Dude, where's my utopia?

It's true that as a percentage of GDP the U.S. tax burden is small relative to other wealthy nations, like those in Western Europe. This fact leads many on the left to two incorrect conculsions. One, our looming fiscal problems can be fixed by raising taxes, after all we've got relatively low taxes now, so raising them moderately can't hurt. And two, that we can increase taxes and increase government spending until the U.S. is transformed into a paradise of government provided services.

With respect to the first conclusion, The Armchair Economist warns that fixing your fiscal problems by increasing taxes is like paying off your credit card bills by going to the ATM more often, and is not a recipe for success.

And as far as the second goes, holding on to this vision of a high-service utopia is at best foolish and at worst dangerous. It's as if these folks have never heard of the Soviet Union, or read Brave New World, or recognized the fact that Western Europe's combination of high-immigration and low birth rate is a path to extinction.

Quite apart from these criticisms though, is the question of whether or not we really are a low-tax state.

Economist Greg Mankiw offers an alternatvie persepctive of our tax burden by taking a look at taxes per person, rather than as a percentage of GDP. He finds that on this basis the U.S. falls between.........Canada and the U.K. Not exactly tax-haven territory. He notes:

The bottom line: The United States is indeed a low-tax country as judged by taxes as a percentage of GDP, but as judged by taxes per person, the United States is in the middle of the pack.

So maybe our tax burden isn't really light enough to fully transform the United States into a government catered paradise, even if such a thing were possible.

Yglesias offers a criticism, but he loves the idea of a high tax/high service state, and thinks it's a real possibility.

'Your so-called stimulus'

Via Real Time Economics:

The U.S. economy has traded a public bubble for a private one, according to this forecast by California forecasting firm Beacon Economics.

The firm’s stance is that the $787 billion federal stimulus package and the Federal Reserve’s near-zero interest rates have propped up the economy but will prove unsustainable and are actually exacerbating some of the imbalances that led to the recession. “The nation seems to be trading in its private bubble for a public one, swapping one set of unsustainable economic drivers for another,” the report said....

The gist is this: The stimulus and other such measures have prevented a shedding of debts that needs to happen before the economy can return to sustainable growth. The saving rate has grown from its record lows, but has been propped up by tax cuts that have exacerbated the mountain of debt at all levels of government. Property values have fallen, but accounting changes have prevented banks from acknowledging a lot of underwater loans. Even the roaring stock market is artificial, in the firm’s view.

Seems like a good time to reprise the Keynes v. Hayek video

Your so-called stimulus only makes things worse

just more of the same, more incentives perverse

This Onion made me laugh, then cry

Increasing Number Of Parents Opting To Have Children School-Homed

WASHINGTON—According to a report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Education, an increasing number of American parents are choosing to have their children raised at school rather than at home....

"Parents are finding creative ways to make this increasingly common child-rearing track work," Miller said. "Whether it's over-relying on after-school programs and extracurricular activities, or simply gross neglect,† school-homing is becoming a widely accepted method of bringing children up."...

Though school-homing has proven to be an ideal solution for millions of uninvolved parents, increasingly overburdened public schools have recently led to a steady upswing in the number of students being prison-homed.

It's from The Onion of course, so it's not actually true. Though it's close enough to be more than a little bit sad.

The Individual Mandate and the Constitution

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias takes to his blog again today to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate to buy health insurance. His gambit is to quote Justice Scalia stating in no uncertain terms that the Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, including non-economic activity when necessary as part of their constitutional mandate. After all, who on the right can argue with Scalia?

It's a clever rhetorical trick, but rather unconvincing.

While it's true that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and that health insurance affects interstate commerce, is that really the problem with the mandate? It seems to me the problem is that the mandate forces people to engage in an activity that affects interstate commerce, just so the Congress can then turnaround and regulate that activity.

Don't take my word for it, here's Wisconsin's own Illusory Tenant, a blogger that, unlike me, knows his way around a law library:

Before the mandated purchase takes place, there is no commerce — and therefore nothing in commerce to regulate. It is only by Congress mandating individuals to make commercial transactions that there becomes something in commerce.

So the question presents as, 'Can Congress force a private party to initiate the transaction that will bring into existence the commerce Congress may regulate.' If the answer is yes, then it's not on account of anything the Commerce Clause says

I urge you to go read the whole thing.

Here's Illy-T on AG Van Hollen and the individual mandate.

Walker v. Neumann

As someone who was taking GOP politics seriously for the first time, I really took the Walker/Neumann rumor battle over the last few days a bit too hard.

The sensible Lakeshore Laments was there to inject a bit of sanity into the situation:

Having worked on campaigns before, let's be clear with ourselves; it wasn't a cool or smart move. It's also not the end of the world for the Neumann campaign or this young kid's career. It's about a 1.75 out of 10 on the "Worst Things Campaigns can do to Each Other" Scale. It's amateur no doubt, but the lasting damage is negligible at least. It's an act which will be forgotten by next month....

What both Walker and Neumann campaigns (and bloggers siding with either side) should do is just let the story go. The damage is done -- mostly self-inflicted to Neumann -- and there's not much else to gain by bringing it up again. If there's been a behind-the-scenes apology between both men, the better.

In addition to being wrong, this was a tactical mistake. Those that had exercised restraint in their support of Walker no longer felt the need to do so. Also, it generated some amount of sympathy for the Walker camp, something that from my perspective they have been unable to do on their own.

I guess it's a good thing all around that, "[a]t this stage none of the candidates are all that well known."

Paul Krugman wrong on option for deficit reduction

Economist and New York Times blogger Paul Krugman does his readers a disservice in the course of a recent post meant to dampen fears over high debt levels:

Many independent sources are moderately more pessimistic; they think that on current policies we’d be looking at a deficit of 5-6 percent of GDP. So that makes it more like a 3 or 4 percent of GDP adjustment.

That’s not, in economic terms, a huge number. We could raise taxes that much and still be one of the lowest-tax nations in the advanced world. Or we could save a significant share of that total by not being totally prepared for the day when Soviet tanks sweep across the North German plain. [EA]

The idea that if we faced a fiscal armageddon we could solve our problem by reducing spending on the implements of actual armageddon is an appealing one. One that I ascribed to not that long ago. Too bad it's not true.

While it is true that we still spend a tremendous amount of money on defense compared to other countries, we aren't spending the way we did when those Soviet tanks that Krugman conjures up were an actual threat. According to the Congressional Budget Office the federal budget for defense was 8.1% of GDP in 1970. In 2007 it was 3.9%. They estimate that in 2020 it will be 3.6%.

The notion that we are spending 3 or 4% of GDP on defense against a Soviet threat that no longer exists is simply wrong. If we reduced defense spending by 3 or 4% of GDP in 2020 we would spend nothing on defense. While I'm willing to concede our current level of spending on defense is too high, I'm sure the optimal level is not zero.

