Explaining Walker's K-12 Cuts to the Kids

Just as the fight over Governor Scott Walkers budget repair bill centered on changes to collective bargaining for public employees, much of the attention given to his budget focuses on his cuts to school district aid for K-12 funding.  The sound bites from the budget hearings have included a few supportive ones, but the majority of comments about a reduction in aid for K-12 have been quite negative, and at times bordered on hysterical.

If I recall correctly, the West Allis hearing featured a woman speaker who challenged supporters of the Governor's budget to look in her daughter's eyes and explain to her what was happening, or something to that effect.  OK, here goes.

In Wisconsin we spent about $10 billion dollars on education in 2007-2008 according to the US Department of Education.  That works out to be around $10,500 for every student in the state.  There are almost 900,000 students total.

Some of the money to run the schools in Wisconsin comes from the state government.  The other way that schools raise money is through local property taxes.  The Governor is opposed to tax increases, generally speaking, so he is also proposing to limit the amount that school districts can increase taxes to offset his aid cuts. 

Tony Evers is the director of schools in Wisconsin.  He says the Governor's proposal will reduce total school spending by a little less than $1 billion dollars per year between the aid cut and the tax limit. This is about 10%.  To put it another way, the spending per student could go down from around $10,500 to $9,500. 

The Governor has also proposed to increase the amount that teachers pay toward their pension and health insurance to help offset some of the reduced aid from the state.  The Governor likes to highlight this aspect of his plan, but it most likely won't offset the entire amount of the cuts.  I believe I heard Mr. Evers on Wisconsin public radio today saying this change could offset as much as 40-60% of the cuts.  If so, we would be back to only a 5% reduction in education spending, rather than 10%.

Whether it's 5% or 10% in the end, if you listen to some of the Governor's critics this relatively small cut in spending spells the end of education in Wisconsin and we might as well just all give up.  As for me, I'm skeptical cuts of this size could really change public schools that much.  Even if per student spending went all the way down to $9,500, this is still much more than it was in the late 1990's.  It's probably more than was spent per student when your mom and dad went to school here in Wisconsin.

The student/teacher ratio here in Wisconsin is about 15 students for every teacher.  I suspect your class may have more than 15 students because this ratio probably includes teachers who specialize in small groups of students that need extra help.  Regardless, a ratio of 15 is right at the national average.  A political ad that is running on TV here in Green Bay alleges that the Governor's cuts to education could increase class size to "35 to 40 kids in a class."  Again, this sound like it is intended to scare people into opposing the governor.  It's too bad that so many people will be convinced by an accusation that is almost certainly untrue.

What about his increased in spending on roads you say?  I know, you can't drive so this doesn't affect you.  I agree that the Governor should concentrate his efforts on reducing spending wherever possible, so maybe this is something that should be looked at very carefully by voters and the legislature.

When you step back and take a look at the big picture, you will see a Governor that has proposed the first budget in a long time that addresses the gap between spending and revenues in this state.  That goes for governor's of both parties.  Yes it is true that education funding will be reduced by the Governor's proposal, but this does not automatically mean that the quality of the education you receive will go down dollar for dollar.  Ultimately, the quality of the education you receive will likely be tied to where you live.  That is the case throughout the United States and is not likely going to change as a result of a single state budget.

So in the end we may spend a few less dollars on your education now, but we will still spend quite a lot, and the education you receive will be quite good.  In exchange you will get a state budget that starts to put Wisconsin on sounder financial footing.  That may seem unimportant now, but it may make the difference between a prosperous state and a bankrupt one by the time you are older and are starting to pay taxes.  Doing this now is important to Wisconsin's future, which, after all, is your future too.

Everything wrong with government and education in one paragraph

Gay History In Textbooks: California Debates Adding New Curriculum

California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics

Not from the Onion.

My only question is what were they actually teaching in history class prior to the legislative mandate.

You can call Governor Walker anything except unserious

Tax bills for average homes to rise less than 1% under Walker's budget - JSOnline

The Legislative Fiscal Bureau also said Walker's plan would put the state's finances in the best shape they've been in for more than 15 years.

