It’s very hard for a political candidate to “win” a debate, to stand out so demonstrably better than opponents by their own volition. It is much easier for them to “lose” a debate because by their responses candidates can set themselves up to look inconsistent, hypocritical, uniformed, belligerent, or just plain un-statesmanlike. Nobody is impressed when candidates avoid these things, but it makes a negative impression when they can’t. Tonight, Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu lost her debate with Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy to retain her seat, and lost it badly.
(But before explaining why, applause must go to the six television reporters from five outlets across the state who posed the questions and moderated. The questions mostly were tough and these journalists were fair but firm in trying to get the candidates to actually answer them instead of them answering unasked questions that candidates typically prefer to do. It was the most informative and entertaining debate I have ever witnessed.)
Both candidates held up decently well, although perhaps coming off as too keen to score points on each other, until Landrieu was questioned on the extremely fishy timing of her championing legislation for a certain interest at about the same time that interest held a fundraiser for her. She lost her composure through little more than lecturing the questioning reporter in a self-righteous fashion that never addressed his question about whether the timing looked bad, as if she were frantically trying to cover something up.
It got worse for her on the next question concerning privatization of Social Security funds. After Landrieu said she had never considered supporting that because it was too risky, Kennedy explained competently his position that he would allow it voluntarily for new system entrants and then coolly produced a 1999 article where Landrieu said she thought it was time to consider this “risky” alternative (he could also have used this more recent article). Flustered, she claimed she didn’t remember saying that, thus destroying the main theme lying behind many of her previous comments that her effectiveness and competence made her the better choice; anyone who claimed she could not remember or even doubted she had said a direct quote from a news story on an important issue that contradicted her supposedly rock-solid issue preference would raise doubts about her suitability in any objective observer.
For the rest of the debate, Landrieu came across as combative and more interested in tearing down Kennedy than presenting solutions, and her assertions about her past achievements framed by these previous incidents made her look more like a self-aggrandizer than somebody with credentials. The rout was completed when, on a question asking Kennedy to definitively state his policy preference for abortion and one to Landrieu to explain why as a Catholic she supported many kinds of abortion, Landrieu answered in a legalistic way that the common man would call “weasel words” and Kennedy spoke from the heart about how the entrance into his life of his son made him pro-life except when the mother’s life was endangered. The contrast could not have reflected more badly on her.
But the question is, does this mean anything in the scope of the larger campaign? We political scientists long ago learned most people who watch these debates (other than political scientists themselves) either already are intense supporters of one candidate or they are truly undecided and interested. Either way, they aren’t large in numbers. Her disastrous showing will filter out to reach additional voters from those who watched, but unless this is a very close race, it won’t matter.
It can matter more if Kennedy’s campaign runs with it. A few key snippets here and there of it woven into a quality ad plastered around the state’s airwaves during the last week of the contest could give a significant boost to his fortunes Holding a several percentage point advantage (as best could be told) going into the affair, Landrieu opened the door for Kennedy to eat into that by her performance. Now we’ll see whether he can.
22.10.08
Vapid govt spending argument might actually affect LA
Maybe it’s just a case of wanting to be clever – where a columnist was looking for something to write about and decided to marry a local concern with a highly-publicized national issue and to make the two fit had to create some contortions. Or maybe he actually believes it. Regardless, the idea that national economic troubles could create the conditions where grandiose solutions to flood control around New Orleans become more likely to be implemented as articulated by Lolis Elie is faulty on so many different levels.
Elie commences by writing the consequences of the credit crunch could rival those of the Great Depression. This is a projection of fabulous ignorance. As I have written elsewhere, the root causes of the two are different, and to reach those same lows the current unemployment rate would have to quadruple and the economy would have to contract over a tenth. So if Elie sets as a precondition these kinds of conditions to put his thesis in play, he has wasted an entire column on something that is not going to happen. (Even in the worse case scenario where there is something else added on, like the economic policies of Sen. Barack Obama as president, it’s unlikely that conditions would get worse than the worst period since the Depression, the Pres. Jimmy Carter years of the 1970s.)
The column also makes this isn’t the only history Elie does not know, as he labors under the misconception that Pres. Franklin Roosevelt’s failed New Deal policies did anything to get the U.S. out of the Depression. Charitably, they didn’t hurt, but they clearly did not help and in fact likely prolonged it as the economy barely budged from 1933 to 1939 in terms of output and stubbornly high unemployment. It was World War II that finally got America going, nothing that Roosevelt did. So when Elie argues big public works spending as an “untested stimulus” could work, it merely shows he is unaware of the fact that it was found wanting as a stratagem seven decades ago.
Incredulously, Elie also argues there is a disinvestment deficit of a kind (except for “war”), which he appears to define as government spending on things. One wonders whether Elie has been conscious these past several years as federal government spending has mushroomed almost 40 percent in constant dollars in the 21st Century through the projected latest budget where domestic spending has increased at only a slightly slower rate than on defense.