Is it too much to ask that one of the world's premier newspapers and its Nobel Prize winning economist blogger level with their readers about the fiscal choices facing the nation?

County Nullification

It seems awfully early for this, but the 2011 Brown County budget is already in the news. From the Press Gazette:

Brown County Board Vice Chairwoman Mary Scray said the 2011 county budget, likely to be tighter than this year's, calls for a contingency plan if state and federal aids continue to drop.

Scray wants department directors to prepare budget cut alternatives that would reduce their proposals by 10 percent so the County Board has options when it votes on a new budget.

The story notes that Scray is not the only one concerned and County Executive Tom Hinz, "expects the 2011 county budget to force more difficult decisions than the current budget did."

The article ended with this slightly provocative thought:

Scray said mandated state programs aren't excluded from the list of possible cuts, and she plans to investigate those guidelines."What happens if we don't do a state-mandated program?" Scray said. "What's the penalty? In my opinion, if a department thinks an unmandated program is more important than a mandated one, let's go from there. Is the juice worth the squeeze?"

Successful Blogs Have Links

"Walmart, I can't quit you."

Facebook's increasing role in divorce.

Wrestler Andre the Giant may have caught a ride with author Samuel Beckett.

When Siskel and Ebert disagree.

So when do we reform health reform

Yesterday I argued that the GOP should just forget healthcare for a little while, at least until the shortcomings of the new law are apparent and changes to it will be necessary and popular. Think it can't happen? Tyler Cowen points us to this from the comments at MR:

Steve Entin at the National Center for Policy Analysis has written on the very issue of the subsidies vs the tax exclusion. His conclusion:

Adding the subsidies for premiums and cost sharing, the family getting the health exchange policy would receive a total subsidy of $17,400, while the family receiving employer-based insurance would receive a total subsidy of $4,143.

That is a huge differential. The whole piece is here: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Health-Insurance-Exchange-Subsidies-Create-Inequities.pdf

In a wonderful understatement, Tyler says he will file this under "Not a political equilibrium." A less restrained blogger might have gone with "trainwreck."

It would seem that reforming the reform is now a question of when and not if. All the more reason for the GOP to pivot away from this in the short term.

(Paid) Outpouring of support for Steve Kagen

It has been warm here this week and it appears the astroturf will come in early this year.

From the JS All Politics blog:

The Democratic National Committee began airing television ads Thursday thanking Rep. Steve Kagen and 24 other House Democrats in competitive districts who voted for sweeping health care legislation Sunday.

You can watch the DNC ad here.

But that's not all. The Wis Politics DC Wrap has this item:

Liberal group Americans United for Change is running robocalls in Wisconsin's 8th CD asking listeners to thank U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Appleton, for his vote in favor of health care reform....

The robocall narrator tells listeners that insurance companies hired more than 2,000 lobbyists and spent $86 million to kill the health care legislation.

"But the insurance companies didn't win," the narrator says. "Because your Congressman, Steve Kagen, said NO to big insurance and YES to standing up for regular people."

Wonder how much they spent on the robocalls? They forgot to mention he was also standing up for big government.

These moves seem to indicate two things. First, Kagen is seen as vulnerable but not at all a lost cause. Those of us in WI-8 who wish to see Kagen defeated at the polls, would do well to keep this in mind. Don't get fooled by the fact that many of the people you talk to regularly and all the blogs you read, are down on Kagen. His defeat is anything but assured.

Second, both sides engage in these sorts of paid professional campaigns and both sides like to pretend that they don't. Remember all the outrage over supposedly phony grassroots opposition to healthcare last summer? Well it was certainly more real than this phony support for Kagen.

The GOP should forget healthcare for now

Now that ObamaCare is the law of the land, the question for Republicans is what to do next. Talk of repeal may make a few headlines during the campaign, but I'm not yet convinced that this is in any way serious or presents a real path for electoral success in 2010 or, more importantly, 2012.

The difficulty is that the healthcare reform is phased in slowly enough that its negative effects definitely won't be visible eight months from now and maybe not even in 2012. This includes some of the major tax provisions as well. If a majority of people have yet to feel the pain and put even a small chance on the possibility that the reform will benefit them, how do Republicans benefit from its current unpopularity? Maybe they can't, so what should they do.

Perhaps a bold stroke of legislative jujitsu may be in order. Why not let the legal challenges to reform make their way through the courts and just forget healthcare in 2010 and 2012, at least until it's clear that this was a mistake and the cry for reform or repeal is overwhelming. Instead, why can't Republicans spearhead some transformational change of their own on an issue that is near and dear to their hearts: taxes. Specifically, tax simplification.

The tax system in this country is so complex and common place, it isn't even any longer recognized for what it is, a tool of oppression. But at the same time, we have a history of taxing income, so abandoning that system altogether may no longer be realistic. Simplifying the tax code so that the average American can very easily calculate his own tax bill on a form the size of a post card would be the kind of fundamental change that Republicans could campaign and win on.

Want to be fiscally responsible? Make the simplifications revenue neutral. Once people understand what they are paying, then we can talk about how much to pay. This transparency could help the conversation on entitlement reform for the same reason. Just think of the contrast that could be drawn: Obamacare enacts numerous new taxes and an expanded IRS force to collect them. Tax simplification means fewer taxes and fewer IRS agents.

These make great talking points, but more important this would be a step toward smaller government and greater liberty. You know, the things that Republicans are always promising, but somehow never get around to delivering.

Kagen ready to campaign on his record

As far as I know Congressman Steve Kagen hasn't actually announced that he will seek re-election, so this item in the Post-Crescent caught my eye:

During his weekly conference call, Kagen told reporters that while he has given little attention to campaign politics, his vote on the reform bill was “something I’ll be happy to campaign on at the appropriate time, and I will fight my heart out to see that these reforms we fought so hard for aren’t taken away.”

Kagen has a reputation for immunity to the desires of his constituents, so it will be easy for any of his opponents to demonstrate just how out of touch he is with many of the people in WI-8. Obviously on health care, but I predict his cap and trade vote will be just as big an issue.

Talk radio

Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

That's David Frum on conservative media's role in the failure to stop the Obama health reform.

It doesn't really matter if you think Frum isn't a real conservative. This is an analysis of media, and a convincing one at that.

It seems many of us tuned in and ripped the knob off, which was great for Rush, but I'm not sure what it did for the rest of us.

The food is terrible, but the portions just got bigger.

One thing that puzzles me about supporters of health care reform is how optimistic they are about the federal government's ability to positively change the health insurance market.