It found the so-called structural deficit - the imbalance between spending and tax revenue as laid out in state law - for the 2013-'15 budget would be $31 million. That assumes Walker's budget passes the Legislature without new spending increases or tax cuts that would add to the deficit.

Under its existing form, Walker's budget leaves the state with a fraction of the structural deficits seen in the past eight budget cycles. The next lowest structural deficit in recent years was $1.5 billion, or 48 times as much as what Walker's proposing.

You may or may not agree with every step the Governor took to propose a budget that accomplishes this kind of deficit reduction, but this is clearly a serious attempt at bridging the fiscal gap in this state.  The Governor has decided to break with the approach to budgeting that was dominant in Wisconsin in recent history. This generally included one time fixes and stalling techniques which allowed politicians to avoid making the really tough decisions.

If the Democrats in this state have an alternative plan they prefer I would love to see it.  Voters could then compare the two plans side by side and the real debate about the future of this state could take place.  As the minority party though, there is little to be gained politically from setting forth their own ideas, so it is unlikely to happen.

As the budget debate unfolds, be sure to keep in mind that the Governor's plan may not be perfect, but it is paid for.  Every time someone denounces a spending cut as "draconian" be sure to ask them which taxes they would raise in order to protect their preferred spending.

If Kucinich cares about politicians accurately describing their policy initiatives, he should start with healthcare reform

Sorry for the Althouse-esque rambling title, but I don't know what else to call it.

Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich questioning Governor Scott Walker on the repeal of collective bargaining rights for public sector workers has been shared far and wide by the Governor's opponents.  They have delighted in Kucinich's attempts to get the Governor to admit the repeal of collective bargaining rights was not really a fiscal matter. This is potentially politically damaging for the Governor since he stated repeatedly that an end to these rights was necessary to address the state's budget issues.

I'm all for holding politicians accountable for the statements they make, but the whole time I watched the video, I couldn't help but think of the Obama healthcare reform.  A plan that was presented to the American people over and over again as addressing healthcare costs (remember "bending the curve"?). This was even better than it sounds since healthcare costs were also driving our long term deficit.  Well, even though we now have the ACA, we still have a huge long term deficit problem.

We may have fewer people without health insurance in the future as a result of the ACA, which is a laudable goal, it's just not the goal that the President claimed to be trying to achieve when he touted his health reform proposal.  In the health reform, a bill that really addressed coverage was sold as one addressing costs.

The important question on the Paul Ryan plan

Most of the attention surrounding Paul Ryan's budget plan has centered on the change of Medicare to a voucher.  Basically, a cash payment that can be used to purchase health insurance.

Critics argue that the value of the vouchers will not be enough to pay for the level of medical services that current beneficiaries enjoy and that this is shifting the risk of escalating costs away from the government and on to seniors.  I think it is hard to argue with that description, so the question is:

Do you think senior citizens should be shielded from 100% of the risk of high health care inflation?

I don't know the history of Medicare well enough to say for sure, but I would be surprised if that was the program's original intent.  Regardless, if you think the answer to this is yes, you need to start advocating for higher taxes now, and not just on millionaires. Projections have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense and debt payments eating up the entire federal budget in the not too distant future.

The marginal tax rates required to keep up with Medicare costs are likely to be politically impossible.  That means not only widening the group affected by higher rates, but probably reducing or ending some very popular tax expenditures, like the mortgage interest deduction. Wisconsin's progressive hero Russ Feingold couldn't even withstand contemplating such an idea during his 2010 campaign.  This despite the fact that the evidence clearly shows the MID disproportionately helps the wealthy (how's that for progressive?).  If Feingold couldn't campaign on a high tax/high services platform, what Democrat can?

For the record, I think using competitive pricing to determine the value of the vouchers has the potential to address the concern about shifting risk to seniors and harness the power of the market.

Boehner: We had to grow the government before we could shrink it

No he didn't actually say that, but that's all I can hear every time he or Eric Cantor (R-Denial) open their mouths to try and explain to me how they just cut $100 billion $38 billion $352 million in 'spending authority' from the federal budget.

I think it is clear the GOP leadership simply does not understand the desire for reduced government at all levels. Perhaps years on the inside have made them impervious to such desires.