He even gets the impact of wartime spending all wrong. He writes that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have not seemed to have gotten the economy rolling, failing to understand it is not mere expenditures by government which affect the economy, but that the scale and scope of the conflict matter as to what incentives it presents in the private sector. World War II proved so stimulating because it was on a far grander scale than anything before or since requiring a huge mobilization of resources. In order to win it, the Allies had to become incredibly efficient in conserving resources (such as rubber, steel, copper, etc.) and in exploiting underutilized ones (such as the minority and female labor pools).
Such was the vastness of the enterprise that all Americans had to make noticeable sacrifices. But currently, unless a family is involved with force deployment or, most sadly, casualties, there’s barely any sacrifice going on. In short, there’s not imperative to create an incredibly efficient economy that produces much more wealth using substantially extant resources.
Finally, he wonders whether the state of Louisiana could make up capital differences if the federal government doesn’t launch a Works Progress Administration-like program. If he had been paying attention to the recent news that answer would be emphatically negative. The state appears poised to suffer a string of current expenditures exceeding revenues for the next several years so anything beyond the bar minimum the state will be unwilling to supply.
Despite the vapidity of his argument, Elie may get what he wants. After all, presidential candidates Sen. John McCain has promised some increased deficit spending while Obama has promised a lot of deficit spending. Whether that would include flood protection the way he prefers it is another matter. Yet if so, it will happen for all the wrong reasons with unfortunate implications for our national economic health.
Elie commences by writing the consequences of the credit crunch could rival those of the Great Depression. This is a projection of fabulous ignorance. As I have written elsewhere, the root causes of the two are different, and to reach those same lows the current unemployment rate would have to quadruple and the economy would have to contract over a tenth. So if Elie sets as a precondition these kinds of conditions to put his thesis in play, he has wasted an entire column on something that is not going to happen. (Even in the worse case scenario where there is something else added on, like the economic policies of Sen. Barack Obama as president, it’s unlikely that conditions would get worse than the worst period since the Depression, the Pres. Jimmy Carter years of the 1970s.)
The column also makes this isn’t the only history Elie does not know, as he labors under the misconception that Pres. Franklin Roosevelt’s failed New Deal policies did anything to get the U.S. out of the Depression. Charitably, they didn’t hurt, but they clearly did not help and in fact likely prolonged it as the economy barely budged from 1933 to 1939 in terms of output and stubbornly high unemployment. It was World War II that finally got America going, nothing that Roosevelt did. So when Elie argues big public works spending as an “untested stimulus” could work, it merely shows he is unaware of the fact that it was found wanting as a stratagem seven decades ago.
Incredulously, Elie also argues there is a disinvestment deficit of a kind (except for “war”), which he appears to define as government spending on things. One wonders whether Elie has been conscious these past several years as federal government spending has mushroomed almost 40 percent in constant dollars in the 21st Century through the projected latest budget where domestic spending has increased at only a slightly slower rate than on defense.
He even gets the impact of wartime spending all wrong. He writes that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have not seemed to have gotten the economy rolling, failing to understand it is not mere expenditures by government which affect the economy, but that the scale and scope of the conflict matter as to what incentives it presents in the private sector. World War II proved so stimulating because it was on a far grander scale than anything before or since requiring a huge mobilization of resources. In order to win it, the Allies had to become incredibly efficient in conserving resources (such as rubber, steel, copper, etc.) and in exploiting underutilized ones (such as the minority and female labor pools).
Such was the vastness of the enterprise that all Americans had to make noticeable sacrifices. But currently, unless a family is involved with force deployment or, most sadly, casualties, there’s barely any sacrifice going on. In short, there’s not imperative to create an incredibly efficient economy that produces much more wealth using substantially extant resources.
Finally, he wonders whether the state of Louisiana could make up capital differences if the federal government doesn’t launch a Works Progress Administration-like program. If he had been paying attention to the recent news that answer would be emphatically negative. The state appears poised to suffer a string of current expenditures exceeding revenues for the next several years so anything beyond the bar minimum the state will be unwilling to supply.
Despite the vapidity of his argument, Elie may get what he wants. After all, presidential candidates Sen. John McCain has promised some increased deficit spending while Obama has promised a lot of deficit spending. Whether that would include flood protection the way he prefers it is another matter. Yet if so, it will happen for all the wrong reasons with unfortunate implications for our national economic health.
21.10.08
Mostly trivial amendments except one merit approval
10/23/08
Yes, the Louisiana Constitution may be too detailed requiring a lot of amendments, but until that changes voters need to reconcile themselves to making informed decisions on alterations, even if they appear trivial.
The current crop of amendments while picayunish for the most part deserve passage, as they will almost imperceptibly change the document. Only a pair of them seem significant, imposing consecutive three-term limits with a two year grace period on appointment to state boards listed in the Constitution, and allowing a substitute legislator to take the place temporarily of one called to active military duty for at least 180 days.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander concerning the former. The same logic why limits are good for legislators applies to board members – fresh perspectives from people that are just as capable, if not moreso, as current seatholders are most desirable.
The one exception that needs voting down is the replacement legislator measure. This would be an appointive position that by its nature subverts the elective, representative nature of the Legislature. There is nothing to prevent a House Speaker or Senate President (the appointers) from putting into the temporary slot somebody who owes their loyalty to that leader and will thereby give short shrift to contrary constituent desires. The honorable thing for a legislator to do who wishes his district not to be without representation in this predicament is to resign immediately to allow a successor’s election as quickly as possible.
