Trump, Carson, and the Conservative Intelligentsia

During impromptu commentary on the Dan Yorke Show, today, responding to breaking news that Donald Trump had pledged to support the Republican candidate whoever it might be, I mentioned that, prior to the announcement, Fox News had flashed poll results (by accident, I think) that showed Ben Carson beating Trump in a head-to-head.  Understandably splitting his attention for the show, Dan hadn’t seen it, but I was right:

Carson has the best favorability rating in the field at 67 percent positive and 6 percent negative. That’s an improvement from 45 percent positive and 10 percent negative from before the first debate.

He’s the only Republican who would beat Trump in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up, according to the poll. Carson would thump Trump 55 percent to 36 percent if the two were to square off.

Also while we were off the air, Trump made a statement that he would go for full repeal of ObamaCare.  As much as I support that step, both Dan and I had to laugh at Trump’s bravado.  He simply said he’d work to repeal the law and replace it with something better and cheaper.  If a reporter had asked for details, The Donald no doubt would have pushed back the challenge, “Do you doubt that I can do that, punk?”

That specific issue has beguiled Republicans and conservatives for years, as they’ve stammered in the face of the policy question, “What will you replace it with?”  Two points on this.

First, perhaps Trump’s prime attraction is that Republicans think he might just get away with what Democrats and progressives get away with as a matter of course (because they own the media, the academy, and every other institution that might call them on their nonsense).  Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said that the public would know the details of ObamaCare after it had become law.  That is, until it was already law, the Democrat position was essentially that they were going to do healthcare better and cheaper.  “Do you doubt our intentions, fascist?”

I sincerely want conservatives to articulate their policies, because they are smart and make more sense than progressives’ hopey-changey fairy tales, but from a practical perspective — really — why should a pre-primary candidate feel like he has to offer a detailed plan?

Second, if Trump continues to dominate the Republican field (with the exception of Carson, depending how you look at it), I hope he and conservative thinkers will find a way to work together.  If he were to concede their expertise and put his braggadocian stamp of approval on their policy proposals — changing “Do you doubt that I can do that, punk?” to “Are you gonna say I don’t know a good idea when I see one, kid?” — he could not only advance the correct policy, but also prove that maybe he is a savvy executive and wouldn’t sink the nation with his ego.


Officials Should Come up with the Number That Districts Can Save Through Charters

As the school year drew closer, the school department of Providence, Rhode Island announced its intention to charge local charter schools around $800 per season for each of their students who participate in an in-district athletics program. District spokeswoman Christina O’Reilly told Dan McGowan of WPRI that the fees would help cover “transportation, coaches’ salaries, referees, equipment, [and] league fees” for teams, on which 50 to 60 Providence charter students play.

The city backed away from the plan within a few days, but the brief episode once again raised the controversial issue of charter school funding.

Under Rhode Island law, charter schools receive the total per-student funding that would be allocated for their students in their home districts.  The district divides its local property tax collection for schools, minus capital expenses and debt service, by the number of students and sends the proportionate amount to the charters.

The state calculates its aid on a per-student basis and sends the money to the charter instead of the district.  Then the state gives the district an additional five percent of its per-student total to cover the “indirect costs” of each charter student.

By the reckoning of The Center for Education Reform, this makes Rhode Island’s funding “equity” the most generous in New England, and among the most generous in the country.

Continue reading on Watchdog.org.


That Old Small-Minded Racial Thinking

Reading Lawrence Proulx’s observations in yesterday’s Providence Journal, one can easily predict what sort of reaction he’d be apt to get:

In my work, I read one of the world’s great newspapers; in my leisure time I read other general-interest papers and magazines. And I have slowly gotten the impression that white people and men are treated in a particular, unenviable, way. They are, in reporting and commentary, what you might call fair game. Where writers are generally reluctant to call attention to the sex, ethnicity, religion or race of people when the result would be unflattering, they make an exception for whites and for men. There is something in the air that implicitly imparts the message that white people and men have it coming.