It's also possible that there isn't a real majority out there for cuts and that small government true believers will never be more than a remnant.  Maybe that's true, but we don't know for sure yet. 

In the mean time, what he said-

Ace:

F*** it all. Shut it down. Burn it down. The hell with it all.

2012? Who cares?

Dad 29:

Oh, the usual BS and flimflams.

Shoebox:

Nancy has balls and Boehner is...[go read the whole thing!]

The real pitch for the Senator Rob Cowles recall

In just the few moments it took for me to walk from my car to the polling place (East De Pere) and back again, I saw at least two people sign the recall petition for GOP Senator Rob Cowles. My wife reported the same thing when she went a little while later.  It is very possible that the recall effort will be successful and there will be enough signatures to force a recall election for Senator Cowles.

This is not what democracy looks like.  This is not even undoing the results of last November's elections, since the Democrats haven't bothered to run anyone against Cowles for a decade or so. 

The pitch to recall signers, and presumably recall election voters, centers on the Governor.  The real pitch, however, is this:  We Democrats couldn't bother opposing Senator Cowles at any of the regularly scheduled elections for years, but now we don't like the Governor so we need to remove the Senator through the use of a special election.  Oh and by the way, you are going to pay for the special election through your tax dollars. 

Sound ridiculous?  So is the effort to recall Cowles.

Health care spending in the US

Number of the Week: U.S. Spends 141% More on Health Care - Real Time Economics - WSJ

A new report finds that the U.S. spends far more on health care than any of the other 29 OECD nations, and gets less health for its money. Annual public and private health-care spending in the U.S. stands at $7,538 per person, 2.41 times the OECD average and 51% more than the second-biggest spender, Norway. Meanwhile, average U.S. life expectancy is 77.9 years, less than the OECD average of 79.4.

A few thoughts on this:

1.  $7,500 per person really doesn't strike me as an excessive amount of money for the richest nation in history to spend on health care every year.  As other essential items like food and shelter fall as a percentage of our income, we will naturally spend more on other things, like health care.

2.  Having said that, knowing how much we spend is only half of the matter.  The other, much more difficult, part is whether or not we are getting our money's worth.  This goes for any type of spending, not just health care.  If you are reading this in Wisconsin, please keep this in mind as we discuss the Governor's proposed cuts to education spending.

3.  This article suggests that we are not getting our money's worth since life expectancy is actually less in the US than in the other OECD countries.  This is a useful data point, to be sure, but it hardly seems definitive. There may be a other (cultural, historical) reasons why those countries have a higher life expectancy.  Perhaps is we lowered spending the life expectancy gap would be even wider.  In that case would anyone argue we needed to "control health care costs?"

The challenge for workers & the politicians they elect

Karl Smith takes note of the facts that the pace of hiring has slowed, job vacancies have increased, and salary inflation has increased then concludes:

Am I Completely Wrong

It is time to begin considering contingency plans for deep structural problems. What can and should be done if the economy takes off, while leaving many of the unskilled without jobs.

Those concerned about the fate of the unskilled should begin ruminating on these issues. The probability that “fixing it” will make everything ok is dipping somewhat.

Unfortunately for us, I don't believe that either major party has any long (or even medium) term vision for the American work force. "Jobs" and "job creation" are invoked quite a lot, and for good reason, but I'd bet if you polled Congress for their preferred version of the U.S. labor market the top answer would be the low unemployment/low inflation environment of the mid-1990's. How likely is it though that the job market of 2025 or even 2015 can replicate the conditions of 1995?

American workers are not well served by politicians who seek to return us to some perceived "golden age". Instead, workers need leaders who attempt to identify the challenges of today and those on the horizon and then equip those workers to meet those challenges.

One small illustration: Reforming health care by reinforcing the system of employer provided insurance implicitly assumes a model of the labor market characterized by fewer jobs with longer duration of each over the course of a career. While that sounds like a description of the US labor market in the middle of the twentieth century, I doubt very much this is what the labor market of the mid twenty-first century will look like.