Interestingly, the state’s prominent so-called “good government” groups have split on these – one for all, one against, one abstaining. Let this not be confusing: vote for all but amendment #3.
Yes, the Louisiana Constitution may be too detailed requiring a lot of amendments, but until that changes voters need to reconcile themselves to making informed decisions on alterations, even if they appear trivial.
The current crop of amendments while picayunish for the most part deserve passage, as they will almost imperceptibly change the document. Only a pair of them seem significant, imposing consecutive three-term limits with a two year grace period on appointment to state boards listed in the Constitution, and allowing a substitute legislator to take the place temporarily of one called to active military duty for at least 180 days.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander concerning the former. The same logic why limits are good for legislators applies to board members – fresh perspectives from people that are just as capable, if not moreso, as current seatholders are most desirable.
The one exception that needs voting down is the replacement legislator measure. This would be an appointive position that by its nature subverts the elective, representative nature of the Legislature. There is nothing to prevent a House Speaker or Senate President (the appointers) from putting into the temporary slot somebody who owes their loyalty to that leader and will thereby give short shrift to contrary constituent desires. The honorable thing for a legislator to do who wishes his district not to be without representation in this predicament is to resign immediately to allow a successor’s election as quickly as possible.
Interestingly, the state’s prominent so-called “good government” groups have split on these – one for all, one against, one abstaining. Let this not be confusing: vote for all but amendment #3.
20.10.08
Compromising achievement fails both students, LA
Members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and their superintendant of education should feel leery when suggestions of designing two tracks to a high school diploma that may satisfy the needs of politicians, but not of students.
Certain members of BESE and in the state Legislature are suggesting the current high school curriculum in the state, the foundation of which is college preparatory, is inadequate for some students. They cite as evidence a stubbornly-high dropout rate and that they “lose” students because of that curriculum. Thus, they suggest an alteration of curriculum for those who plan to enter the workforce immediately after graduation.
Already there exists the Louisiana Core Curriculum, designed for the non-college-matriculating student, differing from the college-bound Louisiana Core 4 Curriculum by requiring five fewer units leaving eight units as electives with which to use in preparation to pursue a career. But this seems inadequate for the critics, although what they have in mind for change is unclear.
From what little they have said, however, it can’t be good. State Rep. Jim Fannin said traditional math, English and science classes have failed to keep lots of students in school. As an indicator of the difference between “traditional” and potentially a new kind of English class might be like, state Rep. Frank Hoffman argued that could entail teaching the popular literature of somebody like John Grisham rather than classic works of English literature. These critiques cover both content and method.
Such a view entirely misunderstands what education is designed to do and how best to achieve it. Education is not just knowledge of certain things that are integral to knowing how the world works, to understanding the society within which we live, and in communicating ideas, but in the ability to think critically. Using literature as an example, the considered great works of it gain that distinction because they explain the human condition and in ways that stimulate the critical faculties. Having never read him, while I’m sure that the Grisham oeuvre is entertaining, I have my doubts that it explains the human condition in a compelling way that really gets one to thinking.
The same dynamic applies to alteration of math requirements, also suggested by Hoffman. If nothing else, math encourages critical thinking skills, the solving of problems using numbers. This skill is more in demand than ever in America as our levels of achievement in it continue to decline relative to other states in the developed world. Therefore, to move the focus of the curriculum away from its purposes of informing about important ideas and developing critical thinking, despite what Hoffman and others assert, is “watering down.”
What the critics miss is that changing content to be less challenging is an ill-advised attempt to solve a problem by shaping standards to level of current achievement, rather than shaping achievement to meet standards. An apparent assumption being made here is that too many students are just too “dumb” to meet these standards, that they cannot inherently reach this level of achievement hence their diversion into something that appears easier to gain the same reward.
But as Superintendant Paul Pastorek rightly points out, raising standards raises achievement – or in this context, maintaining them will produce a state workforce more capable of economic development. The Core Curriculum looks to be more than adequate in promoting the kind of knowledge base and critical thinking that all graduates need to maximize the state’s economic development. The problem, then, is not in the curriculum itself that needs to be changed to make it easier, but in getting students to achieve to its standards.
And here lies the real failure in Louisiana’s secondary education: standards are not just a function of curriculum, but also of instruction. To restate it: the more demanding the instruction, the greater the likelihood that student achievement will increase. Teachers who hold students accountable to learn more material and to use that material in more difficult critical thinking exercises will produce greater learning.
(Pastorek observes that student performance generally rises when standards go up, but calling it “counterintuitive.” As anybody who has taught at any level for some time will tell you, there’s no mystery to this at all. If stimulated – by a teacher, the imperative of having to pass a test, because you like to learn, whatever – human beings respond by putting in more effort. Demand more out of students, and, unless they have no interest in the rewards of learning at all in which case level of standards don’t matter, they will produce more.)
