Hispanic Pundit

Obama On Education

2010-02-08T23:24:40-08:00

Jay P. Greene, professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas, writes on Obama’s Education policies:

In a major address last March, President Obama declared that his administration would “use only one test when deciding what ideas to support with your precious tax dollars: It’s not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.” Unfortunately, the test that seems to guide the administration’s education priorities is not whether a policy works, but whether it serves a political constituency.

Consider the administration’s treatment of two federally funded programs: The D.C. voucher program, which it is helping to kill, and Head Start, on which it has bestowed billions more dollars. If the administration actually did care about results, its positions would be just the opposite.

If you look at Obama’s education policies from the point of view of what works you will come out seriously disappointed. The way to make sense of his education policies is not to look at what works and what doesn’t work but what serves the interest of one of his strongest constituencies: the teachers unions. Sure, Head Start doesn’t work but what matters is whether it benefits the teachers union. And because Head Start - like universal preschool, smaller classrooms, and higher pay for teachers - means more teachers, directly benefiting the teachers union, Obama and Democrats in general will support it.

This is why I have long given up hope of any real education reform coming from the Democrat side.

More here.

Links for 2010-02-07 [del.icio.us]

2010-02-08T00:00:00-08:00

Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » Get Out Your Godwin’s Law-O-Meter
"HNN is running a symposium on Jonah Goldberg’s recent book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"
THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2005
"Parental selection can help to explain how the Europeans, who are descended from Africans, developed white skin over such a short period of time. In Africa, a cultural preference for light skin (such as Nisa's mother expressed) would have been counteracted by other factors that made light skin impractical. But in less sunny Europe, light skin may actually have increased fitness, which means that all three selection processes might have worked together to produce the rapid change in skin color."

Quote Of The Day

2010-02-07T23:09:13-08:00

“Apparently, the administration has issued rules requiring parity for mental health treatment with other illnesses. They’ll take effect July 1st. If you want to know why health insurance costs keep marching upward seemingly uncontrolled, this is why: mandating new benefits is always popular, and the government doesn’t have to pay for them.” — Megan McArdle

Links for 2010-02-06 [del.icio.us]

2010-02-07T00:00:00-08:00

Marginal Revolution: Supply and Demand
"Only at the IVYs and universities with engineering schools does the sex ratio tend to even out (no doubt for obvious, albeit politically incorrect reasons), which in itself will have consequences for future sexual mores. A number of universities would like to institute affirmative action for males".
Supply and Demand (in that order): Women a Majority, but for How Long?
"Eventually the supply of human capital will respond to return the wage structure to something more like it was in the 1960s and 1970s. When that happens, education, IQ, etc. will not command such a premium, and cease to be so important relative to gender. Then the fraction of market jobs held by women will be much less than 50 percent".
Epidemiology meets moral idiocy. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine
Hitchens on the Lancet study.
More student aid, higher college costs « Joanne Jacobs
Its simple economics, really.
The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Debating Ayn Rand’s Philosophy
"Cato Unbound has recently completed an interesting debate between several scholars on the strengths and weaknesses of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. All of the contributions are worth reading for those interested in the subject. But I agree most with University of Colorado political philosopher Michael Huemer"

Links for 2010-02-05 [del.icio.us]

2010-02-06T00:00:00-08:00

Anti-EMH and Antitrust, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
The same psychological mindset.
The Vicious Cycle Between the Debt and the Ceiling « The Enterprise Blog
"As the figure below shows, since the Second World War, debt has almost always been equal to the legal limit. The ceiling isn’t a limit; it is the debt. All of this comes from the vicious cycle between the debt and the ceiling. First, Congress sets, and subsequently exceeds, its spending. As long as this spending exceeds revenue, Treasury has to finance this spending by issuing more debt. Treasury quickly hits its limit—think of it like maxing out a credit card. In the meantime, Congress approves more spending, which Treasury now cannot finance. Then Congress raises the ceiling and can approve more spending."
Marginal Revolution: Bryan Caplan responds to criticisms of libertarianism
The cross between libertarian and liberalism.
Are charter schools too black? « Joanne Jacobs
"For all the complaints about skimming, charter schools disproportionately enroll the lowest-scoring students, inner-city African-Americans. Their parents have decided that a nearly all-black charter school is a better choice than the neighborhood school, which may be marginally more integrated (probably with Hispanics). Whose civil rights are violated by letting parents make that choice?"
CARPE DIEM: Anti-Greed Filmaker Moore Wants Taxpayer Money
"A Michigan Republican state senator is calling out filmmaker Michael Moore for requesting $1 million in tax subsidies for his movie “Capitalism: A Love Story,” in which the filmmaker decried the government bailout of Wall Street executives."
Inductivist: A majority of Democrats have a positive image of socialism
"Fifty-three percent of Democrats and 61 percent of liberals have a positive image of socialism".
Problems with Means Testing, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
The problems with means testing.