First they came for the homeschoolers, then they came for Rachel Maddow

Liberal talk-show host Rachel Maddow recently issued this warning to her viewers after her name was mentioned as part Freedom of Information  request by a conservative think tank seeking the emails of some professors at public universities:

"Watching this TV show...should not be an act of bravery," she said. "The conservative movement is making sure that you know it is. You are on their list and they are coming after you. If it feels cold all of a sudden, if that gives you a shiver, it is supposed to. That's how they roll."

If this gives Ms. Maddow a shiver, she ought to try being a conservative in post 9/11 America where the "conservative" President George W. Bush gifted us with the Department of Homeland Security.  Maddow's warning reminded me of this post (H/T Dad29):

During the past several years, I have witnessed a dramatic shift in the focus of law enforcement training.  Law enforcement courses have moved away from a local community focus to a federally dominated model of complete social control.  Most training I have attended over the past two years have been sponsored by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), namely the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)....

These federal trainers describe the dangers of “extremists” and “militia groups” roaming the community and hiding in plain sight, ready to attack.  Officers are instructed how to recognize these domestic terrorists by their behavior, views and common characteristics.  State data bases are kept to track suspected domestic terrorists and officers are instructed on reporting procedures to state and federal agencies.  The state I work in, like many others, have what is known as a “fusion center” that compiles a watch list of suspicious people.
So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist?  Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:

• Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
• Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
• Survivalist literature (fictional books such as "Patriots" and "One Second After" are mentioned by name)
• Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
• Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
• Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
• Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
• Homeschooling
• Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
• Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

I hope this author is exaggerating how widespread the phenomenon is and how low the bar is to be considered a potential extremist (homeschooler? having a libertarian philosophy?), but it is certainly possible this really is the way things are.

When I shared this list with my wife, her response was, "well, I guess I'm an extremist," and she said we needed to update the first aid kit.

Tyler Cowen on the Paul Ryan Plan

With apologies* to Tyler, I am including his entire post. It is worth your time to read this.

The Paul Ryan budget plan — Marginal Revolution

I’ve now read it and here are a few comments:

1. The macro projections are very weak, not worth the time of criticism (more here).

2. Ryan nails our dysfunctional, “who is really responsible for paying for Medicaid?” structure. That said, I’ve long preferred the federalization of Medicaid. Block grants to the states may be better than the status quo, however (the size of those grants is a logically distinct question). Within state budgets, police and education are often the alternative to Medicaid costs. Are we so sure that Medicaid produces the maximum benefit for the money? Low-quality moralizing about the poor is not an answer to this question.

3. That said, Medicaid should be one of the last parts of the health care budget to cut. More of our health care aid should be like Medicaid, which is relatively cheap and also targeted at those who really need the assistance. The correct Medicaid decisions depend on other budget choices, but ideally Medicaid is low on the list of recommended cuts, even if it may require some cuts.

4. With either the block grants or the Medicare vouchers, I would urge maximum transparency. Health care costs are increasing by about five percent a year. That means a fixed value voucher loses about half its real value, in terms of command over health care resources, within fourteen years. (It’s a bit more complicated than that, since not all health care costs are proportional price increases to currently available services.) If that is the decision we are going to make, let us understand it as such. I would add that Ryan’s opponents don’t avoid this kind of dilemma nearly as much as they think they do.

5. It would be nice to have a scientific estimate of how much fixed value vouchers would lower the rate of growth of health care costs. I’m not convinced the effect here is large, but I’d like to see it studied more closely.

6. Ryan’s budget repeals ACA and thus in the semi-short run it could considerably increase Medicare costs. There is no reason why Ryan’s plan shouldn’t keep the most fiscally responsible aspects of ACA. Ryan exempts the current elderly from any Medicare cuts at all, see David Leonhardt’s remarks.

7. Over a ten-year time horizon, the Ryan plan increases the debt rather than decreasing it. Take that as a sign of how hard fiscal reform is going to be.

8. As I’ve already blogged, the vouchers idea won’t help cut health care costs. Let’s create some multiple public options within Medicare, some of which would allow people to trade health care benefits for cash. Democrats are supposed to be “pro-choice,” right? Or is that only for abortion?

9. I’m all for cutting the corporate income tax, but 35 to 25 percent isn’t impressive. Let’s eliminate it altogether.

10. There’s not nearly enough on reforming the dysfunctional supply-side of our health care institutions. Nor does science or basic research receive much discussion.