Why this may be a stumbling block to improved education is that to be more demanding as a teacher simply takes more work as a teacher. For example, covering less material means less preparation for a teacher to make and a reduced need to be organized. Or, giving multiple choice exams rather than essay-based ones makes it a whole lot easier to grade or even to compile the questions, but you’re probably going to get a better idea of the critical thinking and communicative abilities of students with the latter approach. And these things take more work in a system that, frankly, provides little incentive for teachers to make the necessary demands on students to develop their intellects and knowledge bases to higher levels.
In our present approach to education in Louisiana, after a probationary period you’re pretty much set as a teacher. You get automatic pay raises and, when the political winds blow right, more on top of that regardless of your classroom’s performance. In fact, you are informally discouraged from being rigorous because that means you might give more failing grades which to some only makes the school look worse. Thankfully, standardized testing at least provides some incentive to ensure that there are some minimum standards at which to aim other than grades which are so unreliable in measuring quality that a student making a C in one classroom will have learned more and better developed critical thinking skills than others elsewhere who make an A.
Meaningful teacher accountability programs such as subject area testing would solve some of the lack of quality teaching in Louisiana. But hampering it also is the attitude taken by the likes of these legislators who seem to believe the problem is with the standards, not in the expectations of students to meet these standards which will require demanding more, not less, out of both students and teachers. Increased expectations of both students and teachers are the key to improvement and reducing dropouts. Dumbing down the curriculum may be a feel-good political solution that allows lawmakers to take less heat and puff out their chests more with pride, but it disserves those students and the state.
Certain members of BESE and in the state Legislature are suggesting the current high school curriculum in the state, the foundation of which is college preparatory, is inadequate for some students. They cite as evidence a stubbornly-high dropout rate and that they “lose” students because of that curriculum. Thus, they suggest an alteration of curriculum for those who plan to enter the workforce immediately after graduation.
Already there exists the Louisiana Core Curriculum, designed for the non-college-matriculating student, differing from the college-bound Louisiana Core 4 Curriculum by requiring five fewer units leaving eight units as electives with which to use in preparation to pursue a career. But this seems inadequate for the critics, although what they have in mind for change is unclear.
From what little they have said, however, it can’t be good. State Rep. Jim Fannin said traditional math, English and science classes have failed to keep lots of students in school. As an indicator of the difference between “traditional” and potentially a new kind of English class might be like, state Rep. Frank Hoffman argued that could entail teaching the popular literature of somebody like John Grisham rather than classic works of English literature. These critiques cover both content and method.
Such a view entirely misunderstands what education is designed to do and how best to achieve it. Education is not just knowledge of certain things that are integral to knowing how the world works, to understanding the society within which we live, and in communicating ideas, but in the ability to think critically. Using literature as an example, the considered great works of it gain that distinction because they explain the human condition and in ways that stimulate the critical faculties. Having never read him, while I’m sure that the Grisham oeuvre is entertaining, I have my doubts that it explains the human condition in a compelling way that really gets one to thinking.
The same dynamic applies to alteration of math requirements, also suggested by Hoffman. If nothing else, math encourages critical thinking skills, the solving of problems using numbers. This skill is more in demand than ever in America as our levels of achievement in it continue to decline relative to other states in the developed world. Therefore, to move the focus of the curriculum away from its purposes of informing about important ideas and developing critical thinking, despite what Hoffman and others assert, is “watering down.”
What the critics miss is that changing content to be less challenging is an ill-advised attempt to solve a problem by shaping standards to level of current achievement, rather than shaping achievement to meet standards. An apparent assumption being made here is that too many students are just too “dumb” to meet these standards, that they cannot inherently reach this level of achievement hence their diversion into something that appears easier to gain the same reward.
But as Superintendant Paul Pastorek rightly points out, raising standards raises achievement – or in this context, maintaining them will produce a state workforce more capable of economic development. The Core Curriculum looks to be more than adequate in promoting the kind of knowledge base and critical thinking that all graduates need to maximize the state’s economic development. The problem, then, is not in the curriculum itself that needs to be changed to make it easier, but in getting students to achieve to its standards.
And here lies the real failure in Louisiana’s secondary education: standards are not just a function of curriculum, but also of instruction. To restate it: the more demanding the instruction, the greater the likelihood that student achievement will increase. Teachers who hold students accountable to learn more material and to use that material in more difficult critical thinking exercises will produce greater learning.
(Pastorek observes that student performance generally rises when standards go up, but calling it “counterintuitive.” As anybody who has taught at any level for some time will tell you, there’s no mystery to this at all. If stimulated – by a teacher, the imperative of having to pass a test, because you like to learn, whatever – human beings respond by putting in more effort. Demand more out of students, and, unless they have no interest in the rewards of learning at all in which case level of standards don’t matter, they will produce more.)
Why this may be a stumbling block to improved education is that to be more demanding as a teacher simply takes more work as a teacher. For example, covering less material means less preparation for a teacher to make and a reduced need to be organized. Or, giving multiple choice exams rather than essay-based ones makes it a whole lot easier to grade or even to compile the questions, but you’re probably going to get a better idea of the critical thinking and communicative abilities of students with the latter approach. And these things take more work in a system that, frankly, provides little incentive for teachers to make the necessary demands on students to develop their intellects and knowledge bases to higher levels.