Many of them just spent eight years denouncing the incompetency of the federal government from Guantanamo Bay, to the non-existent WMD's, to the failed response to Katrina. Do these people actually believe that just because the White House changed occupants the effectiveness of federal government interventions will dramatically increase? And our response to an era when the federal government has shown just how poorly it can do when given the chance, is to grant it the biggest expansion of power in fifty years? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

While there certainly are appropriate functions of the federal government, I'm skeptical that managing the ins and outs of the health insurance market is one of them.

More broadly, given the federal government's track record on a whole range of issues, the proposition that we ought to expand its influence is, at best, dubious, and at worst, foolhardy.

Kagen Will Vote Yes on Healthcare

Wis Politics DC Wrap delivers the news:

Ending days of speculation about which way he would vote on the health care reform bill, U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen announced today in a press release that he will support it.

"We are beginning to fix what is broken and improving on what we already have at a price we can all afford to pay," said Kagen, a Democrat from Appleton. "This bill saves lives and jobs by putting patients first, strengthening Medicare and guaranteeing access to affordable care for all of us."

So Kevin called it, wonder if he had Northern Iowa in his bracket.

Green Bay Tea Party Today. Be Sure to Party Smart.

Try 2 Focus has the details on the Tea Party:

Bring your friends, bring your signs, bring your voices to Leicht Park for the 11 am rally that is open to EVERYONE!

Leicht Park is in downtown Green Bay, right along the river, near Titletwon Brewery and the Neville Museum.

A recent tea party crowd in Washington wasn't able to accurately describe the reality of taxation in this country. So when you go, take the facts with you.

According to the Congressional Budget Office:

• In 1970 the federal government collected revenues equal to about 19% of gross domestic product (GDP is all the stuff we do and make)
  
• In 2007 this number had declined to 18.5%, so the federal government collected less of our total output than 1970.

That is only half the story though.

• In 1970 the government spent 19.3% of GDP, leaving us a defict of 0.3%
• In 2007 the government spent 19.6% of GDP, leaving us a deficit of 1.2%
• In 2020 the CBO estimates the deficit will be about 3% of GDP

The estimates for 2020 show that we will spend about three times as much on Social Security than we did in 1970, and about twice as much on interest of the national debt. (That's just the interest!)

If someone figures out how to communicate all of that on an eye-catching sign, please send me a picture.

Successful Blogs Have Links

How to get bin Laden? Trained bears.

Map of bars vs. grocery stores. Guess how Wisconsin fares.

Alex Chilton RIP. An appreciation, sort of.

First steps to destroying the secrecy of the Fed.

Kagen fundraising in MA, again. What is his obsession with the Bay State?

Why not a Secretary of Social Security?

Yglesias highlights a poll describing what people think the federal government spends its money on. Education makes up only about 2% of federal spending, but many people overestimate the amount:

The federal government spends almost none of its budget on education, and the vast majority of Americans massively overestimate the federal commitment. This is why for federal education policy to be effective it needs to use federal funds as leverage to change the ways state and local governments use their money...

I'm not sure I would have correctly identified that federal spending on education was only 2% of the budget. The funny thing is that Yglesias reads this and thinks it means the federal government should use that 2% to induce state and local governments into spending even more, a horrible idea. I read the same figure and ask: Why do we need a cabinet secretary for education if it makes up only 2% of the federal budget?

I mean why not use federal spending as a guide to which agencies get cabinet level representation? If we did, we would appoint a Secretary of Interest on the Debt (8% of federal spending) before we appointed a Secretary of Education. I can't help but wonder if today's schoolchildren wouldn't be better off under such a system.

We would still have a Secretary of Defense, but we would also have a Secretary of Social Security (21%).

Now that Social Security is running a deficit, wouldn't it be nice if we had set aside money from all those years when it took in more money in taxes than it spent in benefits? Instead all we've got is a pile of I.O.U.'s.

Maybe having a Secretary of Social Security wouldn't have made a difference, but on the other hand, I'm not convinced having a Secretary of Education did either.

Kagen loses on Medicare Advantage

It was clear at Kagen's second round of listening sessions last summer that he though protecting Medicare Advantage was important to the people of WI-8. He undertook to convince the crowd that he wast trying to do just that, and it was the Democratic leadership that was trying to end or reduce the program.

Then in a September commentary, Kagen said:

Successful programs like Medicare, Medicare Advantage, the Veterans Health Administration and the life-saving SeniorCare plan work, but can be better.

So how did this particular "successful program" fair under the latest House version of healthcare? Not so well:

Sec. 1102. Medicare Advantage payments. Freezes Medicare Advantage payments in 2011. Beginning in 2012, the provision reduces Medicare Advantage benchmarks relative to current levels. Benchmarks will vary from 95% of Medicare spending in high-cost areas to 115% of Medicare spending in low-cost areas. The changes will be phased-in over 3, 5 or 7 years, depending on the level of payment reductions.

I don't know enough about the Medicare Advantage program to say if this particular provision is a good idea or not, but it was clear to me that Kagen wanted to protect this program. It seems he has failed in this attempt.

I wonder if this will be enough for him to vote NO.

Did you feel that WI? Your meme just shifted.*

Barrett is the underdog, and that's the way we like it.

Can the 'we knew those polls Were Probably Right In the first place' blog posts be far behind?


*A blog post in the style of Illusory Tenant

INSURANCE IS EXPENSIVE! WILL STAY THAT WAY! PANIC!

During this morning's news browsing I saw a headline that read something to the effect of, "Move to private market would be a disaster for the insured." No doubt they are referring to data like this which shows that for the years 2001-2003 family coverage in the individual market cost almost 17% of family income. For lower income groups the percentage was even higher. And with health care costs expected to rise, one can assume that these percentages will go even higher.

Looking at numbers, one might be tempted to agree with our overly dramatic headliner writer, but this would be a mistake.

The primary source of insurance in the country is employer sponsored group insurance, which costs much less than individual coverage. Some of this discrepancy is explained by the favorable tax treatment of employer-provided insurance premiums, but some of it must be due the large market for employer-sponsored group coverage and the competition that takes place in that market.

The doomsday scenario trumpeted in the headline above assumes that as people move from the group to the individual insurance market, the individual market will look just as it does today, when it is a much smaller piece of the overall health insurance market. The idea that the individual insurance market would be unchanged by a dramatic increase in participation is absurd.

Increased competition and choice will drive down the costs of insurance premiums, even in the individual market. Democrats touting the Obama plan are often overheard muttering these words like an incantation over the ridiculously tall stack of dead trees that constitute their proposal, but I remain unconvinced that buried in there is anything that will help to increase either competition or choice.

Think of the history of the market for telephones and phone service:

The 60s saw "alien" equipment slowly being connected to Bell System lines. Phone attachments were on the rise and customer-owned [oh the horror!] telephones were being installed at an alarming rate...alarming to the Bell System. It spawned a whole new industry; the "interconnect industry."

