?

I will leave you with this to chew on for now.  Again, I challenge you to read the Grieder book and tell me it is not the best assessment of how government works in favor of private moniedinterestsover what’s in the best interest of the population as whole.  In my next communication, I will respond to your representations on how and why the country was founded and other pervasive myths at variance with reality.

Ross, 

It is remarkable how your views today precisely mirror those of when you were a teenager. I know of no one else whose worldview has remained so steadfast despite a lifetime of living. I sense that you hold an obvious distainforthis country and any example I provide as evidence that we are a great country would be considered an exception and not the rule.  Even the catch phrases you use actually gave me a start and reminded me of an actual conversation we had back on Indian Trail. The phrasing was identical. 

My experiences and reading have taken me in many directions and on many intellectual adventures, as I have tested their veracity and questioned their proponents. But you nailed it man. You got it perfect from the first day. 

And a couple housekeeping things: My name is Scot with one “T” and please stop referring constantly to Rush. I like the guy but even I don’t mention him that much. Plus, unless you are listening to him on a regular basis it’s simply disingenuous. 

http://www.discriminations.us/2009/04/ 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa 

I actually do have a lot to say, but I get the sense from you, as I did when we would talk in person, that when you pause it is less to listen than it is to consider your next statement. 

On a different matter entirely, I can’t tell you how happy I am that you are alive and thriving and happy, and that your kids are as well. I have thought a lot about you over the years and still laugh when I recall you speaking to Stu, with a straight face, saying, “It’s not that I think Brooke Shields is pretty; I just find here intelligent.” You always had a great sense of humor. 

Let it loose more! 

Love, 

Scot

Ross, 

You wrote: 

Amtrack has been subisdized by the government for many years.  It provides a valuable service to its customers.  I’m sure it could be improved but simply because it doesn’t make money doesn’t mean it is a failed entity.  Amtrack offers many benefits, it’s usage keeps millions of cars off the road, all the pollution that goes with those cars and the wear and tear on public roads which would then have to be repaired and at taxpayer expense.  

Here is what the Cato Institute had to say: 

Last year Amtrak celebrated its silver anniversary. After a quarter-century, we still haven’t learned what should have been evident when Richard Nixon launched this ill-begotten experiment: Uncle Sam doesn’t have a clue as to how to run a railroad. 

Since 1972 Amtrak has received more than $13 billion of federal subsidies. Twenty-five years later, Amtrak appears no closer to financial independence than the day taxpayer assistance began. Worse, Amtrak has no apparent plan to become self-sufficient. In fact, it is now pressing for a half-cent of the federal gasoline tax in order to have a permanent umbilical cord to the federal treasury. That hardly seems fair, since people who pay the gasoline tax — that is, people who drive their cars — aren’t using Amtrak. 

A recent Cato Institute study which I coauthored with Wendell Cox and Jean Love shows that virtually every stated justification for continued Amtrak subsidies is based on myth, not reality. Examples:Amtrak makes a negligible contribution to the nation’s transportation system. Amtrak represents just .007 percent of all daily commuter trips and just 0.4 percent of all intercity trips. 

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute. 

Amtrak’s typical riders are not low-income Americans. The poor are less likely to travel by Amtrak than by most other travel options. Only 13 percent of Amtrak passengers have incomes below $20,000. The average Amtrak rider has a higher household income than the average taxpayer. In fact, the clientele for Amtrak Metroliner service between Washington and New York consists largely of Wall Street traders, K Street lobbyists and other affluent business travelers. These folks aren’t poor. 

But it’s a myth that Amtrak simply could not survive under private ownership and operation. There is no law of nature or economics that says that trains must lose money. Because of government control, however, Amtrak costs are far higher than necessary. Amtrak provides especially unprofit-able services for political reasons, and it is hamstrung by archaic work rule provisions that make it more expensive than other travel options. For example, federal law requires Amtrak to pay up to six years of severance pay to workers who are laid off. 

If Amtrak could shed some of its worst money-losing routes, reorganize its management and reform its Byzantine work rules, it could save hundreds of millions of dollars. Competitively contracting food service could also save millions of dollars (and might improve meal service) on the trains.

Freed of excessive federal regulation and political control, Amtrak would be capable of earning profits on some services, especially in the Northeast Corridor. The Metro-liner, which serves the Northeast Corridor, already covers 90 percent of its fully allocated costs already and could be profitable in the absence of federal regulation and ownership. Some services, especially long-distance routes, could be operated at higher fares as “land cruises” with costs paid in full by users. 