In our present approach to education in Louisiana, after a probationary period you’re pretty much set as a teacher. You get automatic pay raises and, when the political winds blow right, more on top of that regardless of your classroom’s performance. In fact, you are informally discouraged from being rigorous because that means you might give more failing grades which to some only makes the school look worse. Thankfully, standardized testing at least provides some incentive to ensure that there are some minimum standards at which to aim other than grades which are so unreliable in measuring quality that a student making a C in one classroom will have learned more and better developed critical thinking skills than others elsewhere who make an A.
Meaningful teacher accountability programs such as subject area testing would solve some of the lack of quality teaching in Louisiana. But hampering it also is the attitude taken by the likes of these legislators who seem to believe the problem is with the standards, not in the expectations of students to meet these standards which will require demanding more, not less, out of both students and teachers. Increased expectations of both students and teachers are the key to improvement and reducing dropouts. Dumbing down the curriculum may be a feel-good political solution that allows lawmakers to take less heat and puff out their chests more with pride, but it disserves those students and the state.
19.10.08
Deteriorating budget figures demands saving, not spending
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there shouldn’t be much debate about what to do with the $865 million soon-to-be-declared Louisiana budgetary surplus, with a projected 2009-10 operating budget deficit of $1.3 billion according to the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration.
The surplus from the 2007-08 fiscal year must be declared as nonrecurring and therefore constitutionally may be spent on only a half-dozen purposes, none of which can be recurring operations for next fiscal year. However, ways can be devised to cushion the blow.
By statute, a minimum portion of the nonrecurring surplus must be put into the Budget Stabilization Fund which acts as a savings account for the state. But it also provides that much more than this minimum can land here, as the fund can contain a maximum of four percent of the state’s last declared revenue receipts (excepting disaster relief grants’ amounts). That would be in the neighborhood of $1.2 billion, meaning the fund can take in about $400 million more. Then, a third of this or $400 million again can be used to balance the budget.
(I would like to give more exact figures, and legally I should be able to as statutes stipulate that the Revenue Estimating Conference, the body that will make the official surplus declaration, must compute a fund balance and publish it in the September Louisiana Register, the compendium of executive branch proclamations with the force of law. But for whatever reason despite L.R.S. 39:95 that information was not published as required, so I am using older information)
The remainder legally could be used to pay off debt scheduled for redemption next fiscal year. Interest savings from that would only be an estimated $20 million or so for next year, but if the principal retained is then not rolled forward to pay off other future debt that could be now also paid off earlier, the whole remaining figure could be used. Together they would not make up all of the deficit, but they substantially could eat into it.
The Jindal Administration is said to be reviewing its spending options for the portion that is not required to go into the Budget Stabilization Fund, presumably in areas such as road construction, coastal restoration, and addressing unfunded accrued liabilities in retirement pension programs. While particular political benefits may be realized by spending on road projects, and all areas have some need, the greater need clearly is for buffering continuing future operations. Such discussions need to cease and the solution above then implemented.
The surplus from the 2007-08 fiscal year must be declared as nonrecurring and therefore constitutionally may be spent on only a half-dozen purposes, none of which can be recurring operations for next fiscal year. However, ways can be devised to cushion the blow.
By statute, a minimum portion of the nonrecurring surplus must be put into the Budget Stabilization Fund which acts as a savings account for the state. But it also provides that much more than this minimum can land here, as the fund can contain a maximum of four percent of the state’s last declared revenue receipts (excepting disaster relief grants’ amounts). That would be in the neighborhood of $1.2 billion, meaning the fund can take in about $400 million more. Then, a third of this or $400 million again can be used to balance the budget.
(I would like to give more exact figures, and legally I should be able to as statutes stipulate that the Revenue Estimating Conference, the body that will make the official surplus declaration, must compute a fund balance and publish it in the September Louisiana Register, the compendium of executive branch proclamations with the force of law. But for whatever reason despite L.R.S. 39:95 that information was not published as required, so I am using older information)
The remainder legally could be used to pay off debt scheduled for redemption next fiscal year. Interest savings from that would only be an estimated $20 million or so for next year, but if the principal retained is then not rolled forward to pay off other future debt that could be now also paid off earlier, the whole remaining figure could be used. Together they would not make up all of the deficit, but they substantially could eat into it.
The Jindal Administration is said to be reviewing its spending options for the portion that is not required to go into the Budget Stabilization Fund, presumably in areas such as road construction, coastal restoration, and addressing unfunded accrued liabilities in retirement pension programs. While particular political benefits may be realized by spending on road projects, and all areas have some need, the greater need clearly is for buffering continuing future operations. Such discussions need to cease and the solution above then implemented.
16.10.08
BESE needs to reinforce honesty by banning dishonesty
From their earliest days, schoolchildren are taught to not to cheat. Their elders on certain school boards could take a lesson from their charges.
In particular, the East Baton Rouge School Board is weighing a plan to adjust accountability scores for their schools. Following the precedents set by Jefferson and Iberia Parishes, rather than compute test scores for a school based upon all students attending that school, they want to gimmick the process by taking scores of students attending magnet schools and count them towards the schools in their attendance zones (if not already in it). Typically, this would have the effect of raising the averages at the home schools which may help some of them avoid being designated as unacceptable and whose governance then could be transferred outside of the district.