11. The plan does some strange things, such as repeal Dodd-Frank resolution authority, which most people, even Dodd-Frank critics, think is a good idea. Ezra summarizes the entire list of budget changes.

12. The more the Democrats criticize this plan, the more it helps Ryan and the more it hurts the Democrats. It reframes sticker shock, and the entire debate, simply to argue about $6 trillion in budget cuts.

13. #12 is the bottom line here, since the plan is not intended to be enacted into law. Points #1-11 pale in comparison to #12-13.

*Given the relative prominence of our two blogs, I think it is fair to say that I am not stealing any of Tyler's traffic. If anything I may be expanding his audience, at least marginally.

Walker=Prosser, Vote Walker April 5th

If we are going to elect the judges to the state supreme court, I don't believe that their election should be a referendum on a governor, or, even worse, on one particular piece of legislation.  Wish in one hand as the old saying goes.

The situation in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race between David Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg cannot be described in any other way than as a referendum on Governor Walker and his budget repair bill.  Really, it's not even about the whole bill (how many people protested the proposed changes to Medicare?) but it is about the elimination of collective bargaining for public employees.  This is a  lousy litmus test for a supreme court judge, but this time around it is clearly the only one that matters.

Given this is the state of affairs in which we find ourselves, if you support the Governor's efforts to bring spending under control in Wisconsin, you should vote Prosser.

If you are uneasy about some allegations you heard in an attack ad about Prosser's handling of a child abuse case, watch this ad featuring one of the victims.  He asks that his case stop being misrepresented to try and score political points against Prosser.

Finally, if you truly are one of those independent and undecided voters, remember that Prosser has already served on the court for ten years.  Kloppenburg, by contrast, is an unknown.  Even some of those that support her recognize that it is opposition to Walker and to the collective bargaining law that are driving Kloppenburg's campaign.  Disagreement with the Governor or one of his legislative proposals is a terrible criterion for choosing someone to serve on the state's highest court for a ten year term.

Structural unemployment and the death penalty

Illinois Workers Find That a Death Penalty Ban Abolishes Their Jobs, Too - NYTimes.com

The day after the death penalty was abolished in Illinois in early March, Wendi Liss received a call from one of her clients, who was facing trial for murder and the prospect of being executed if found guilty.

He was calling not to celebrate, but to express concern for her career.

“He said, ‘I know this is what you guys wanted and I know this is good
for us, but I don’t want you to be out of a job,’ ” recounted Ms. Liss,
one of dozens of employees at the Office of the State Appellate Defender
who specialize in death penalty cases.

It was indeed a bittersweet moment — some of the very people who pushed
and prayed most fervently to end capital punishment in the state found
that the triumph came with a termination notice.

Obama's second term to be Wilson's third

Samantha Power to be the next Secretary of State? | Irish News | IrishCentral

A flattering New York Times profile has increased speculation that Samantha Power, the Dublin-born aide to President Obama, could be his next Secretary of State or National Security Adviser.

She has been the main architect, along with Hillary Clinton, of the Libya policy and has an increasing influence in the White House inner circle....

Since she began her career working as a war correspondant in Bosnia at the tender age of 22, Power has believed that nations have a moral obligation to prevent genocide. She can bring life to these ideals from her position of the National Security Council.

“She is clearly the foremost voice for human rights within the White House,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, told the New York Times “and she has Obama’s ear.”

Power won a Pulitzer Prize for her 2002 book on genocide, entitled “A Problem from Hell,” which examined the U.S. foreign policy response to genocide.

The book argues that the Armenia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia and Rwanda genocides occurred because of government authorities averted their eyes and individuals made the choice not to intervene.

“The most common response,” Ms. Power wrote, “is, ‘We didn’t know.’ This is not true.”

Some of her critics say that she could be pushing the U.S. into another Iraq. The conservative blog American Thinker says that Obama has “outsourced foreign policy” to the Dublin woman. She has also drawn the ire of the Israeli lobby for her pro-Palestinian positions.

Clearly neither of the major parties are serious about restrained use of U.S. military power abroad.