Amtrak has virtually no impact on reducing traffic congestion, pollution or energy use. Even a doubling of train ridership would reduce energy consumption and traffic congestion by less than 0.1 percent. Amtrak is by far the most highly subsidized form of intercity transportation. The average taxpayer subsidy per Amtrak rider is $100, or 40 percent of the total per-passenger cost. Even this figure doesn’t adequately express how hugely inefficient some long-distance routes are today. For example, the average subsidy to a New York-Los Angeles rider exceeds $1,000. The estimated round trip subsidy per passenger for a Denver-Chicago trip is $650. It would be cheaper for taxpayers to shut down routes like these and purchase discount round-trip airfare for all Amtrak riders. 

Most Americans do not want to see rail passenger service disappear in the United States. Taking a train trip is fun, exciting and often memorable. Many routes go through breathtaking scenery, such as those running through Glacier National Park. Trains are a wonderful way to see America. 

For hopelessly unprofitable routes, service should be canceled, just as cruise line service from Florida to the Caribbean would be canceled if it were unable to operate in The black. Services that lose money routinely fail. There is no more reason for taxpayers to subsidize Amtrak than to subsidize United Airlines, Greyhound Bus Company or Carnival Cruise Lines. 

Amtrak can be profitable. But only if Congress puts it back on track by weaning the railroad from federal subsidies. For 20 years, Amtrak supporters have promised that self-sufficiency is “just around the corner.” Now is the time for Amtrak to turn that corner.

Ross, 

In case you didn’t have time to read the entire link, here is the excerpt that explains why your comments were simply incorrect. 

Again, you said: 

Amtrack has been subisdized by the government for many years.  It provides a valuable service to its customers.  I’m sure it could be improved but simply because it doesn’t make money doesn’t mean it is a failed entity.  Amtrack offers many benefits, it’s usage keeps millions of cars off the road, all the pollution that goes with those cars and the wear and tear on public roads which would then have to be repaired and at taxpayer expense. 

End Quote 

You are incorrect Ross. Here are the facts : 

A recent Cato Institute study which I coauthored with Wendell Cox and Jean Love shows that virtually every stated justification for continued Amtrak subsidies is based on myth, not reality. Examples:Amtrak makes a negligible contribution to the nation’s transportation system. Amtrak represents just .007 percent of all daily commuter trips and just 0.4 percent of all intercity trips. 

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute. 

Amtrak’s typical riders are not low-income Americans. The poor are less likely to travel by Amtrak than by most other travel options. Only 13 percent of Amtrak passengers have incomes below $20,000. The average Amtrak rider has a higher household income than the average taxpayer. In fact, the clientele for Amtrak Metroliner service between Washington and New York consists largely of Wall Street traders, K Street lobbyists and other affluent business travelers. These folks aren’t poor. 

But it’s a myth that Amtrak simply could not survive under private ownership and operation. There is no law of nature or economics that says that trains must lose money. Because of government control, however, Amtrak costs are far higher than necessary. Amtrak provides especially unprofit-able services for political reasons, and it is hamstrung by archaic work rule provisions that make it more expensive than other travel options. For example, federal law requires Amtrak to pay up to six years of severance pay to workers who are laid off. 

End Quote (Full link sent in prior email).

Ross, 

You wrote: 

Withrespectto taxes, this is a canard.  The US has the most regressive tax system of any industrial country.  Tax rates have to be evaluated in light of loopholes and deductions.  Many U.S. enterprises set up phony off-shore, shell headquarters to avoid paying taxes while exporting jobs to the 3rd world where there are lax workplace and environmental standards, where workers are paid unnacceptablylow wages and unionization could bring death.  Moreover, when President Kennedy was in power in the 1960’s corporations paid as much as 22 percent of the entire tax burden in the country.  They now pay about 7 percent, which reflects the growing political power of corporations. 

Here is a sober review from The Heritage Organization on taxes and how they are calculated: 

August 24, 2004 

Two Americas: One Rich, One Poor? Understanding Income Inequality in the United States 

by Robert Rector and Rea Hederman, Jr. 

Backgrounder #1791 

Class warfare has always been a mainstay of liberal politics. Politicians frequently depict the United States as a nation starkly divided between the rich and poor. For example, vice presidential candidate John Edwards decries “two Americas…one privileged, the other burdened…one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.”1 <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm#pgfId-1133849> 

How accurate is this characterization? How unequal is the distribution of economic resources in our society? This paper will attempt to answer these questions. Specifically, it will seek to provide: 

1.    A clearer understanding of the existing level of income equality in U.S. society, and 

2.    An appreciation of the social and economic forces contributing to existing inequality. 

Census Figures on Income Distribution 

This paper analyzes the existing distribution of income in the United States. The term “income” refers to new revenues and economic resources received by individuals and families during the course of a year.2 <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm#pgfId-1133858>  The distribution of annual income is thus distinct from the distribution of wealth, which refers to economic assets saved from prior years. 