Links for 2010-02-04 [del.icio.us]

2010-02-05T00:00:00-08:00

Marginal Revolution: Medicare vouchers
Thoughts on medical vouchers.
CARPE DIEM: Capitalism Created the Middle Class and They Still Have it Pretty Good
The growing standard of living of the middle class.
How Unions Work - Megan McArdle
Why the dislike merit pay, prefer seniority rules and inherently reward mediocrity.
DC Vouchers Will Not Go Quietly « Jay P. Greene’s Blog
The DC Voucher fight continues.
Rehabilitating Bush | The New Republic
Chait vs Hennessey on Bush budget.
Can Monopolies Help Consumers? - Megan McArdle
"Still, I think it's worth noting that while we usually discuss antitrust as a means of helping consumers, in fact, it's more obviously successful at helping competitors. This is why libertarians are so often against antitrust interventions: they don't recognize a right to be free from competition, even the "unfair" kind."
UCLA Civil Rights Project Gets It Wrong « Jay P. Greene’s Blog
"My friends over at Mid-Riffs take apart the new report from Gary Orfield’s UCLA Civil Rights Project claiming that charters produce segregation"
CARPE DIEM: Fortune 500 Firms in 1959 vs. 2009; 86% Are Gone
"Comparing the Fortune 500 in 1959 to 2009, I find that there are only 72 companies that appear in both lists. In other words, only 14% of the Fortune 500 companies in 1959 were still on the list fifty years later in 2009, and 86% of the companies have either gone bankrupt, merged, or still exist but fell from the top 500 companies (ranked by gross revenue). That's a lot of churning and creative destruction, and it's probably safe to say that many of today's Fortune 500 like the ones listed above will be replaced by new companies in new industries by the year 2059. "
Super-Economy: Europe free-rides on America
Pharmaceutical and technological innovation are a direct result of the USA's unique non-price control healthcare system. Making the USA like Europe would kill the golden egg.
CARPE DIEM: Affirmative Action: Costly and Counterproductive
Dispelling the 'gains from diversity' myth of affirmative action and showing what affirmative really is: A gain for minority students at the expense of white and asian students.
Economics One: Opinions versus Facts About the Chicago School
"Blaming the financial crisis on the free-market influence of the Chicago school is certainly not consistent with these data. There were no Chicago PhDs on the President’s CEA leading up to or during the financial crisis. In contrast there was a great influx and then dominance of PhDs from Cambridge".
TheMoneyIllusion » Defending the indefensible
Sumner defends Eugene Fama and the Efficient Market Hypothesis.
Matthew Yglesias » Efficient Markets Hypothesis Rhetoric
"To say that the ketchup market is “efficient” from the point of view of a participant in the ketchup market seeking an opportunity trade at a profit is just a totally different thing from saying that the fluctuations of the ketchup market constitute an efficient element of a larger economic system."
More on bubble spotting | The Economist
Sumner vs economist on bubbles and EMH.
What to Read on Foreign Aid | Foreign Affairs
A list.

Quote Of The Day

2010-02-04T23:02:32-08:00

“As has been voluminously documented here, one of the most notable aspects of the first year of the Obama presidency has been how many previously controversial Bush/Cheney policies in the terrorism and civil liberties realms have been embraced. Even Obama’s most loyal defenders often acknowledge that, as Micheal Tomasky recently put it, “the civil liberties area has been [Obama’s] worst. This is the one area in which the president’s actions don’t remotely match the candidate’s promises.” From indefinite detention and renditions to denial of habeas rights, from military commissions and secrecy obsessions to state secrets abuses, many of the defining Bush/Cheney policies continue unabated under its successor administration.” — Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon

Links for 2010-02-03 [del.icio.us]

2010-02-04T00:00:00-08:00

Marginal Revolution: How much does tax-subsidized health insurance matter for health care costs?
Not much, after all.
Higher grad rate for voucher students « Joanne Jacobs
"Milwaukee’s voucher schools graduate 77 percent of low-income students, compared with 65 percent for public high schools, concludes an ongoing study. That means voucher students are 18 percent more likely to earn a high school diploma."
Op-Ed on Head Start and DC Vouchers « Jay P. Greene’s Blog
Vouchers work, Head Start doesnt...Obama cancels Vouchers and funds more of Head Start. Typical liberalism.
Energy consumption: Some are more energy hungry than others | The Economist
A world comparison.
Inductivist: Religious folks are less likely to cheat on spouse
Religious people are less likely to cheat.
Energy transition: On the price of coal | The Economist
"In other words, coal dependence has continued largely because coal has remained so cheap, and coal has remained cheap because society has not forced mining operations and power companies to internalise the costs of the environmental, economic, and health damage associated with coal into the price. Coal continues to dominate simply because the market doesn't reflect social costs. That's not a problem with renewables. That's a problem of economics and of governance."
Kids delay sex after abstinence classes « Joanne Jacobs
Abstinence programs work.