One comment to a related Facebook post from commentary editor Ed Achorn captures the flawed thinking of the racist worldview that lumps people together based on the color of their skin:

… complaining that white men are being treated unfairly is absurd. Take a look around this room and tell me what you see. Especially on the Republican half of things.

The appended picture appears to be from a state of the union address to Congress.  The reasoning is: It can’t be that white men are treated unfairly when there are so many of them in power.  The problem is that, while white men dominate in Congress, a vanishingly small percentage of white men are Congressmen or Senators.  By definition, most white men are not members of the elite.

What the American elite (which is overwhelming white) has done by permeating our society with the anti-white bias about which Proulx complains is to reduce opportunity for lower-class whites.  Those who are surrounded by privilege have opportunities no matter their sex or race; those whose families and associates are not so well positioned need to find opportunities where they can.  Dividing the playing board by race ensures that those who lack opportunities are the ones who pay the dues for their race.

If it’s true that white men of all classes have advantages over others in their own classes, then racialism impedes the greatest competition facing white men in upper classes.  I’m not so sure the racial assumption is true, though, which means racialism allows elites to help out their privileged peers of other races by way of denying opportunities to those whom they’ve demonized.


Inflating Costs Doesn’t Grow the Economy

If a company takes on a project that comes with specific terms, such as paying employees a certain amount, it should follow those terms.  That said, Governor Gina Raimondo’s statement concerning a government contractor who paid his employees less than the prevailing wage required for such jobs illustrates very well the economic thinking behind Rhode Island’s back-of-the-pack economy:

In announcing the settlement, Raimondo said it’s the first significant action of her new Workplace Fraud Unit, which will focus DLT’s effort on dishonest companies, investigate wrongdoing and enforce worker-protection laws.

“We’re going to go after companies that cheat because breaking the law not only hurts workers, it also hurts companies that follow the rules, pay proper wages and help grow the Rhode Island economy,” Raimondo said in a statement.

Think about the logic, here.  Raimondo is spending taxpayer dollars to enforce a labor requirement that makes government projects cost more than they otherwise would, and she insists that doing so will help to grow the state’s economy.  Put differently, the market sets a certain price for the type of work that Cardoso Construction’s employees do, and the government insists that it isn’t high enough.

As I’ve stated before, money is just a unit of measurement and a signal of value to the larger economy.  Forcing it to flow to a particular place to which it otherwise would not go means that it can’t go to something else, either because the system places less value on that something else or because the individuals who would put it to a different use can no longer access it.

It’s been a while since I looked at taxpayer migration data for Rhode Island, but the picture hasn’t really changed.  In the three years from 2010 to 2013, Rhode Island lost 6,613 taxpayers (accounting for about 19,634 people), who took with them $915 million dollars of adjusted gross income.  (That’s on a net basis, so it does include people who moved in the other direction.)

That’s almost a billion dollars in annual income of people who found somewhere else better to live.  Whatever it was that led them to leave, we can be reasonably sure that it wasn’t because Rhode Island government wasn’t taking enough money away from them in order to support laws that take even more away from them unnecessarily.


Kentucky County Clerk and the Rule of Law

The specific controversy of the Kentucky county clerk who is refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses will come and go, but David French gets at the more important point:

… what we’re watching unfold in Kentucky isn’t so much the “rule of law” as the raw exercise of power. Judicial revolutionaries simply wield more power than Kentucky county clerks — partly because the judges enjoy the popular support of millions of Americans (including public officials), partly because their lifetime tenure almost entirely insulates them from accountability, and partly because even the most vigorous dissenters understand that answering one revolution with another will upend the entire system, a price they’re not willing to pay. At least not yet.

In fact, the rule of law has increasingly become a mere talking point, a weapon wielded by the Courts and the Obama administration when it likes a given legal outcome, but disregarded when pesky things like “democracy” and “procedure” interfere with the demands of social justice. For the Obama administration, even proper regulatory rulemaking can be too burdensome. Rule by executive order or even departmental letter replaces constitutional process, with the social-justice Left cheering every step of the way.