...In 1983 the government--Judge Harold Greene--had successfully torn apart the Bell System....

Was it good for the country, the economy? Well, depends on who you ask. Some argue that splitting the Bell System meant a more rich field for technological advances. However, Bell Labs had hundreds if not thousands of advancements...inventions. As far as the prediction of higher service costs, it seems that has not materialized as we see that long distance offerings are cut-throat and companies are competing on a price-alone basis.[E.A]

But health insurance is not a telephone, it's different you say. I say that for healthy people, you know, the vast majority of us, it isn't, but fine. How about food?

In 1932 food spending took up about 22% of disposable income, in 2008 it was less than 10%. No doubt this was due to the rising incomes and falling prices that come from productivity gains and increases in efficiency, not only of farming, but of transportation and thousands of other industries.

It's this combination of broad-based economic growth and improving efficiency (that is to say, better outcomes per dollar) that is the real prescription for fixing health care.

Sometimes the more things change, the more they actually change. Pretending that they won't may make for attention-grabbing headlines, but it makes for lousy policy.

Rally at Kagen's office tonight

***Update Lakeshore Laments covers the turnout, apparently it was bigger than the recent event in Appleton in support of the bill.***

The Fox Valley Initiative has issued a call to action in advance of this week's health care vote in the House.

“Vote No or You Will Go!” That is the message that needs to be carried to Congressman Kagen’s office in Green Bay this Wednesday evening at 6pm. Pelosi and Hoyer are working the Democrat caucus, arm twisting and deal making for the final votes needed to pass this 2700+ page health care reform bill that will fundamentally change our health care system....

Please turn out this Wednesday evening at 6pm at Congressman Kagen’s office in Green Bay, 700 E. Walnut Street. Bring signs, friends and family. This will be a peaceful protest.

Here's a link to the FVI site which includes a map.

The Problem with the Republican Party

Paul Ryan has been getting a lot of press lately and has become something of a national spokesman for the Republican Party. When I read this criticism of Ryan, it neatly encapsulated just what is wrong with the GOP as a whole in my mind:

The Wisconsin congressman’s latest proposals may seem like austerity measures, but let’s be honest: they’re austerity measures proposed for a Democratic government. With a Republican in the White House, would you want to wager on Ryan humming the same tune?

That's Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative Magazine. In the course of three paragraphs pointing out the faults of a critique from the Left, McCarthy savages the GOP:

We have the GOP to thank, after all, for wage and price controls under Nixon; the Americans With Disabilities Act under Bush I; and two wars, No Child Left Behind, the prescription-drug benefit for Medicare, and the bank bailouts under Bush II. Yet all the propagandists insist this is the anti-government party.

Think you're a small-government type? Go read the whole thing.

Pelosi Insists on Identical Bills.................

.............five years too early.

No Runny Eggs has the details from 2005:

• Public Citizen filed suit in an attempt to annul the law (ultimately unsuccessful), saying that it violated the requirement that identitcal version of a bill be passed by both Houses of Congress before it becomes law.
• Joining Public Citizen with amicus briefs – Nancy Pelosi, Louise Slaughter and Henry Waxman.

I tried hard to be a good partisan and really gloat over this, but the unprincipled opportunists, serial philanderers, and government-spending addicts that make up so much of the other team make it very hard.

New Ad Targets Kagen

From the Wis Politics DC Wrap:

Steve Kagen is one of seven House Dems targeted by a new Citizens United TV ad that says they're making tough times worse.

The spot notes the federal debt, out-of-control spending, and the highest unemployment in 27 years before saying Kagen and Nancy Pelosi want to spend $1 trillion on a health care system we can't afford rather than creating needed jobs.

"Tell him to fix the economy, not destroy our health care system," the narrator says. "Vote no on Obamacare, yes on jobs."

Got Rent? Raw milk and rent-seeking

Wisconsin resident Sean Scallon at the @TAC blog covers last week's hearing in Eau Claire concerning the sale of raw milk. In the strange bedfellows joined in support of raw milk, Scallon sees a possible manifestation of the "freedom movement" and makes a good point about a split among libertarians, which seems to follow the coastal vs. national interior fault lines that run through so much of our culture.

But it was this item that really stood out for me:

And yet who stands in opposition? Government bureaucrats and the big farmer, big agribusiness dominated Farm Bureau. One wishes to regulate behavior and the other wishes to regulate out of existence a product that may cut in on their business. A state ag department that doesn’t have enough inspectors to monitor large farm operations and the manure finds it does have personnel to go after the little guy and his tank of raw milk on his small farm. [EA]

When business seeks to increase or protect profits through political influence rather than innovation in the marketplace we have rent-seeking. This behavior is absolutely corrosive to a free-market system. It hurts producers by keeping them out or running them out of business. It hurts consumers through fewer choices, less competition, and higher prices.

Any government regulation should be scrutinized in an attempt to determine if it serves some compelling public interest, and not simply the interest of well-connected, and funded, private firms.

This time will be different: Education Edition

The Obama administration is prepared to turn its attention to education this week. Unfortunately for the nation's students, its approach is anything but innovative. Instead, it perpetuates the system of federal intervention in local schools, and the proposed changes appear to primarily affect the carrots and sticks used.

This was also the approach of George W. Bush. If the results of that effort were less than satisfactory, why should anyone believe this new proposal will be more successful? Apparently because Arne Duncan says so, at least according to the New York Times report:

The No Child law, passed in 2001 by bipartisan majorities, focused the nation’s attention on closing achievement gaps between minorities and whites, but it included many provisions that created what Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Friday called “perverse incentives.”

In an effort to meet the law’s requirements for passing grades, many states began dumbing down standards, and teachers began focusing on test preparation rather than on engaging class work.

“We’ve got to get accountability right this time,” Mr. Duncan told reporters Friday.

I agree that getting accountability right is important to improving education. I'm skeptical that revising the way the federal education bureaucracy distributes tax dollars to school districts is the way to do it.

Learning from Lehman

Even if there are never any criminal prosecutions or civil awards related the collapse of Lehman Brothers, one thing is clear from the recently released bankruptcy court examiner's report.

From Enron to Lehman, corporate financial reporting, accounting, and auditing has suffered what can only be called a lost decade in which the industry learned nothing from its own mistakes.

Real Time Economics is featuring excerpts of the report:

"Colorable claims exist that Ernst & Young did not meet professional standards, both in investigating Lee's allegations and in connection with its audit and review of Lehman's financial statements."