Discussions of income distribution usually begin with annual data provided by the Census Bureau. To measure income distribution, the Census Bureau first ranks households from highest to lowest income. It then divides society into five groups, called quintiles, and determines the share of total income received by each quintile.3 <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm#pgfId-1133867> 

On the surface, the Census figures appear lucid and easily understandable. However, the conventional Census data are marred by four problems that lead to an overstatement of the level of economic inequality: 

1.    Conventional Census income figures are incomplete and omit many types of cash and non-cash income.

2.    The conventional Census figures do not take into account the equalizing effects of taxation. 

3.    The Census quintiles actually contain unequal number of persons, a fact that greatly magnifies the apparent level of economic inequality. 

4.    Differences in income are substantially affected by large differences in the amount of work performed within each quintile, yet these differences in work effort are rarely acknowledged. 

An Accurate Picture of the Distribution of Economic Resources 

This paper analyzes the distribution of income in the United States based on data taken from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) from March 2003 (covering incomes for 2002).4 <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm#pgfId-1132762>  Income distribution data change very little from one year to the next; therefore, the conclusion reached in this paper would apply with little change for incomes in 2003. 

The paper presents data on income distribution in four separate stages: 

·         Stage 1: Conventional money income distribution. 

·         Stage 2: Incorporation of the effect of taxes and social welfare benefits. 

·         Stage 3: Adjustment of quintiles to contain equal numbers of persons. 

·         Stage 4: Hypothetical equalization of work and employment between the quintiles. 

Stage 1: Conventional Income Distribution Data 

As noted, the Census presents income distribution by dividing U.S. households into five groups or quintiles. The share of total income going to each quintile is then determined. The conventional quintile distribution of income for 2002 is shown in Chart 1. In that year, the Census reported that the top or most affluent quintile had 49.7 percent of income, while the bottom quintile had only 3.5 percent. Thus, the top fifth of households is shown to have 14.3 times more income than the bottom fifth. 

End Excerpt 

Scot

Ross,

Here is another excerpt from the Heritage Foundation that is instructive: 

Stage 3: Adjustment of Quintiles to Contain Equal Numbers of Persons 

When decision-makers, journalists, and the public view the government’s official income distribution figures, there is a common and implicit assumption that the quintiles contain equal shares of the population. After all, the notion that we should measure “inequality” by comparing the aggregate income of groups that are themselves unequal in size is at best confusing. However, as noted, the official Census income “quintiles” do not contain equal shares of the population, and this fact skews the Census’ measure of income distribution. 

No one would think it valid to measure inequality between New York State and Delaware by simply comparing the aggregate incomes in the two states. In such a comparison, income differences would mainly reflect vast differences in state populations. But the Census makes precisely this sort of unbalanced comparison whenever it compares quintiles of unequal size.

Ross,

Again, from the Heritage Foundation:

Increasing Inequality? 

A frequent complaint is that the distribution of income is becoming less equal over time. There is some merit to this charge: According to conventional Census numbers, the income share of the top fifth of households rose from 43.7 percent of total income in 1980 to 49.7 percent in 2002. But nearly all of that increase occurred in the 1980s and mid-1990s. For the past five years, the distribution of income has remained static, as charts 8 and 9 show. A tiny increase in the income share of the top quintile corresponds to a small increase in the share of population and total work occurring within the quintile. After adjusting quintiles to contain equal numbers of persons, the top quintile in 1997 had $4.22 in post-tax, post-benefit income for every $1.00 of similar income at the bottom.11 <http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm#pgfId-1132824>  In 2002, the ratio was $4.21 to $1.00. 

The conventional Census figures also suggest that the incomes of the two poorest quintiles have fallen over the past 30 years. The Census reports that in 1970, the two poorest quintiles had 14.9 percent of all money income. By 2002, the figure had fallen to 12.3 percent. However, this apparent decline is a result of the exclusion of non-cash benefits from the count of income. Means-tested welfare and Medicare has risen greatly over time, from 1.5 percent of total personal income in 1950 to over 8 percent in 2002. If these benefits were properly included in the income count, the income share of the two poorest quintiles would be shown to have risen considerably in the 1960s and to have remained relatively unchanged over the past 30 years.

Ross, 

You wrote: 

“Progressives have been in the forefront of nearly every positive social development in this society: the abolition of slavery,….” 