We’ve allowed so much authority to bubble up to the highest level of government that it’s increasingly impossible for people who disagree with the elite to find a place in which to live under the policies that they would prefer.  We’re also allowing deterioration of the sense that the law applies to everybody equally — and means what it says in all cases.  That makes control over the federal government an absolute necessity (including circumventing a body of elected representatives from around the country if they impede that control).

Some see the surprisingly successful campaign of Donald Trump as primarily an expression of frustration that the system appears to be rigged to allow no real choices at the highest level. Unless we give Americans tangible evidence that participation in the political process really does make a difference, even at the federal level, and unless we return to toleration for substantially different government at the local and state levels from one place to the next, and unless our broader civic system (expanded to include news media and social institutions) is more overtly fair and even-handed, we’re guaranteeing tyranny from the powerful and revolutionary unrest from those who have been shut out.


Undoing Obama on a Broad Scale

In the Wall Street Journal, Lanhee Chen takes a look at some of the steps that will be necessary in order to undo all of President Obama’s unilateral actions:

With a stroke of a pen, the next president could roll back efforts to expand the reach of labor unions, mandates requiring the expanded use of renewable energy by the federal government, and Mr. Obama’s foolhardy reconciliation with Iran and Cuba.

Then there is the formal rule-making process, which has produced far-reaching policy change through agency-promulgated regulations. A review of this activity could begin on day one of a new presidency but will be more time consuming and challenging to reverse.

Taken as a whole, Mr. Obama’s use of executive orders, presidential memorandums, agency directives and guidance to achieve his policy aims is without precedent in its disregard for the people’s elected representatives.

Of course, the problem is much bigger than this.  Consider John Hinderaker’s commentary on Obama’s habitual stonewalling of investigations.  That indicates a much larger problem.

The regular ebb and flow of the American electoral mood might give Republicans an opportunity to undo Obama — a possibility that is probably more likely than the Republicans actually doing so.  That would only be a reprieve, though, until the next time the cultural forces in the news and entertainment media, on college campuses, and basically all of the social institutions that have been overrun with Democrat operatives who pretend not to be partisan push the electoral mood back in their party’s favor.

The deeper problem is cultural.  Americans allowed our social institutions sell us on the scam of Obama and our news media to cover up for his demagoguery, corruption, incompetence, and usurpations. That’s the real problem.

We need to reengage with our civic society and with our social institutions with renewed confidence in our heritage.  That’s going to take more than the stroke of a pen.  It’s going to take the decision of millions of Americans to turn away from distractions and take some minor risks with their lives in order to assert their values.


Getting What You Pay For in Higher Education

In a certain sense, the abstraction and often-indirect benefits of higher education ensure that students can always get what they pay for.  I mean:

In his “Introduction to Multicultural Literature,” for example, professor John Streamas informs students in his syllabus that he expects white students who want “to do well in this class” to “reflect” their “grasp of history and social relations” by “deferring to the experiences of people of color.” …

A second Washington State faculty member, Selena Lester Breikss, warns students in her “Women & Popular Culture” course this semester that they risk “failure for the semester” if they use the terms “male” or “female.” . . .

“Students will come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions,” Breikss adds.

When a student is fed that sort of nonsense by people who make a lot of money at institutions for which those students and their families are spending serious money or incurring mammoth debt, the tendency will be to believe — to want to believe — that they aren’t spending all that time and money to be spoon fed intellectual mush that will make them into good little progressive slaves.  Look at it from their point of view:  It’s outrageous enough to put so much time and money into an education that provides no career and no real occupational skills.  Having to admit that you were suckered in the bargain might be too much to take, and so the young adults head out in the world as if they bring with them the finest wisdom.

I wonder if that mightn’t be the real reason Huck Finn has lost favor on American campuses.


When the Elite’s Political Equation Breaks Down

Donald Devine makes some interesting points about Donald Trump and political science, following Aaron Wildavsky in his theory about “four fundamental political types”: egalitarians, individualists, social conservatives, and fatalists.  That last group, he says, don’t often vote, partly because they see the world as a chaotic mess, so what’s the point?  They will vote, though, for an autocratic hero whom they believe will be able to grab the reins.