--From the report, executive summary, page 21

"[W]e are also dealing with a whistleblower letter, that is on its face pretty ugly and will take us a significant amount of time to get through. I am confident from what I have seen it shouldn't result in any significant issues around financial reporting, but again there is a lot of work to do yet. This combined with some very difficult accounting issues around off balance sheet items is adding stress to everyone." (From a June 8, 2008, email from William Schlich, a former lead partner on Ernst & Young's Lehman team)

--From the report: Volume 3, page 961

Successful Blogs Have Links

The breast is best...........not used as a weapon.

Is America chopping down its family trees?

Secret menus ("Poutine - This is a Canadian favorite that includes French fries, fried cheese curds, and gravy layered together") via Kottke.

Olympic construction unearths Viking mass grave from the dark ages.

Deficit-neutrality in the health care bill, not all it's cracked up to be.

Ron Paul on the War in Afghanistan

Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich recently sponsored a resolution in the House of Representatives to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan. While the resolution did not pass, Republican Ron Paul of Texas gave a spirited defense of the resolution.

During his speech, Paul noted that, "if people were concerned about the disastrous effect of debt on this country we would change our foreign policy and we would be safer for it." He went on to denounce the Afghan war in even stronger terms, calling it immoral and unconstitutional, but this question of spending on defense is one that Republicans must eventually confront if they are serious about tackling the nation's fiscal problems.

The overwhelming Republican opposition to the resolution is certainly evidence that we haven't yet reached that point.

Kagen Plays Hamlet

No, he's not really a prince, but Congressman Kagen does represent Denmark, WI, among other places. Like that famously indecisive character, Kagen seems to have everyone guessing as to how he is going to vote on health care.

In recent comments to a reporter, Kagen said he has argued that the current bill should be cut up into smaller pieces, and indicated that he doesn't trust the Senate.

I'm inclined to chalk the statement up to just another in Kagen's recent bouts of near-incoherence, but others argue this statement portends something larger.

Kevin at Lakeshore Laments says that, "When it's time for the vote, Kagen will be a solid "Yes."

National liberal blog FireDogLake is not so sure:

Having dealt with Steve Kagen in the past, I think there are as many outs in his statement as there were back in November. I’m not putting him in the count yet.

Folkbum is confused and angry:

WTF? Seriously? What is this about? His platform in 2006 was not "small bites," and it was a sight more progressive than the current versions of the reform package.

I honestly have no idea what Kagen will do. I have an incredibly hard time believing that a NO vote at this point would move undecided voters in WI-8 his direction, but that could just be my own narrow viewpoint.

One thing in Folkbum's post caught my eye:

Pretty much last on my list of possible Wisconsin defectors was Dr. Steve Kagen. Why? When the man courted my endorsement in 2006, he sat across a Starbucks table from me and asserted, flatly, that comprehensive health care reform was his top priority. It was his signature campaign issue. And he was an easy yes vote in the House last year.

Is that what it takes to get elected in WI-8, the endorsement of a Milwaukee blogger? Come to think of it, I can't name a single pro-Kagen blog here in N.E.W., but maybe my browser just doesn't get out enough.

If there are any pro-Kagen blogs, please make yourselves known. I'd be happy to add you to the blogroll. I'm all about equal time, I just hope Kagen's is up.

Healthcare Process Outline

Despite all the coverage, there still seems to be a lot of confusion about where the current reform stands, process-wise. Here is a drastically simplified outline that I have been keeping in my head. I thought I should write it down and that maybe someone else could benefit from it.

• Both the House and the Senate have passed health care bills. They are different.
• Before a bill can become law, the House and Senate have to pass the same bill and the President has to sign it.
• The election of Scott Brown in MA meant that there was no way for the Senate to pass the House version of the bill, or even a modified Senate version that the House could agree to.
• This means the action is now in the House.
• All that would have to happen for the health reform to become law is for the House to pass the Senate version and the President sign it. That's it. Health care reform would be law.
• The problem is that it will be very difficult for Nancy Pelosi to get enough Democratic votes to pass the Senate version of health reform. (She likely won't get any Republican votes)
• You'll notice up to this point, there has been no mention of Reconciliation, the hot topic of late. That's because technically the Democrats don't need to use the reconciliation process to pass health care, they just need the House to pass the Senate bill.
• Democrats do, however, most likely need reconciliation in order to entice enough Democrats to vote for the Senate bill.
• The Democrats enticed by reconciliation fall into three main groups:

1. Those that want to protect labor unions from the Cadillac tax in the Senate bill
2. Those that want to insure that no federal money pays for abortions (lead by Stupak of MI)
3. Those that want to focus on cost control (these are the Blue-dog Democrats)

• The idea is to offer some changes to the Senate bill to appeal to these three groups. The changes would have to be passed in a separate bill after they pass the original Senate bill.
• It is this separate bill that could be considered under the reconciliation procedure in the Senate.
• Reconciliation is reserved for items that affect the budget, so it is not entirely clear that the abortion provision are eligible for consideration under reconciliation.
• Reconciliation is not subject to the Senate's filibuster rules, so a bill can pass with only 51 votes, so that is why this is being considered.

I wrote that fast, so you'll have to forgive me if I forgot anything. It's clear that the action is now in the House. At this point, it is not clear whether anything will pass or not. I would be highly skeptical of anyone that tells you either outcome is certain.

Quick Healthcare Round-up

There are so many moving parts to the healthcare debate right now, it would be tough to capture them all, so here are some quick thoughts.

On Monday the President told an audience in Pennsylvania that, " [t]he price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families, businesses and our government," so the Democrat plan is to subject an additional 30 million people to these punishing costs. How exactly will that improve the situation?

My concern is that the current proposal does nothing more than further entrench the current employer-provided first-dollar coverage system that we have in place now. I thought the status quo was unsustainable.

But wait, you say. The standard GOP criticism is that the health care proposal is a government takeover. How can it entrench the current system and be a take over at the same time? For an answer, please see this provocatively titled blog post at Open Congress: With a Few Tweaks, the Senate Bill Could Allow Single-Payer State Plans

We keep hearing that 16% of GDP is healthcare, but much of the focus seems to be on health insurance premiums. What portion of that 16% do insurance premiums make up? I can't believe that is where the real opportunity for cost reduction is.

Focusing on insurance premiums seems a little like deciding our transportation policy would be that every American should have a car, then trying to achieve this goal by controlling the price of gas.

The buzzword of coverage has been endgame. I propose we devise and endgame for endgame.

Transit Meeting in De Pere Tonight

From the Oshkosh Northwestern:

“Transportation Choices for the Fox Valley and Green Bay Area” will be the topic of a panel discussion in De Pere on Tuesday, March 9, 5:45-7:45 pm. The meeting will be held at the De Pere Kress Family Branch library, 333 N. Broadway [that's on the East side] and is open to anyone interested in transportation issues....