Supporters argue this already is done for alternative school students, or those who have learning or behavioral problems, and that it has been sanctioned in the other two parishes. The state’s highest school board, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, has no current policy on this but some members are sympathetic to the EBRPSS argument.
In particular, the East Baton Rouge School Board is weighing a plan to adjust accountability scores for their schools. Following the precedents set by Jefferson and Iberia Parishes, rather than compute test scores for a school based upon all students attending that school, they want to gimmick the process by taking scores of students attending magnet schools and count them towards the schools in their attendance zones (if not already in it). Typically, this would have the effect of raising the averages at the home schools which may help some of them avoid being designated as unacceptable and whose governance then could be transferred outside of the district.
Supporters argue this already is done for alternative school students, or those who have learning or behavioral problems, and that it has been sanctioned in the other two parishes. The state’s highest school board, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, has no current policy on this but some members are sympathetic to the EBRPSS argument.
15.10.08
Democrat candidates paint stripes on horse, call it zebra
Regardless of whether it is past performance or future promises, Louisiana Democrats running for reelection to Congress keep trying to say one thing and hope you don’t look deeper to find out what they say they are and what they truly are in fact are different things.
Both Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Don Cazayoux keep trying to run from their liberalism, carefully choosing their rhetoric to shield themselves from reality. But their actions and words keep tripping them up.
Landrieu’s actions belie the “centrist” label she keeps trying to claim, even as it has fooled some otherwise intelligent, attentive people. She will spout off how the for 2007 the publication National Journal rated her at the median of senators on her voting record and how she votes with her liberal party the second-least of any senator.
But looking at Landrieu’s relative standing among her peers obscures the fact that she is very liberal, by her record, because even if she is among the least liberal of all the liberals she’s still being very liberal. Or another way to look at it, put Landrieu-endorsee for president Sen. Barack Obama, and his associates the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Rev. Michael Pflegler, and admitted terrorist Bill Ayres together in the same room, and Obama might be the most “centrist” of the bunch. Yet that does not change the fact that he was rated in 2007 by the National Journal as the most liberal senator as he is scored as extremely liberal.
Landrieu the magazine ranks on the liberal side, if not by much, at 53.7 (100 being perfectly liberal) in 2007. However, Landrieu has a history of sliding towards to center in the years leading up to an election. A better indicator comes from the American Conservative Union’s scorecard of her, which shows she has a 22.4 lifetime rating (1997-2007, where 0 is the perfect liberal score), but remove the years 2001, 2002, and 2007 where she scored 28, 35, and 40, respectively, her average when she thinks she isn’t being watched is an 18. Somebody who votes the liberal line when uninfluenced by electoral politics 82 percent of the time simply is no “centrist” or “moderate.” (Her liberalism is mirrored if not better shown in the ratings put out by the Americans for Democratic Action, where, for example, she scored an 80 of 100 for liberalism in 2007.)
The same applies to her party defection rate. Maybe she’s second-least loyal in the Senate, but when you vote with your party about 78 percent of the time, that’s still being pretty loyal to a party a minority of Louisianans voted for in eight of the nine latest statewide elections. Landrieu’s rhetoric on this matter simply attempts to con voters.
While Cazayoux doesn’t have Landrieu’s record because he’s hardly spent any time in Congress, it’s his talking out of both sides of his mouth which gives him away. At a recent candidate forum, he, who also has endorsed Obama, stated he was against tax increases, for cutting the federal budget, and saying any increased spending would have to be offset by cuts elsewhere (known as “PAYGO”).
Of course, these stated preferences run counter to his party’s articulated goals and, most importantly, against Obama’s who has promised tax increases that will end up affecting negatively most Americans, over a trillion dollars of new spending supported mainly by tax increases (which would not come close to finding that amount of revenue), and, in something Cazayoux hasn’t seemed to have heard yet from his own party, PAYGO is dead.
Cazayoux can’t have it all ways, but that’s obviously something he won’t tell voters. And it’s probably not going to be his way anyway, because if the Democrats get control of both branches of government, the leadership will breathe down his neck to vote their way on these controversial issues, needing every vote it can get to pass such radical changes. Chances are, if he could get reelected, he will end up voting for tax increases and spending increases and probably the only budget cutting he’ll get a chance to vote for is cutting off funds to win the war in Iraq.
At least his opponents state Rep. Michael Jackson and state Sen. Bill Cassidy are honest about who they are and what they’ll do. But, like Landrieu, Cazayoux knows the only chance he has of winning is to appear to be something that he is not. And thus we get this convoluted exercise from both of painting a pale horse with stripes and calling it a zebra.
Both Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Don Cazayoux keep trying to run from their liberalism, carefully choosing their rhetoric to shield themselves from reality. But their actions and words keep tripping them up.
Landrieu’s actions belie the “centrist” label she keeps trying to claim, even as it has fooled some otherwise intelligent, attentive people. She will spout off how the for 2007 the publication National Journal rated her at the median of senators on her voting record and how she votes with her liberal party the second-least of any senator.