The key paragraph in Devine’s essay, though, is this one:

Pollster Frank Luntz came reeling out of one of his distinctive focus groups the other day crying “my legs are shaking” from seeing the depth of commitment of the Trump supporters he interviewed at the session. “I want to put the Republican leadership behind this mirror and let them see. They need to wake up. They don’t realize how the grassroots have abandoned them. Donald Trump is punishment to a Republican elite that wasn’t listening to their grassroots.” He even showed the audience unflattering images of and statements by Trump meant to turn them off. It did not work. At the end they were more committed than at the beginning.

I wonder if this is the fatal flaw of elite technocrats who think they’ve got everything all figured out and locked up.  If so, it can apply to much more than just politics (such as the economic gear spinning of the Fed).  At a certain level of analysis, people stop being people and become data points.  Actions stop being taken because of their effect on people, and people’s responses to them, but because the formulas and the analysis suggest that they will bring advantage at a particular time.

Making a statement of a particular sort will produce a desirable reaction from group X and an undesirable reaction from group Y.  At this political moment, the value of the positive reaction is (a) and the detriment of the negative reaction is (b), so if (a)X > (b)Y, you make the statement.  Considerations such as the etiquette of the political system and the truth of the statement don’t get any more value than what the equation suggests that they should.

The problem is that people aren’t automatons; we have emotions as part of a nature that helps us learn and adapt, and we exist along a spectrum.  At some point, when tossing aside the etiquette of the system and a culture that prioritizes truth, the elite reaches a point at which somebody who is even more shameless than they are steps in, and the folks along the spectrum who would normally be able to sniff out the falsehood have learned that truth can’t be expected, anyway.


An Unformed Philosophy in Discrimination Against Private School Choice

Julie Negri called it “discrimination” in a Providence Journal op-ed, referring to her experience as a home-school mother when she learned that her daughter would not be eligible for funding through a state-run program, called Prepare Rhode Island. The program allows high school students to take courses at public institutions of higher education.

The legality of the state Department of Education’s policy is a matter of debate. The law creating the program specifically refers to “private day or residential schools,” andthe statute concerning the approval of private schools includes “at-home instruction.”  Negri might have a strong case if there were anybody to take up the issue on her behalf.  As a matter of public opinion, however, her daughter’s situation may be in a gray area, and it’s an area to which school choice advocates should seek to provide some color.

Across the country, Americans support the concept that parents should be able to choose their children’s schools, but the support depends on the type of school and the way the question is asked.  According to a poll recently released by Phi Beta Kappa and Gallup, 64 percent of Americans “favor the idea of charter schools,” and the same percentage of respondents “favor allowing students and their parents to choose which public schools in the community the students attend.”

When it comes to “allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense,” however, favorability drops to 31 percent, with 57 percent opposed.  The poll authors conclude that “the public does not support vouchers.”  Another recent poll conducted by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice has different findings.

Actually, the findings aren’t different so much as they are more telling.

Continue reading on Watchdog.org.


Increased Pollution Means More Opportunities to Abate Pollution

For the “perverse incentives of environmental regulations” file, we learn that Russia and Ukraine may have been increasing their polluting activities so that they could abate the problem and sell the carbon offset credits to other countries to help them meet their anti-pollution goals:

According to a study released in the journal Nature Climate Change, plants in Russia “increased waste gas generation to unprecedented levels once they could generate credits from producing more waste gas,” resulting in an increase in emissions as large as 600 million tons of carbon dioxide—roughly half the amount the EU’s ETS intends to reduce from 2013 to 2030.

As Glenn Reynolds suggests, “It’s like the whole thing is just one big scam.”  Environmentalism is just about perfect, from the progressive point of view.  It provides an excuse to grab power for the government; it creates channels for corruption to make friends and allies filthy rich (and launder money back to politicians); and it all comes wrapped in the motivational package of a pseudo religion.

And here’s a bonus lesson on Iran:

The UN seemingly left it up to national governments to oversee these projects, and now it has a full-blown crisis on its hands.

Although contested, there have been reports that, under the deal promoted by President Obama, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will send unqualified inspectors to keep an eye on Iran’s nuclear program and may rely on Iran, itself, to participate in the inspections.  Budding internationalism and the push for a global government that is not democratic, but is bureaucratic, come with the gigantic, existential question over whether we can or should trust such a system.