The meeting is sponsored by a coalition of individuals and organizations that want to increase mobility and transportation access in their communities, including the Sierra Club; the League of Women Voters of Winnebago County and Greater Green Bay, NEW North Sustainability Committee, Sustainable Green Bay, and ECOS Fox Valley.For more information contact Brad Sauer, Green Bay Transit Alliance, 920-544-7453, brad.sauer@savegreenbaymetro.com

Transit issues will become an even bigger part of the political landscape of NE Wisconsin as population growth results in reductions in federal and state funding.

This week also sees the consideration of transportation legislation before committee in Madison. The Fox Valley Initiative has issued a call to action over concerns that Regional Transit Authorities (RTA's) are given power, but lack the necessary accountability:

The current solution in Madison is to allow for the creation of a Regional Transit Authority, an unelected board that would have the power to condemn property and to enact up to a half percent sales tax. Once the RTA is enacted, the voters opportunities to hold this body accountable disappear. Now, there is some good in Assembly Bill 734 as it states that individual municipalities would have to adopt a resolution in support of joining the RTA which would then have to be ratified through a referendum of the voters. However, that just doesn’t go far enough. Any body politic that has the power of taxing authority must be directly accountable to the voters.

RTA's have been front and center in De Pere before. There was a time when concerns over transportation resulted in the threat of a large employer leaving the area, though the threat seemed to evaporate as soon as it was made.

Outrage over reconciliation truly bipartisan

Blogger Matthew Yglesias highlights a New York Times chart that details the history of the reconciliation process and, according to him, makes it, "clear that pretty much everything Republican Senators have said on the subject is a lie."

I wonder if he bothered to read the background information on the right hand side of the chart.

The chart indicates that when reconciliation was used for the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, "Democrats claimed that it was a brutal, blunt and excessive use of presidential power."

Again according to the chart, with the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (aka the first Bush tax cut), "Democrats were furious at the use of reconciliation to increase deficits sharply through tax cuts."

Sound familiar?

So, far from proving that Republican Senators are lying, it sounds like this chart proves that politician's notions about reconciliation are flexible. When politicians are able to pass a measure the support through reconciliation, it is nothing more than a tool of responsible governance. When the opposition passes a measure through reconciliation it is a dangerous power grab.

CBO Analysis of President's Budget

The Congressional Budget Office has issued a preliminary analysis of the President's budget. Here are some highlights from the CBO Director's blog:

Measured relative to the size of the economy, the deficit under the President’s proposals would fall to about 4 percent of GDP by 2014 but would rise steadily thereafter. Compared with CBO’s baseline projections, deficits under the proposals would be about 2 percentage points of GDP higher in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, 1.3 percentage points greater in 2013, and above baseline levels by growing amounts thereafter. By 2020, the deficit would reach 5.6 percent of GDP, compared with 3.0 percent under CBO’s baseline projections....

Revenues under the President’s proposals would be $1.4 trillion (or 4 percent) below CBO’s baseline projections from 2011 to 2020, largely because of the President’s proposals to index the parameters of the AMT for inflation starting at their 2009 levels and to extend many of the tax reductions enacted in 2001 (EGTRRA) and 2003 (JGTRRA)...

...Excluding funding for war-related activities and the Pell Grant program (which the President proposes to convert to a mandatory program), discretionary outlays over the 2011-2020 period would be $0.5 trillion (or 4 percent) greater than the amounts projected in CBO’s baseline.

Whether you generally support the President or not, I encourage you to go read the whole post. It's not that long and you will be better informed for having done so.

Successful Blogs Have Links

Email and the danger of 'Reply All'.

Feingold on the 2nd Amendment.

A series of unfortunate charts on the economy. (H/T Mrs. RWC)

Buying Detroit one inch at a time.

When the "world fell in on" Harry S. Truman.

Cause, what the world needs now
Is another folk singer
Like I need a hole in my head.

Paul Ryan Correct on Budget Gimmick Claim

From OMB Director Peter Orszag's blog:

...the President has put forward a health plan that would reduce deficits by roughly $100 billion over the next ten years and by roughly $1 trillion in the decade after that.

Recently, a lot of attention has been paid to a claim that this deficit reduction is achieved only through a business-as-usual Washington budget gimmick: paying for just a few years of costs with many more years of savings.

Paul Ryan isn't the only one making this claim I am sure, but he certainly is one of the most prominent. Especially since he made this claim during the televised health care summit last week.

Ryan's criticism was specifically that the healthcare plan was crafted so that cost savings started right away, but costs didn't start occurring until 2014. Government programs are often looked at in a ten year window, so in this window you have 10 years of savings and only 6 years of costs, which make the program seem less expensive.

Mr. Orszag acknowledges that this is a gimmick that is often used in Washington, and then tries to persuade us that this is not what the current administration is doing. Unfortunately, his argument mainly consists of repeating "this is not a gimmick" over and over again within the span of a few short paragraphs.

Of course we don't have to simply take Paul Ryan's word that a gimmick is, in fact, what is going on here.

Liberal blogger Ezra Klein, known for in-depth analyses of politics and policy, published a long blog post discussing Ryan's criticisms. Ryan supporters may not agree with Klein's conclusion, but there can be no doubt that Klein is offering a serious consideration of Ryan's equally serious proposal.

With regard to the budget tactic that Mr. Orszag insists is not a gimmick, Klein is unequivocal:

Ryan says that "the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years" is $2.3 trillion. On this, Ryan is right, but misleading. In Ryan's favor, Democrats have artificially lowered the cost of the bill by pushing its start date back to 2014, even as its 10-year budget window begins in 2010. The 10-year cost of the bill is really only counting six years of operation. This was a deceptive effort to keep the bill's price tag under $1 trillion, even as the bill's price tag was really quite a bit more. Point for Ryan.

So contra Orszag, the Democrats are using the same old budget gimmick to sell their healthcare plan. Klein then argues Ryan is misleading because in the second decade savings accrue even faster than costs, so in essence it's a gimmick with an expiration date!

Oh. Well why didn't Mr. Orszag just say so?

How insurance works

Insurers receive premiums upfront and pay claims later. In extreme cases, such as those arising from certain workers’ compensation accidents, payments can stretch over decades. This collect-now, pay-later model leaves us holding large sums – money we call “float” – that will eventually go to others. Meanwhile, we get to invest this float for Berkshire’s benefit. Though individual policies and claims come and go, the amount of float we hold remains remarkably stable in relation to premium volume. Consequently, as our business grows, so does our float.

If premiums exceed the total of expenses and eventual losses, we register an underwriting profit that adds to the investment income produced from the float. This combination allows us to enjoy the use of free money – and, better yet, get paid for holding it. Alas, the hope of this happy result attracts intense competition, so vigorous in most years as to cause the P/C industry as a whole to operate at a significant underwriting loss. This loss, in effect, is what the industry pays to hold its float. Usually this cost is fairly low, but in some catastrophe-ridden years the cost from underwriting losses more than eats up the income derived from use of float.

