Although education is traditionally a state and local responsibility, the federal government first became involved with its policies in the mid-1960’s and remains an active component even today, thus giving way to a presidential proposal entitled “No Child Left Behind” in 2001. Up until this bill proposal, Washington had spent nearly $130 billion since 1965 and more than $80 billion in the past decade alone in an unsuccessful effort to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers (see “Issue Summary: H.R. 1 Enhances Accountability”). A recent study by the American Legislative Exchange Council demonstrated that while per pupil expenditures had increased nationwide by 22.8% over the past twenty years, little improvement has been made towards equity of education. From this data, it becomes clear that money is alone will not increase achievement, programs must be held accountable to obtain the desired results (“Issue Summary: H.R. 1 Enhances Accountability”). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 as proposed by President George W. Bush was designed to reduce bureaucracy, provide additional flexibility to states and school districts to “tailor spending to programs that meet the unique needs of students and eliminate programs that divert resources from school.” (“Issue Summary: H.R. 1 Helps Close the Achievement Gap”), and to allow local school districts to transfer up to fifty percent of federal education dollars they receive as long as they demonstrate results in an effort to cut “red tape.” According to a summary issued by the House Education and Workforce Committee, H.R. 1 (the No Child Left Behind Act) was designed to establish a comprehensive accountability system, asking states to build on their existing assessment tests by designing and implementing annual math and reading tests for students in grades three through eight with an amount of federal money designated to redesign tests already in place. Additionally, this act requires that school districts annually report to the public on academic performance as measured by these assessment tests in each school of their jurisdiction, providing information on how students are doing in comparison to those in other schools in the district and across the state, graduate raters, and teacher qualifications to assist parents in judging how their local school stacks up against others statewide. If a low performing school as defined by the state does not make adequate yearly progress after three years of poor testing, students in the failing school are eligible to receive a scholarship for outside private tutoring to transfer to another public school (“H.R. 1, Questions and Answers.”). States that also fail to show adequate yearly progress will additionally be subject to losing a portion of their administrative funds. Thus, according to the issue summary “By establishing a system of rewards and sanctions for states and school districts to hold them accountable for increasing student achievement, H.R. 1 would, for the first time, demand real from public schools that receive federal education resources,” (“Issue Summary: H.R. 1 Helps Close the Achievement Gap”).
Read more…
As early as the mid 1700’s, the British led the world in economic mass production. Britain had truly been the “workshop of the world,” and was the dominant economic figure of its time. However, starting with the First World War, many changes occurred in the British economy. The wars required the full effort of the production of the nation, and mobilized its manufacturing resources to provide for the war effort. This situation provides an interesting case of the dramatic effects of a nation’s economy becoming engulfed in war. Studying this case can lend insight into the effects of war on the international balance of trade, and also on a localized level.
Read more…
New Labour claims that its ‘third way’ represents a new and distinctive approach that differs from both the old left and the Conservative right. There have been many attempts to position the third way on a left-right continuum (see Driver and Martell 2000). On the one hand, New Labour claims that it is a left or left of centre party, with the third way seen as a modernised or renewed social democracy (Blair 1998; Giddens 1998, 2000). On the other hand, it has been argued that there has been a significant convergence between New Labour and the Conservatives, resulting in a new consensus of ‘Blaijorism’, or perhaps now ‘Hagairism’.