Privacy No Longer a Side Benefit of Tall Structures Like Wind Turbines

A California man vacationing on Aquidneck Island thought he’d send up his personal drone to get some footage of a coastal wind turbine in Portsmouth.  Here’s the video:

Providence Journal reporter Patrick Anderson initially thought it was the non-functional turbine owned by the town of Portsmouth, but it’s not.  It’s the nearby turbine on the property of the Portsmouth Abbey school.  If I’m not mistaken, the man on top is one of the monks (see here). The likelihood is, then, that he isn’t, as the Daily Mail suggested, a “sun worshipper.”

One would think that such a remote height would be a safe place to relax and take in the warmth of God’s bounty, and it would be in a world without a proliferating number of flying video cameras.


Are Children a Lifestyle Choice or a Social Necessity?

In a conversation about government-run schools’ use of taxpayer dollars to out-compete private schools, Mike678 asks:

Are not children these days a choice and a lifestyle? Why do taxpayers w/o children have to pay for other peoples choices?

Those questions rely on a pretty progressive premise that people are burdens to manage, not ends in themselves.  The implied point of view also skips over the fact that having children is pretty much the social and biological default for human beings (yes, still).  That is, for most couples, not having children is the more deliberate choice.

And it’s a choice with severe ramifications for the rest of us.  Very directly, for example, one might ask why somebody else’s children, as taxpayers, should have to carry a heavier burden to pay the Social Security of a childless senior’s choices.  Even without entitlement programs, though, the fact is that a society needs children.  Look to Japan:

… in the long run the fortunes of nations are determined by population trends. Japan is not only the world’s fastest-aging major economy (already every fourth person is older than 65, and by 2050 that share will be nearly 40 percent), its population is also declining. Today’s 127 million will shrink to 97 million by 2050, and forecasts show shortages of the young labor force needed in construction and health care. Who will maintain Japan’s extensive and admirably efficient transportation infrastructures? Who will take care of millions of old people? By 2050 people above the age of 80 will outnumber the children.

I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest new child tax credits or a directly paid government child allowance, as some do.  Social engineering is, after all, social engineering, and the government tends to plod along in a march of unintended consequences.  (It matters, for one thing, for whom in our society we create incentives to birth more children.)  However, when children are born, it behooves us to ensure that education is a priority, and alleviating that burden becomes quite a different thing than subsidizing the procreation.


Rhode Islanders Need to Run the Bases Around 38 Stadium

The other night, I attended the forum on the PawSox Stadium deal hosted by Leadership Rhode Island that Ted Nesi moderated. I walked away with two observations: The 38 Studios affair is still very much on the minds of Rhode Islanders, and the people of our state are reaching their breaking point.

The best part of my job is talking to Rhode Islanders. We’re a plainspoken people, never afraid to tell you the way things are in our state. However, it is frustrating when it does not amount to more than talk.

I want to see the people of our state take action, and change the way things are for the better. At the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, we often say that the status quo is the enemy of our future, and that is the truth. Our people need another path forward to building a Rhode Island that has a future that can be truly free and prosperous.

At the forum, I was chatting with a retired woman who said she only had one piece advice for the young people of our state, “buy a plane ticket.” Maybe I’m too much of an idealist, but I don’t think things are that hopeless. It is still worth it to fight for Rhode Island. She told me that the stadium deal is sure to be another 38 Studios — that our state had just tried this experiment and it failed. Based on the boos and jeers from the crowd toward the two pro-stadium spokespeople, this woman’s sentiments were shared by all but the smallest margin of the attendees.

The 38 Stadium deal is well on its way to becoming more of the same failed status quo thinking that has brought Rhode Island to the brink. I love baseball and everything it stands for, and I love the PawSox. But I don’t want to see my state held hostage to another special interest. With the opposition to the stadium deal mounting, the lack of investigation into the 38 studios disaster, and our state’s tax and spend ethos, it is easy to see why people are angry.