That's from Warren Buffet's letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders for 2009.

There seem to be two reasonable conclusions to this fact of reality, but I don't have any data so I reserve the right to amend these. The first is that investment income helps to keep premiums lower than they would be without it. Second, if that is in fact the case, then when investment income suffers, premiums will have to increase faster than they do under periods of normal, or above normal investment income.

I think the current debate would be helped if this aspect of how the insurance industry works was more widely understood.

WI-8 Candidates in Green Bay, DePere

Thursday March 4th, two of the Republican candidates for the 8th congressional district will be in the area.

Marc Savard will be at Legends in Green Bay (2840 Shawano Ave.) from 6-9 PM. I've heard good things about the ribs at Legends.

Marc Trager will be in DePere at The Vault from 6-8 PM. The Vault is the former Ivan's, and is located on Broadway in East DePere. I haven't been to The Vault, but just earlier this week I was talking to someone who recently had a great burger there.

Dept. of Unintended Consequences ARRA Edition

Via Senatus:

A group of “Democratic senators is urging the Obama administration to suspend an economic stimulus program aimed at financing renewable energy, complaining that money is going to projects that are creating jobs in foreign countries,” the AP reports.

The four senators, led by Chuck Schumer of New York, wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday to request a moratorium on the Recovery Act program. They asked that the moratorium remain in place until they can pass legislation mandating stimulus aid flow only to projects which preserve and create U.S. jobs.

"A critical Recovery Act priority is investment in the domestic renewable and clean energy industry, not investment in foreign manufacturers," the senators wrote in the letter...

Please keep this episode in mind over the next few weeks. As the healthcare debate draws to a conclusion, the claim that "if you like your current healthcare, you will get to keep it," is likely to be quite loud.

The fact of the matter is that it is really hard to predict the outcome of having 500 people get together and make changes to something as big and diverse as the U.S. healthcare system.

You don't have to believe that the President, or anyone else, is lying when they tell you this reform won't change your current healthcare. Humankind has an almost limitless capacity for self-delusion. This capacity is particularly pronounced in those that choose to ignore how fundamentally flawed we, and they, all are.

Kagen requests ad be pulled

UPDATED - see below

The new ad targeting Steve Kagen and his vote on health care has elicited this response from the Kagen camp:

A campaign lawyer for Rep. Steve Kagen asked four Green Bay-area television stations Tuesday to stop airing what he called false advertisement aimed at his client.

The ad by the conservative League of American Voters states that Kagen “voted for Obama and Pelosi’s health care takeover” that imposes “big taxes on good insurance plans.” [E.A]

This is from the JS Online All Politics Blog, which is quick to remind us that the plan Kagen voted for was the House healthcare plan, which did not have the tax on high-cost 'cadillac' health plans. This tax was in the Senate version of health care.

It's possible Kagen is simply responding to what he sees as an inaccurate representation of his voting record, but it is also possible that the cadillac tax is an especially sensitive issue for him.

The main opposition to the tax on cadillac plans comes from organized labor and Kagen is a major recipient of campaign cash from organized labor.

According to Open Secrets, here are some highlights of the fundrasing by the Kagen Campaign Committee in 2009-2010:

• Three of the top five industries in terms of total dollar contributions were labor groups
• PAC's from these three groups (Building Trade Unions, Transportation Unions, and Public Sector Unions) have contributed $123,250
• Total contributions from the labor sector were $156,000, all from PAC's, the health sector was second at $132,000

If you go to the comments of this post, there is a link to the ad in question provided by Jo Egelhoff of Fox Politics.

3/3 - Update from WisPolitics:

LAV executive director Bob Adams acknowledged that Maistelman was correct, saying the House plan included an income tax surcharge rather than a tax on so-called Cadillac health plans. He said all four stations have been sent a new version of the ad.

Why We Homeschool

This post was written by Mrs. RWC proving once again that I am only the second smartest blogger in my household.


Most of our friends and family know we homeschool, but while on our recent vacation we got asked several times... why? Truthfully, my answer depends on who asks. Sometimes a stranger asks (usually if we happen to be out during school hours). My answer to a complete stranger when we have approximately 15 seconds, while standing in the checkout line, is different than the answer I give a friend or family member who seems genuinely interested. Sometimes people ask only to argue and defend their choice to send their kids to school. I try to avoid these conversations because no amount of polite discussion is going to change minds on either side.

No matter who asks, though, it is always hard to answer. It is similar to the working mom/stay-at-home mom debate. There are emotions tied up in the discussion. I know what is right for my family and hope others are doing what is right for their family. Just because we homeschool doesn't mean we think you should. It isn't right for every family and that's okay. Now, do I think more families could do it and do it successfully? Absolutely.

I found this article awhile ago that listed ten good reasons to homeschool. As I read, I nodded in agreement the whole time. First, the author has different answers to "why" depending on who asks, just like I do. He also tries to avoid discussing it with some people:

I have found that it is often necessary to change the subject quickly, otherwise I’m stuck listening to total strangers defend their decision to place their kids in school, defend their need for two incomes, and then ask me if I’m worried about issues associated with my own children’s socialization experiences. It still amazes me that people I barely know will readily draw me into such intimate and personal discussions. And worse yet, the defensive nature of the conversation inevitably yields to the expression of guilt on behalf of the person who has children in school. Guilt, defense, and the probability that I’m messing up my children – all from somebody I may have just met.

So why do we homeschool? Our favorite short answer is that we don't want peers to be the biggest influence in our children's lives, but our long answer is much more than that. The author (from the above article) summed it all up much better than I ever could. You should really go read the whole article, but just in case you don't, here are a few highlights that hit the nail on the head.

Reason #3: Time. If I had to pick one phrase that summarily communicates why we homeschool, it would simply be "school is a waste of time." This isn’t to say that people don’t learn important things in school, or that school is a total and complete waste of time...

I would rephrase that to: a lot of time is wasted at school. Even parents who send their kids to school admit this. In school, classmates move as one through each grade. Are each of those children really at the exact same level? Are some kids being pushed along? Are some being held back? How much of each day is "busy work" only to have homework with the parents later anyway?

Reasons #4 & #5: Identity and Control... we want our children to develop clear pictures of their own individual intellectual identities, and we want them to know how to take full advantage of the fact that they are always in control of their own learning.

Somewhere along the line, I learned how to learn. More than anything I want that for my children. You might not know everything, but you know a way to find out. My most successful, and most enjoyable, educational experiences have been the times I taught myself something.