However, this approach is too simplistic as the picture is more complex and nuanced. First, there remains considerable debate about the content of the labels of the first and second way. Crouch (1997) claims that there have been four distinct ‘Old Labours’. It is unclear to what extent Labour was ever a ‘socialist’ or even a ‘social democratic’ party, and the broad church of Old Labour includes individuals as diverse as Attlee, Bevan, Crosland and Benn. Similarly, the Conservative right is an uneasy mixture of neo-liberal and neo-conservative tendencies. There has been some rewriting of history, caricaturing the old left and the new right in order to create space for the third way (Economist 1998; Levitas 1998; Navarro 1999). Second, attempts to place ‘the third way’ on a left-right continuum give too much coherence to a term that defies simple description. Like Old Labour, the third way is a broad church. It is very diverse, including some policies such as the minimum wage associated with the old left and the Private Finance Initiative of the new right. Third, Crouch (1997) points out that in many ways the Labour election victory in 1997 is more similar to Conservative victory of 1951 than the Labour victory of 1945. Labour could not wish away the previous eighteen years, and was forced to build on a landscape inherited from the Conservatives. Its response was not wholesale abolition of Conservative policies, but an selective attempt to reform the reforms. Some policies such as the purchaser/ provider split in the NHS were incrementally changed, while others such as the Assisted Places scheme in education and tax relief on health insurance for elderly people were abolished. As Blair argued in the Introduction to the 1997 Manifesto (Labour Party 1997) ‘Some things the Conservatives got right. We will not change them. It is where they got things wrong that we will make change.’ This is more policy adaption than policy convergence. It follows that it is meaningless to place the third way on a left-right continuum which exists in a timeless policy vacuum. Rather than comparing third way policies to what Old Labour did, such as Keynesian full employment, the more difficult counterfactual exercise is the comparison between what Old Labour might have done in today’s circumstances.
Using examples from welfare reform, the complex roots of the third way are examined in terms of something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. Before this, a useful starting point is to map out some of the territory of the third way and the welfare state.
Read more…
If you’ve been following the news at all, you have probably heard your fair share of Obama PropagandaRama. One such item on the ObamAgenda is the Cash for Clunkers scheme, where the government puts up the funds for a $4500 credit toward the purchase of a new car if someone brings in a “clunker” to the dealership. The objective, so the Obamanauts say, is to put more fuel efficient cars on the road AND save the auto industry in America.
Bollocks. What a massive load of bollocks. If you think that paying someone to destroy wealth is beneficial to anyone except the payee (and anyone else sitting on the gravy train along the way), you need to seriously reevaluate whether you should be forming opinions on economic issues at all.
Read more…
[First revision. Please use the comments form to send your suggestions for addition, removal, or revision!
For very informative videos about Somalia echoing the information contained herein and much more, please see Stefan Molyneux of FreedomainRadio's 2-part "True News: Somalia" series, available on YouTube: Part 1, Part 2.]
Every now and then, Somalia pops into the news for one reason or another. The mainstream media’s view is that it is a place where chaos and warlords reign, and poverty is widespread. In the public eye, it is probably imagined to be a place with AK47-armed militiamen in the backs of pickup trucks, with child soldiers, genocide, and the like. Yet little is known by Westerners about what the real picture in any 3rd world country is like, much less one with institutions as rich as those in Somalia – especially institutions which threaten the dominant international political paradigm. “Peace in Somalia” is interpreted by most to mean the restoration of Somalia’s national government – this is what the paradigm commands!
Yet in the 15 years between the collapse of Somalia’s government and the first attempts to truly reinstate the federal government via military campaign, the gains Somalia has made without a state have been ignored. Further, nearly all recent major military conflicts in Somalia have been the direct result of the attempts of external forces (the U.N., Ethiopia, etc.) to impose a new government created in exile. Unsurprisingly, it is these conflicts that appear in the news as the consequence of anarchy, intended to scare you, the viewer, into further accepting your own submission to your own government. If you do not submit, the news tells you, it will be like living in Somalia.
Read more…
I just ran into an older post on Grey and White Matter (James’ blog) today that caught my eye, and reminded me once more of the linguistically bewildered world in which we live. The post was in reference to Obama’s purported championing of “science,” in the wake of the undoubtedly anti-science Bush administration. Read more…
I was actually turking, working on Amazon’s Requester’s “Ask a Question” task when this article popped up: Restore Economic Confidence by Robbing Banks by Spencer Green. The article draws a parallel between our current economic crisis and the 60s bank robbing duo Bonnie & Clyde, suggesting that a new brand of “populist criminals stand up for all of us.”