It doesn’t have to be this way in the Ocean State. I like to remind people that they have all the power. Our elected leaders will listen when you force them to do so. When we don’t take action, there is no one to blame for the way things are but ourselves. Sitting in the dugout on this issue is not an option.

You have the right to demand a Rhode Island that is based on the principles of limited, transparent government, free-market policies, and an open playing field for everyone, not just the chosen few.  We all deserve to go around the bases, not sit in the stands while insiders swing for the fence.


Reading Between the Tracks in Wickford

More than a few Rhode Islanders, no doubt, have wondered why anybody thought putting the end of a rail line in Wickford was a good idea.  North Kingstown’s a decent size for a suburb, but it’s dispersed and in a part of the state designed more around villages than whole towns.  The site is out of the way for anybody traveling Route 95, and approaching by Route 4 from the south is a pain, with lights and traffic.

Now that the state is taking over management of the station, some of the pieces start to fit together.  Here’s Patrick Anderson in the Providence Journal:

Making current RIDOT employees clean bathrooms, shovel snow, cut grass, make repairs and watch over the Wickford Junction station and parking garage will cost the state $112,200 each year, the agency said, instead of the $488,984 it was paying the owner of the surrounding shopping plaza. …

The Wickford Junction maintenance contract grew out of the public-private partnership with North Kingstown developer and station advocate Robert Cioe that saw it built on a corner of his shopping plaza.

So, the Dept. of Transportation and its contractors got some federal money for a nice big project a few years back, and a developer in North Kingstown got a drop-off point near his shopping plaza and a regular contract for maintenance.  Yup, that sounds like the Rhode Island Way.


Building Cities for Urban Planners

Aaron Renn makes the point that urban planners should give some thought to the type of area that a particular city should be, given its unique geography, history, and competitive advantages, rather than prioritizing their vision of the ideal city:

Where Ashland Ave. BRT fails is not in its attempt to improve transit service or to accommodate those who choose not to have cars. Rather, the problem is that it is rooted in a vision, propounded mostly by coastal urbanites, that believes car use should be deliberately discouraged and minimized – ideally eliminated entirely – in the city. Thus the project is not just about making transit better, but also about actively making things worse for drivers. That might work in New York, San Francisco, or Boston, where the car is more dubious, but in Chicago this philosophy would erode one of the greatest competitive advantages the city enjoys. In Chicago, the car free strategy only works along the north lakefront and downtown, not the Ashland Ave corridor or most of the rest of the city.

The no-car philosophy as the norm, not just an option, would undermine one of the greatest strategic advantages of Chicago. Why would you want to do that? Particularly when it would also make family life in the city more difficult for many. There is where urbanists need to start putting on their strategic thinking hat. Otherwise they may end up undermining the very places they seek to improve.

Renn seems to think this is a Midwest versus Coast dynamic, but Rhode Islanders should put on their strategic thinking hats, too.  One of the great advantages of the whole state is the ability to move around.  On a whim, when a business associate was staying in Providence, we zipped down to a restaurant near First Beach in Newport for breakfast.  Sports leagues regularly direct my family around the state.  Based on my experiences and positive things that are generally said about Rhode Island, progressives’ war on cars — like just about every progressive policy — would only hurt Rhode Islanders.

This point has a much broader application.  With RhodeMap and every other central-planning project undertaken by the state government, the fatal flaw is the conceit that planners can and should figure out what the state needs and push it in that direction.  The people of Rhode Island have a much better sense of the attractions and advantages of their state than any small group of planners, and they aren’t going to give over their information at public meetings, even if the planners could correctly interpret what they were saying, because only a narrow subset of Rhode Islanders ever knows about such meetings, let alone bothering to attend.

The solution is freedom, with money as the measurement of what people are doing.  With freedom and capitalism, businesses can identify opportunities at a very small, local level, and the people will tend to get more of what they want, and in an improved way.