The worst form of inequality
is to try to make unequal things equal.
-Aristotle

Everyone is different. That is a good thing. Different children have different abilities. All students are NOT equal. One of our teacher friends mentioned recently how sad it was that students don't have a sense of "rivalry" (especially between school sports teams) anymore. I can think of several reasons things have shifted in this area, one is partly due to the fact that students are told everyone is the same. You can't say you're better than someone else, even if it's true. People are different though, that is just a fact. Some people are not as bright as others. Some will be sanitation workers while others will be doctors. And you know what? That's okay! We need both!

I often think about people's God-given, innate talents. How many people missed their calling because they had to toe the "school" line and never had the chance to branch out and find their own path. Being taught to be the "same" as everyone else is not what I want for my children. If you're hoping for a classless society where all members are perfectly equal then you're hoping for communism.

Reason #6: Socialization... But it may surprise most people to learn that concerns about socialization are one of the most important reasons why we choose to homeschool.

I don't want my children to be "socialized" in the way most people mean when they ask about this. Dictionary.com says this about socialization: " a continuing process whereby an individual acquires a personal identity and learns the norms, values, behavior, and social skills...". Socialization is a process that starts at birth and never ends. That process doesn't magically start when a child enters school and it definitely doesn't stop if they stay home!

Reason #7: Shelter. One of the criticisms I get occasionally during discussions about homeschooling is whether or not I’m concerned about the fact that our children are sheltered too much from reality...

Our kids are "sheltered", but isn't that what parents are for? All parents "shelter" their children in some ways whether they go to school or not. Our kids don't see some of the differences that kids in school might see. They don't think that hanging out with your baby brother is lame. They played with a neighbor kid for months before it dawned on them that her skin was a different color. They don't care one bit about what clothes they wear and they don't ever ask for something "because all the kids have one".

Shelter synonyms:
Protect. Defend. Guard. Preserve.
Watch over. Shield. Safeguard.
Shelter antonyms:
Expose. Endanger.

Reason #9: Family. Perhaps the most profound reason why we homeschool is our desire to truly appreciate the daily sanctity of family. Time is a precious commodity, and it is much more worthy of family than many of the non-family experiences...

I think it's unfortunate that the mandatory age for schooling just keeps getting younger and pulls kids away from their families earlier. I'm only half kidding when I say that before too long we'll just discharge them from the birthing suite to a learning institution of some sort.

I have absolute confidence that we can properly educate our children within the walls of our own home. Why? Because one on one "tutoring" works. Because we know our children, their strengths and weaknesses, and we love them more than any teacher ever could! No one cares more than we do about whether or not they are successful.

Not being known doesn't stop
the truth from being true.
-Richard Bach

Reason #10: Religion...We homeschool because it is part and parcel of our faith experience. Serving others, praying together, and living lives that are not defined exclusively by the values of our society...

We are not religious nuts. In fact, we aren't part of any "religion". We do, however, have a relationship with Jesus Christ and what we believe, as Christians, has become taboo in the public school system while other religions and lifestyles are freely discussed as part of a "global worldview".

Bonus Reason #11: It's Not All About Fun
My last point wasn't mentioned in the above article but I thought I'd mention it here anyway. I have to chuckle when people say my kids are missing out on all the "fun". Well, since we are talking about school here, I thought the goal was an education!

But don't worry, homeschoolers have plenty of fun. We just took a two week vacation in the middle of the school year! We go on field trips, play sports, and hang out with friends just the same as schooled children. Our homeschool group even has their own prom.

Homeschoolers, who feel so led, can do everything their school-attending counterparts do. We definitely aren't missing any fun! We're just having fun (and learning) together as a family. And when it comes down to it... I can't think of anything more important than that. I might regret a lot of things later in my life, but I don't think spending time investing in my children will be one of them.

New ad urges Kagen to vote no on healthcare

Kevin mentioned this the other day, and news of it showed up on my google alert this morning. The League of American Voters has a new ad that will run in Green Bay urging Kagen to vote no on the healthcare reform legislation and urging voters in the area to call Kagen's office.

I couldn't find a copy of the actual ad on line, but a statement about the ad along with the script can be found here. This is from the statement:

"Congressman Kagen, if you think you've got trouble now back home in your district, cast the deciding vote for Obamacare," said Bob Adams, executive director for the League of American Voters. "If you want to protect seniors from $500 billion in Medicare cuts, vote 'No'. If you want to stop job-killing tax increases on working families in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression, vote 'No'."

This is a portion of the script of the ad:

Announcer: America said "slow down"

Graphic: "58% Oppose the Obama Plan." – Rasmussen Report, 1/22/10

Announcer: But now Pelosi and Obama are at it again, and they want Kagen as the deciding vote, in a last minute deal to takeover your healthcare.

Graphic: Call Steve Kagen at (920) 437-1954

Announcer: Call Steve Kagen and tell him to vote "No" on the Obama-Pelosi Plan.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if the LAV asked me I would tell them they are probably wasting their money. It's hard to tell how widespread it is, but there is definitely a sense that Kagen is completely immune to the wishes of many of his constituents.

The usefulness of Glenn Beck

David Frum, the very thoughtful, centrist-leaning conservative thinker, had a bit of a happy hour after CPAC, and he said to me: The thing I respect about Glenn Beck is that he managed to take hard-money crankery away from anti-Semitism.

That's from Dave Weigel of the Washington Independent on a recent episode of the NPR program Fresh Air.

If Frum is correct in his analysis of Beck, I think it's hard to overestimate the value of such a contribution.

Separating a healthy skepticism about the limits and proper role of government from anti-Semitic or racist notions that people of good will rightly find distasteful, is an important function. A function critical to the revitalization of the Republican party and the nation as a whole.

Even Sarah Palin is getting in on this act. In this National Journal article, the author is equating Palin's anti-intellectualism with that of George Wallace, but takes great pains to point out that she in no way shares the racism that figured so prominently in Wallace's life. Beyond pains really. If nothing else, we know by the end of the article that Sarah Palin is no racist.

While I personally would prefer that the current conservative movement was characterized more by Russel Kirk book clubs than Glenn Beck's chalk board, I'll take what I can get. It is important that suburban Minneapolis soccer-moms realize that skepticism about the federal government's ability to remake healthcare in this nation does not make you some sort of raving tinfoil hat wearing anti-Semite.

If Beck and Palin really can separate these two competing strands of thought, then perhaps all the Levi Johnston drama, crying, and misspelling will have been worth it.

What we think we know

On financial literarcy: “Levels of financial knowledge are strikingly low and, moreover, there is a sharp disconnect between how much people think they know and what they actually know. “ Read full remarks.

That's Annamaria Lusardi of Dartmouth College from prepared testimony for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

H/T Real Time Economics