But looking at Landrieu’s relative standing among her peers obscures the fact that she is very liberal, by her record, because even if she is among the least liberal of all the liberals she’s still being very liberal. Or another way to look at it, put Landrieu-endorsee for president Sen. Barack Obama, and his associates the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Rev. Michael Pflegler, and admitted terrorist Bill Ayres together in the same room, and Obama might be the most “centrist” of the bunch. Yet that does not change the fact that he was rated in 2007 by the National Journal as the most liberal senator as he is scored as extremely liberal.
Landrieu the magazine ranks on the liberal side, if not by much, at 53.7 (100 being perfectly liberal) in 2007. However, Landrieu has a history of sliding towards to center in the years leading up to an election. A better indicator comes from the American Conservative Union’s scorecard of her, which shows she has a 22.4 lifetime rating (1997-2007, where 0 is the perfect liberal score), but remove the years 2001, 2002, and 2007 where she scored 28, 35, and 40, respectively, her average when she thinks she isn’t being watched is an 18. Somebody who votes the liberal line when uninfluenced by electoral politics 82 percent of the time simply is no “centrist” or “moderate.” (Her liberalism is mirrored if not better shown in the ratings put out by the Americans for Democratic Action, where, for example, she scored an 80 of 100 for liberalism in 2007.)
The same applies to her party defection rate. Maybe she’s second-least loyal in the Senate, but when you vote with your party about 78 percent of the time, that’s still being pretty loyal to a party a minority of Louisianans voted for in eight of the nine latest statewide elections. Landrieu’s rhetoric on this matter simply attempts to con voters.
While Cazayoux doesn’t have Landrieu’s record because he’s hardly spent any time in Congress, it’s his talking out of both sides of his mouth which gives him away. At a recent candidate forum, he, who also has endorsed Obama, stated he was against tax increases, for cutting the federal budget, and saying any increased spending would have to be offset by cuts elsewhere (known as “PAYGO”).
Of course, these stated preferences run counter to his party’s articulated goals and, most importantly, against Obama’s who has promised tax increases that will end up affecting negatively most Americans, over a trillion dollars of new spending supported mainly by tax increases (which would not come close to finding that amount of revenue), and, in something Cazayoux hasn’t seemed to have heard yet from his own party, PAYGO is dead.
Cazayoux can’t have it all ways, but that’s obviously something he won’t tell voters. And it’s probably not going to be his way anyway, because if the Democrats get control of both branches of government, the leadership will breathe down his neck to vote their way on these controversial issues, needing every vote it can get to pass such radical changes. Chances are, if he could get reelected, he will end up voting for tax increases and spending increases and probably the only budget cutting he’ll get a chance to vote for is cutting off funds to win the war in Iraq.
At least his opponents state Rep. Michael Jackson and state Sen. Bill Cassidy are honest about who they are and what they’ll do. But, like Landrieu, Cazayoux knows the only chance he has of winning is to appear to be something that he is not. And thus we get this convoluted exercise from both of painting a pale horse with stripes and calling it a zebra.
14.10.08
Ministers misplace faith in Jefferson endorsement
Am I missing something here? A collection of black ministers has endorsed embattled Rep. Bill Jefferson, who is black, for reelection despite the fact he is under indictment for influence peddling, against political newcomer and non-black Helena Moreno for the Democrat nomination.
As regards someone accused of dishonesty in government, one might think ministers in particular would shy away from that candidacy. But apparently not, as Jefferson is touted as the best choice because they believe him to be “effective.”
Ministering to the faithful requires some degree of wisdom, yet in remarks made about the endorsement leads to wondering whether they possess the good judgment needed to lead their flocks. Their spokesman, for one, believes in Jefferson’s innocence. While this certain adheres to the power of faith, after a certain point faith becomes wishful thinking. Besides the mountain of evidence and Jefferson’s associates, friends, and relatives singing like birds about his role, just last week former state Sen. Derrick Shepherd plead guilty to a separate crime which implicated Jefferson. Legally, anyone not yet found guilty of a crime is innocent of it, but at a certain point when giving political direction credulity must factor in.
But let’s really give Jefferson the benefit of the doubt beyond what he deserves. Regardless, there must be great doubt about whether he is “effective” as a member of Congress. He has been stripped of committee assignments where most influence is attained and is shunned by the Democrat leadership, desperate to deflect attention from other scandals such as those concerning Reps. Barney Frank with improper influence and Tim Mahoney with hush money.
All right, let’s concede that, somehow believing Jefferson still could have more pull that a new representative unencumbered by all of this baggage. Yet this brings us to the most baffling aspect of the endorsement, where the spokesman argued even if Jefferson were found guilty and subsequently removed, “I would rather at least go back and have a special election than put the wrong person in.”
Silly me, but if that happened, wouldn’t that prove that Jefferson himself was the “wrong” person? So wouldn’t it make more sense to put someone in office initially that could build up some seniority and not have to go to the trouble of a special election in the first place? And thus avoid the risk of starting over and dealing with a felon?
(“Wrong” is a poor choice of words in this instance; I hope it isn’t being used as a synonym of “not black.” Further, it bears noting whether these ministers also favor Sen. Barack Obama at the presidential level who bleats incessantly about the necessity of “change,” couched in illusory terms. Would that not be inconsistent with their support of a nine-term incumbent?)