A Challenge to School Choice from the Right

Michael McShane points out a challenge coming from the political right that advocates for school choice will have to address:

…when I moved back to America’s heartland and traveled a bit more off the beaten path, I encountered a new argument that might be more threatening to the spread of school choice than anything the AFT’s Randi Weingarten or the NEA’s Lily Eskelsen Garcia can throw at it. It is the fear that by accepting government dollars, private schools — particularly private religious schools — are opening themselves to a government takeover. “With shekels come shackles” is how a man in Michigan put it to me. A brilliant op-ed in the Wall Street Journal called it the “Pharaoh Effect.”

This is not an entirely unwarranted concern. For decades, private and religious schools have been able to coexist peaceably with American public schools. But Obamacare’s contraception mandate has increased government’s attempted influence on the inner workings of religious organizations. And if the Little Sisters of the Poor aren’t safe in America, who’s to say a school will be?

Some of the most vocal opposition that the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity faced to its Bright Today proposal, last legislative session, came from home schoolers who fear that opening this door will let the government into their homes.  Frankly, I’ve been making a variation of this argument when it comes to charter schools.  My initial suspicions blossomed into concern when I read McShane’s report for the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice detailing how some Catholic schools were closing their doors and reopening as non-religious charter schools.

This area definitely merits careful policy decisions as school choice expands (which it will).  That’s life, though.  The enemy is always lurking in the woods along the path.  We can’t just stay home in fear that we’ll lose what we have.  That strategy will only empower the enemy to come and take it.


The Thing with Regulation

One helpful outcome when particular controversies arise over regulation is that statements of principle and assumption emerge that offer a common-sense check.  So, as taxi companies sue to impose regulations on the ride-sharing service Uber — rather than advocating to have the regulations under which they, themselves, must operate eased (go figure) — we get statements like this:

Echoing a larger global fight over ride-hailing services, the taxis argue that under Rhode Island law any driver or company providing for-hire automobile rides must comply with the stringent regulations enforced by the Public Utilities Division. 

“None of them do, and all of the services provided by Uber and Uber drivers are therefore illegal,” the lawsuit says. “This massive illegal operation puts the public and consumers at risk and erodes the viability of licensed, authorized and legal taxicab operators.”

In what particular ways do ride-sharing services “put the public and consumers at risk”?  The cars could be in bad repair or with some sort of health issue or infestation.  The driver might have mental issues.  Who knows?  The world is an unpredictable place.

But if freelance cars through Uber really offer an inferior or dangerous service, shouldn’t taxi drivers be able to compete?  Couldn’t there be a national certification that they, themselves, could promote through Uber or by setting up a competing app?

Special interests like to talk about their concern for the consumer, but they treat them as if they aren’t really people, as if we’re all just drones who won’t make any decisions but will slide right into a filthy, smoking wreck of a car driven by a guy in a hockey mask just because an unregulated app brought it to the curb.  If consumers aren’t drones, then shouldn’t it be relatively easy for the clean cab with a national certification and a friendly driver to charge a little bit more and put the scary guy out of business?

Of course, that would mean the taxi company would have to compete with drivers and with technology, and the reality is that the ride-sharing service isn’t a nightmare.  That’s why the established companies are scared.


In Education, Government Wants to Promote Government Services

Be sure to read Julie Negri’s recent op-ed in the Providence Journal.  I suspect it’s one of those topics on which the majority of people giving it a cursory read might side against her, but then reconsider were they to give it more thought:

… Under a program called Prepare RI, high school students are now able to take college credit courses at the state colleges and university with the state picking up the tab for tuition, fees and books. They are able to earn college credits, while at the same time fulfilling high school requirements. …

The initiative “would enable high-performing high school students to take college classes at no cost to them.” Unless you’re home-schooled or privately schooled. Then you’re on your own, kid — good luck with that. Your parents still get to pay the same taxes, though.

Unfortunately, we’ve developed a a mentality that the purpose of public spending on education is not, first and foremost, the education of all of the children who will one day constitute our electorate.  Rather, the purpose of public spending on education is to use government to provide educational services.  So, things like taking college courses at a completely separate institution is just a perk that the public schools provide.  (Attempts to charge charter and private school students for sports falls in a similar line of thinking.)