Winning The Lottery

2010-02-03T23:55:55-08:00

“The Lottery, a documentary due out May 7, follows four New York City families hoping to win the lottery to enroll their children in a Harlem charter school”. Via Joanne Jacobs.

Links for 2010-02-02 [del.icio.us]

2010-02-03T00:00:00-08:00

Which is the decade of profligacy? | KeithHennessey.com
"President Obama’s proposed deficits over the eight-year period FY 2009-2017 are 5.9% of GDP, the light blue bar. That’s more than twice as large as the Bush nine year 2.7% average, and almost three times as large as the Bush eight year 2.0% average."
Ezra Klein - Predictions are hard -- especially about the future
Deficit projection vs reality. Pretty close.
Abstinence-only programs might work, study says - washingtonpost.com
They do work.
Climate Change Emails Show Evidence of Scientific Misconduct? - Megan McArdle
More proof that climate change science is dubious science.
What Lori Gottlieb's Marry Him gets wrong about successful single women. - By Jessica Grose - Slate Magazine
The crisis in marriage is at the low income end, not the high income end.
Defence spending: Time to attack defence spending | The Economist
The growing cost of our military.
Deficits past and future: A tale of two charts | The Economist
The causes of the deficit.
Attack of the Killer Vouchers! « Jay P. Greene’s Blog
Voucher opponents continue their ridiculous attacks. Arguing that vouchers causes global warming and mortality.

Eliot Spitzer On The Recent Supreme Court Decision

2010-02-02T23:43:11-08:00

Eliot Spitzer on the Supreme Court decision that struck down the heart of campaign finance reform:

As an elected official who often tangled with wealthy corporations, I recognize that there is a superficial appeal in the prospect of being able to silence their political voices. Of course that is precisely why the First Amendment protects them and why I find myself sympathetic to the First Amendment absolutists in this case. What distinguishes what Citizens United did and what Bill O’Reilly on Fox News—Rachel Maddow on MSNBC—does every day? Fox and MSNBC are corporations bombarding the airwaves with political rhetoric, from the right and left, that is as close to “electioneering communications” as anything I can imagine. The McCain-Feingold statute excluded “media companies” from its limitations, a distinction that makes no logical sense. The constitutionality of Citizens United’s speech should have nothing to do with what else may or may not go on at the corporation it is part of.

It is not surprising that the ACLU, wearing its First Amendment fundamentalist hat, and the NRA and the Chamber of Commerce, trying to protect corporate power and speech rights, are urging the court to find the provision unconstitutional.

The full article can be found here.

Links for 2010-02-01 [del.icio.us]

2010-02-02T00:00:00-08:00

McChesney on Government Pensions, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
Its all win win for pension employees.
Who Belongs to Unions? - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com
"As you can see, local government employees represented a plurality of the country’s union members in 2009. "
Health Care and the Deficit - Ross Douthat Blog - NYTimes.com
"the fact that “our health care problem is our deficit problem” doesn’t mean that the Democrats’ health care reform is the solution to the problem. Americans may be wrong (though they’re wise to be skeptical) about whether the legislation would reduce the deficit on the margins. But they’re right to think that even in the best-case scenario, the bill doesn’t offer anything like a fix for our long-term deficit problem."
Best Paragraph of the Day, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
Kennedy admits that there was liberal bias in media and that he and many on his side are really no different than John Edwards.
At what point is a minority worth protecting? | Crowhill Weblog
Finding the fine line between protected minority and not protected under the constitution.
Humanities students: An education | The Economist
"But should a majority of the population be educated this way? A humanities-heavy curriculum might have made sense when only a small, elite fraction of the population attended university. But now over 50% of the population has at least some post-secondary education."
The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Corporate Speech About Candidates: One Important Fact
"s the New York Times reports, even before the Citizens United decision, 26 states didn’t restrict independent corporate (and, I take it, union) speech about state-level political candidates."
Greg Mankiw's Blog: President Obama's New Budget
"The President is proposing significantly more spending than he proposed last year: 1.8% of GDP more in 2011, and roughly 1 percentage point more each year over time."
Making Poverty History: A Short History « The Enterprise Blog
"During roughly the same period covered by the authors, the percentage of free countries in the world increased from 29 to 46 percent, according to Freedom House’s annual ratings. Liberalization and economic growth go together. One might also conclude that China’s explosive growth, which has carried Asia as a whole from 19 percent to 28 percent of the global economy during this period, has had a significant impact on poverty reduction, not to mention India’s rapid rise in its share of global GDP."
President Obama’s Excellent New Banking Proposal - Jim Manzi - The Corner on National Review Online
In support of Obama's banking proposal.
Invasion of the European Economists by Guy Sorman, City Journal Winter 2010
More and more are coming to the United States.
BEHIND OBAMA’S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS at DickMorris.com
"So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit."...and thats just in 2009.
Marginal Revolution: Naughty Bits in the Bible
The origin of swearing in....male testicles.
Steve Sailer's iSteve Blog: "The Prince of Darkness"
Sailer reviews Novak's book, The Prince of Darkness.
Rodriguez: Saint Cesar of Delano | Nuestra Voice
Rodriguez on Chavez.