The interesting thing about this article is that I can’t tell whether it’s a parody of Keynesianism, or it’s someone with a Keynesian viewpoint simply being facetious but still oblivious to the absurdities of his position. Reading it like a libertarian, I see good satire (which is basically true of any statist piece read as a consistent libertarian; it’s either something someone really written or really good satire of the nonsense people believe). Reading it as a real statist piece, it makes my stomach turn.
It’s posted under “Comedy News,” so I’m really thinking it’s satire, but I don’t know. Someone advise me?
With all of these crimes being committed these days, why not use the pathetic moral condition of jails as part of the punishment? Well, so advocates one Magistrate in Australia:
From http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5054UP20090106
SYDNEY (Reuters) – An Australian court has issued a blunt warning about the sexual predators a young driver faces in jail if he does not stop speeding, as authorities struggle to stop teenagers street racing.
“You’ll find big, ugly, hairy strong men (in jail) who’ve got faces only a mother could love that will pay a lot of attention to you — and your anatomy,” said Magistrate Brian Maloney.
…
Breaching any of these conditions would see the teenager jailed where he would “shower with the gorillas in the mist down at Long Bay jail,” said Maloney, his comments confirmed by the court on Tuesday.
As a result of not only failing to create a jail system that protects inmate rights, but also creating a jail system that generates repeat criminals due to the brutal environment of imprisonment, the Australian government apparently has no qualms with threatening criminals of all colors with crime it is responsible for creating. Read more…
Apparently, Hawaii’s hailed “universal child health care” initiative has been, well, uninitiated.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/ap_on_he_me/child_health_hawaii
HONOLULU – Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.
“People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free,” said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. “I don’t believe that was the intent of the program.”
…
Basically, this is an illustration of why mixed economies don’t work effectively. If the government guarantees a good or service of certain value to those who don’t have it, it will be exploited. More broadly, any entitlement system will be exploited because it’s simply economically stupid to do otherwise. If you can foist the cost of anything you need onto someone else and you don’t notice or have no moral qualms about the force involved, why wouldn’t you?
Read more…
The Brits seemed keen on stopping National Socialism in Germany; that was the whole point of World War II, wasn’t it? But apparently, this was in order to foster and develop national socialism in Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/3187600/Banks-nationalised-in-37bn-deal.html
Banks nationalised in £37bn deal
The Government has begun nationalising HBOS and the Royal Bank of Scotland, pumping £37 billion of taxpayers’ money into the struggling firms.
…RBS has said that it will receive £20 billion of capital from the Government – meaning taxpayers will hold a 60 per cent stake in the company. Its chief executive, Sir Fred Goodwin, is to resign.
A further £17 billion is to be pumped into the merged HBOS-Lloyds TSB, meaning 40 per cent of the new "superbank" will be held by the Government on behalf of the public…
Banks will effectively be state-run, with Government-appointed board members put in place to ensure it once again begins lending to businesses and individual customers.
… Together with Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, the move will mean the Government effectively has four of the country’s biggest lenders under its control.
… However, Government sources were unabashed about nationalising more banks, after similar moves to save Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.
The Prime Minister said the financial crisis had fundamentally shifted the balance of power between companies and the state. Despite Mr Brown’s pledge to spend "up to £50 billion", sources said the final Government bill could be more.
Nothing to see here folks. Just government "saving the markets" through the use of massive and involuntary wealth transfers. The usual successful policy.
The chain of events that will follow from this are not surprising. The government will "save" the banks, only to lead to another crisis: "our banks need our support! If the national banks go down, it will be a catastrophe!" And so forth. And British taxpayers will be fleeced ad infinitum until there’s simply no more fleece, the nationalistic drugs have worn off, and the veil is really lifted so everyone can see the gigantic gun behind it all: "You’re not doing this because you’ve got some kind of British pride or because it’s your social organization of choice. You’re doing it because we’re making you."