Such a view serves the government much more than it serves the people.  Using money confiscated from the people, the government provides services with which the private sector cannot compete — at least at a price that most people would be able to pay, while still paying taxes.  A large majority of children are therefore educated in a government-approved setting, now with subject-matter standards making their way down from the federal government.  (This extreme lopsidedness of the education marketplace, by the way, also makes it impossible for competitors to arise in other areas that influence content, notably the College Board and its advanced placement offerings.)


Planned Parenthood’s Music to Kill By

Here’s an interesting tidbit from the Providence Journal coverage of the large anti-Planned Parenthood protest held on Saturday morning:

There was no counter-protest Saturday from those who support abortion rights.

But about 10 Planned Parenthood volunteers wearing pink T-shirts that said, “We’re here to stand for Planned Parenthood,” tried to clear a pathway from the parking lot to the clinic. They also played a radio in an unsuccessful attempt to drown out the amplified voices of the antiabortion protesters.

Apparently, Rhode Island satanists couldn’t pull together the counter-protest that their Michigan coreligionists managed, pretending to waterboard bound women with breast milk.  But the playing of loud music might be a Planned Parenthood thing.  In Illinois, the clinic blasted ghoulish horror-movie music at the pro-lifers.

A source tells me the music deployed in Rhode Island was Blind Melon, which means it was very probably the song “No Rain.”  Recalling the cover of the album on which that song appeared, the official video begins with a young girl being laughed off a stage for tap dancing in a bumblebee costume.  Toward the end of the video she finds her bliss with a troupe of bee-costumed dancers in a field.

Somehow that message doesn’t seem in accord with Planned Parenthood’s defining occupation.  Of course, it must be difficult to pick a soundtrack to rebut public testimony that your organization facilitates cutting open the faces of unborn fetuses (with beating hearts) to harvest their brains.


PolitiFact RI Bends Reality to Protect the Bureaucracy

A Rhode Island conservative can only be grateful, I suppose, that PolitiFact RI — the long-standing shame of the Providence Journal — managed to get the word “true” somewhere in its rating of the following statement from the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity:

Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine … and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people.

The brief summary under the “Truth-o-meter” reading “Half True” on PolitiFact RI’s main page emphasizes: “Pretty flexible for a despot.”  That’s a reference to the most weaselly part of Mark Reynolds’s quote-unquote analysis, which reads as follows:

[CEO Mike] Stenhouse labels the policies in Virginia and Rhode Island as mandates. But Jason L. Schwartz, an assistant professor at the Yale University School of Public Health, says you can’t call policies with such liberal exemptions mandates.

At best, this is an example of the frequent PolitiFact tactic of finding somebody whose opinion the writer prefers and treating that as the authoritative fact.  One wonders, though, what rating PolitiFact RI would give its own newspaper.  On July 29, the day before the Center released its press release with the challenged statement, the Providence Journal ran this headline at the very top of its front page:  “Rhode Island to mandate HPV vaccine for 7th graders.” (Note: The online version adds the word “all” before “7th.”)  The article itself uses the word “mandatory” five times.

Lesson learned, I guess: Never trust the headlines or reporting of the Providence Journal.

As for the PolitiFact rating, there are three relevant premises:

  1. Rhode Island is only the second state to require the HPV vaccine for students. Even PolitiFact admits this is true.
  2. The requirement is a mandate. This is so true that the supposedly objective journalists at PolitiFact RI’s home paper ran it in the most prominent spot on the paper.
  3. The mandate was implemented without public debate.  PolitiFact’s evidence of “public debate”  is that the professional activists at the ACLU managed to send in a written objection and post about it on Facebook.  Well, then.

The fact that PolitiFact considers the awareness of the ACLU to be “public debate” — as opposed to hearings and a floor debate by the public’s elected representatives — is one of two highly disturbing aspects of Reynolds’s essay.  The other is the latitude that it gives to government officials to adjust the truth to suit their needs.  Days after the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity helped drum up actual public debate and concern about the HPV mandate, the Dept. of Health came forward to assert that the exemptions are so broad that its mandates should really be considered something more like suggestions.

The Providence Journal should end this fraudulent, government-propaganda feature.  It distorts public awareness and undermines the political process.

← Older posts...