The Real Bush Deficit

2010-02-01T23:16:28-08:00

Obama is fond of saying that he ‘inherited’ a $1.3 trillion budget deficit and is merely ‘only increasing it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and to $1.6 trillion in 2010′.

Dick Morris gets behind the numbers and tells the part that Obama left out:

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then…he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

20 Years Is Not A Century

2010-01-31T23:24:43-08:00

Obama, during the State Of The Union address, said:

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Randy Barnett, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown Law Center, writes in the WSJ about Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court:

Then there is the substance of the remark itself. It was factually wrong. The Court’s ruling in Citizens United concerned the right of labor unions and domestic corporations, including nonprofits, to express their views about candidates in media such as books, films and TV within 60 days of an election. In short, it concerned freedom of speech; in particular, an independent film critical of Hillary Clinton funded by a nonprofit corporation.

While the Court reversed a 1990 decision allowing such a ban, it left standing current restrictions on foreign nationals and “entities.” Also untouched was a 100-year-old ban on domestic corporate contributions to political campaigns to which the president was presumably referring erroneously.

That is a whole lot to get wrong in 72 sanctimonious words. Clearly, this statement had not been vetted by the president’s legal counsel. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, for example, would never have signed off on such a claim. Never.

Then there is the lack of any reference to the Constitution or First Amendment upon which the Court rested its decision. The president made a nakedly result-oriented criticism: Because interest groups and foreigners (gasp!) will allegedly get to influence our elections, the Supreme Court made a legal mistake. As though this is the way the Supreme Court should decide constitutional cases.

Oh, and how exactly is Congress supposed to override a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court by enacting a statute? Or was the president merely urging Congress to evade it?

If the president, himself a Harvard Law School graduate, is going to criticize a judicial opinion, it is incumbent upon him to be legally accurate and responsible in his commentary. If that is too much to expect of a politician giving a nationally televised speech to the general public, then this again illustrates the inappropriateness of making this remark in this venue.

The full article can be found here.

Obama The Debater

2010-01-29T20:46:47-08:00

Obama gave a speech and responded to questions at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore. See the full video on C-Span here. The transcript can be found here.

I disagree with Obama on many things. Alot of which he discussed in this video. But it is clear from the dialogue that Obama has a far better command of the issues than present day Republicans. He clearly cleaned their clocks in this discussion.

Correcting Obama On The Recent Supreme Court Decision

2010-01-28T23:40:29-08:00

I assume that Obama’s comments about the recent Supreme Court ruling were meant to be intentionally misleading and/or inaccurate in order to score political points. After all, Obama is a constitutional lawyer who knows better.

Nevertheless, to kill some of the rumors going around, here are some further clarifications on why Alito was correct in his statement that what Obama said was simply ‘not true’:

This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

Or another explanation here:

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

More can be found at the articles here and here. If you read anything on this Supreme Court decision, read Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon.com, here and here.

Origin Of The Minimum Wage In The United States

2010-01-27T23:08:25-08:00

Economist David Henderson explains:

Proponents of the minimum wage, when it was legislated in 1938, were disproportionately from Northeastern high-wage states where a minimum wage would be binding only on a very small segment of the labor force. They used it to narrow the differential in wages between the Northeastern states and the Southeastern states, where black men were a much higher fraction of the labor force and where the minimum wage would be binding on a much higher fraction. I posted about the role of Senator John F. Kennedy in the 1950s and his explicit statement that he wanted to hobble competition from black labor.

Much more at the full post here.