-End Quote- 

But wasn’t it the Republican Party who passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery? Here is an excerpt from that historical day: 

Republicans passed the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery 

Edwin Morgan <http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d6a669e201156fd97cc5970c-pi> 

On this day in 1864, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Senator Edwin Morgan, opened the national convention.  At the suggestion of President Abraham Lincoln (R-IL), he did so with a brief statement: 

“The party of which you, gentlemen, are the delegated and honored representatives, will fall far short of accomplishing its great mission, unless among its other resolves it shall declare for such an amendment of the Constitution as will positively prohibit African slavery in the United States.” 

End excerpt 

You requested a more thoughtful response to your earlier email, so I will continue to break down each of your comments. If the above day in history did not happen, please let me know. If the facts are incorrect, if democrats did not try to block civil rights legislation, if I’m wrong in pointing out that Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican, again, just let me know.

Ross, 

It’s quiet here in my country cabin tonight. There are deer all over my front and back yard, thousands of coy swimming in the enormous pond in my front yard, and while the balance of the week is going to be busy, ( I have two shows tomorrow and I’m writing a speech for the upcoming Tax Tea Party protest on July 4th at the federal building in downtown Syracuse), I have the time to show respect to the thoughtful letter you sent, the one you feel I did not respond to fully. 

Moving on from countering your comments on income disparity, who really fought for civil rights in the 60’s (and who really fought against it), slavery and the FUBU we all affectionately refer to as Amtrak, I’d like to discuss the role of unions in public education. 

You said:

Teacher’s unions have played a pivotal role in this advance by working with administrators to identify challenges and responses, helping to design better cirricula, providing protection to their members against arbitrary and capricious disciplinary measures by administrators for creative and unorthodox teaching methods and they have been in the forefront of protecting a real science cirriculum against religious fools who want to introduce such nonsense as creationism into the schools. 

-End Quote- 

There is so much wrong with that paragraph. 

Here is a thoughtful excerpt from a respected blog that addresses and counters the notion that unions are good for kids. 

Thursday, March 05, 2009 

New Education Research: Unions Hurt Children 

In the current issue of the prestigious American Journal of Political Science, an article from Terry Moe <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/moe.pdf> , who is William Bennett Munro Professor of Political Science at Stanford University. 

Translation: heavyweight research from a heavyweight scholar. Peer reviewed. The abstract explains the results: 

Students of American politics rarely study public sector unions and their impacts on government. The literature sees bureaucratic power as rooted in expertise, but largely ignores the fact that bureaucrats often join unions to promote their own interests, and that the power of their unions may affect government and its performance. This article focuses on the public schools, which are among the most numerous government agencies in the country, and investigates whether collective bargaining by teachers—the key bureaucrats—affects the schools’ capacity to educate children. Using California data, analysis shows that, in large school districts, restrictive labor contracts have a very negative impact on academic achievement, particularly for minority students. The evidence suggests, then, that public sector unions do indeed have important consequences for American public education.

Good scholars don’t just dump data into top journals without an explanation of the theory that led them to expect the results they got (or in rare cases, another result), and Moe lays out his expectations early in the article: 

The unions use their power—their basic work-denial power, enhanced by their political power—to get restrictive rules written into collective bargaining contracts. And these restrictions ensure that the public schools are literally not organized to promote academic achievement. When contract rules make it difficult or impossible to weed out mediocre teachers, for example, they undermine the most important determinant of student learning: teacher quality (Sanders and Rivers 1996). And when contract rules guarantee teachers seniority-based transfer rights, they ensure that teachers cannot be allocated to their most productive uses (Levin, Mulhern, and Schunck 2005). Much the same can be said about a long list of standard contract provisions. This is to be expected. Except at the margins, contract rules are simply not intended to make the schools effective. 

Moe’s “dependent variable” (what he is explaining) is something called the API, which is derived from student test scores. The higher the API, the higher the test scores. 

There are always methodological issues with an analysis of this sort. We might wonder, for example, whether heavily black districts with a lot of Democratic voters elect liberal school boards that readily cave in to the teachers’ union. But those districts might have kids that perform poorly for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of schooling. Moe deals with these issues decisively — controlling for minority population in each district, as well as a host of other variables.

Bottom line: both at the elementary and the secondary levels, restrictive union contracts harm student achievement. 

When Moe breaks down his results, some complication enters. Restrictive union rules seem to hurt more in large school districts, and in districts with a large minority population. 

But of course, these are the districts most at risk. Unionization, in other words, hurts most in the places where conditions are already worst. 

This study, in a way, is a follow-up to a 1990 study (Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools) in which John Chubb and Moe showed that private schools are better organized to educate kids than public schools. In that study they stressed the role of unions doing the same things they have done to kill the auto industry — introducing rigidity in how things are organized and promoting a “then versus us” mentality among the workers. 

Quite simply: your pro-union liberal friends ought to be ashamed of themselves. Don’t look for them to repent anytime soon, however. Unions — and particularly the teachers’ union — are their political allies. 

Labels: Education <http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search/label/Education> , National Education Association <http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search/label/National%20Education%20Association> , School Choice <http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search/label/School%20Choice> , Teachers Union <http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search/label/Teachers%20Union> 

posted by John McAdams at 4:37 PM <http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-education-research-unions-hurt.html> 

Ross, consider the fact that, in the truest sense, unions are at fundamental philosophical odds with the companies for which they work. The goal of the company is to produce a product or service and to generate a profit. However, union leaders go to the table to negotiate more benefits and an “easier” work load for union members. If the unions get there way, production drops, legacy costs increase and the company that provides them a livelihood ceases to exist. 

Anyway, the above except clearly shows that teacher unions are not losing sleep on developing amazing, innovative new ways to make their children learn. 

That, Ross, is what the private and charter schools do, and that is why they outperform public schools every time.

By the way, I notice that there is a certain timelessness in your appreciation for government-run entities. You speak of them as if there is no history or progression. In other words, while the USPS may have been an amazing logistical achievement in the beginning, do you not make room for the notion that it has become less innovative and less efficient over time? Do you allow for the possibility that while unions played an extremely important role in early America, where workers were flat out exploited to death, they too have morphed into something different? I get the feeling you believe if it has good intentions, that is enough. 

As I write these follow-ups to you I’m struck by how easy it is to find empirical studies by reputable sources to disprove your comments. 

Finally, I’ll address health care soon, but for now I’d like to share an anecdote with you, since you shared your experience with the health care system in Italy. In the late 90’s I was placed in rehab in Ocala, Florida. I was one of only a few US citizens there. Everyone else was from Canada. You know why. 

Scot

Ross,

You wrote:

Most of the rest of what you wrote is standard, if not mindless, conservative ideology, devoid from the real world: “but when we look to government, to central planning, to address and solve all of our problems, we will ultimately create a fiscally unsustainable model in which, rather than open the flood gates for dreams to be realized and risk to be rewarded, we instead drag ALL people down, in the name of fairness, to a level of mere survival.”  The economies of China and Japan, far more successful than ours in the last 20 years, rely on much more intensive government planning in the economy.  The notion that the promotion of fairness in the society will “drag all people down, to a level of mere survival” is empty sloganeering without evidence and is simply a way to justify gross disparity in the society that can’t be explained by human variation.

In response, I would first like to say that yes, I subscribe to a conservative ideology, a conservative belief that individuals, not government, is what makes this country great. Individuals invent the toys and devices in your home, not government. Individuals, not government, are the creative thrust behind this great country.

You may laugh at the flag that waves proudly on my porch, but when I look at it I’m reminded me that were it not for the brave young men who fought in World War II we’d all be speaking German. 

There is a reason why our country, in little over 200 years, has produced a standard of living so high that, according to government data, the average poor person in the U.S. has at least one color TV, a microwave oven, a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, and a host of other amenities that make being poor in America a goal for the billions of people who still , and help me wrap my head around this, live in mud huts. 

If in your writings you are trying to establish an ideal of fairness, that there could and should exist a world where everything is fair, then you Ross are creating a straw man. Short of perfection, I salute my country as being a glowing representative republic in world filled with despots, dictatorships, theocracies, monarchies, socialist and communist states. We are a dime in a handful of nickels.  

Finally, you referred to my comments as “mindless”. I would take offense but I’m getting too old to allow ad homonym attacks get under my skin. In point of fact, I was correct in asserting that a socialist government is unsustainable. This does not mean that, in small countries that do not have our ethnic diversity and sheer population size, a kinder more socialist system could not work. Of course it could. But it is disingenuous to compare the US with Sweden, on so very many levels, and you know it. 

Charity is only charity when it is anonymous, optional and locally-based. 

Ross ultimately wrote a response that said, in effect, that further discussion was fruitless, since I was not addressing the most important issues. I apologize, but I cannot locate that particular email. I do recall that it came after I sent a flurry of emails to him, as displayed above, in which I quoted statistics and studies to support my statements.

Ross is a wonderful, kind man. He is a caretaker of the human condition in all matters personal and private. You would be hard pressed to find a more educated and caring person as I have found in Ross.

But in matters of the role of government, I find Ross’s world view to be born of a an early socialist influence, and he has not recoiled from that position.

Thank you and God bless.

 

 

 

______