Why should men of God recommend such a flawed specimen and with odd reasoning? These spiritual leaders sound like they have let too much of worldly concern affect the electoral advice they implicitly give their congregations.
As regards someone accused of dishonesty in government, one might think ministers in particular would shy away from that candidacy. But apparently not, as Jefferson is touted as the best choice because they believe him to be “effective.”
Ministering to the faithful requires some degree of wisdom, yet in remarks made about the endorsement leads to wondering whether they possess the good judgment needed to lead their flocks. Their spokesman, for one, believes in Jefferson’s innocence. While this certain adheres to the power of faith, after a certain point faith becomes wishful thinking. Besides the mountain of evidence and Jefferson’s associates, friends, and relatives singing like birds about his role, just last week former state Sen. Derrick Shepherd plead guilty to a separate crime which implicated Jefferson. Legally, anyone not yet found guilty of a crime is innocent of it, but at a certain point when giving political direction credulity must factor in.
But let’s really give Jefferson the benefit of the doubt beyond what he deserves. Regardless, there must be great doubt about whether he is “effective” as a member of Congress. He has been stripped of committee assignments where most influence is attained and is shunned by the Democrat leadership, desperate to deflect attention from other scandals such as those concerning Reps. Barney Frank with improper influence and Tim Mahoney with hush money.
All right, let’s concede that, somehow believing Jefferson still could have more pull that a new representative unencumbered by all of this baggage. Yet this brings us to the most baffling aspect of the endorsement, where the spokesman argued even if Jefferson were found guilty and subsequently removed, “I would rather at least go back and have a special election than put the wrong person in.”
Silly me, but if that happened, wouldn’t that prove that Jefferson himself was the “wrong” person? So wouldn’t it make more sense to put someone in office initially that could build up some seniority and not have to go to the trouble of a special election in the first place? And thus avoid the risk of starting over and dealing with a felon?
(“Wrong” is a poor choice of words in this instance; I hope it isn’t being used as a synonym of “not black.” Further, it bears noting whether these ministers also favor Sen. Barack Obama at the presidential level who bleats incessantly about the necessity of “change,” couched in illusory terms. Would that not be inconsistent with their support of a nine-term incumbent?)
Why should men of God recommend such a flawed specimen and with odd reasoning? These spiritual leaders sound like they have let too much of worldly concern affect the electoral advice they implicitly give their congregations.
13.10.08
Column needs history, economics lessons to contribute
Unfortunately, ignorance about political history and economics is all too common in the American public, but it is particularly tragic when we see it in those who disseminate information (that does not constitute a politically dishonest attempt to persuade; in that case it is not tragic but venial). Regrettably, longtime political journalist Jim Beam fell victim to this in a recent column.
Beam asserts that the recent difficulties in the credit markets that caused big selloffs in the equities markets make 2008 too uncomfortably close to 1929, considered the start of the Great Depression, raising the specter of another economic dislocation of that magnitude. This misunderstands that the precipitant of the two events, easy credit. In 1929, borrowing money to buy securities without any real collateral was the straw that broke the camel’s back, whereas in 2008 the borrowing comes with substantial real assets attached. Nor are the magnitudes of the events even closely comparable.
Perhaps he does not recognize the difference because he does not understand what caused the Great Depression in the first place. Too much credit was being extended, but that doesn’t answer why that happened. The answer: government intervention that distorts the marketplace (this summation of a larger academic work probably explains it most elegantly). In the 1920s it was because of government’s expansionary monetary policy obsessed with price stabilization and trade flows, coupled with a sufficiently immature central banking system. None of these conditions operate today; rather, a reason just as political has caused it: policy to push lending to individuals of dubious ability to manage that debt (which Beam doesn’t seem to grasp, either).
Instead, Beam relies on one of the most discredited pieces of boilerplate explanation for the Great Depression, income inequality causing underconsumption at the lower end of the wealth continuum. This view totally ignores that overproduction from easy credit causes a supply problem (too much) yet props up prices artificially so underconsumption occurs not because too many people have too little money, but that artificially low credit pricing encourages them to overextend and waste their resources on something they cannot afford. (During the 1920s, this caused wage stagnation even as prices barely crept up, not the case today.) Proportion of wealth held by various income classes has nothing to do economic performance (unless it is a matter of government policy to redistribute income for that very reason of perceived inequality, which then impedes economic performance and growth).
Not only does Beam not know what caused the Great Depression, neither does he know what ended it. While he believes it was Pres. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, the historical record shows otherwise (this summarizes a good nonacademic and recent work on this point). It actually started with Roosevelt’s predecessor Pres. Herbert Hoover who began to ramp up government spending and planning but it was Roosevelt who started on direct cash payments. Either way, what could have been a relatively short if sharp downturn was prolonged by government interference in the marketplace. In fact, almost a decade later economic conditions hardly were any better than they had been at the beginning of 1929, years after New Deal implementation. Beam needs to understand there was little Roosevelt’s policies did that improved the situation in any way, while his optimistic rhetoric at least boosted confidence. What did end it was World War II, which demanded a massive efficient use of resources that government on its own could not and is institutionally incapable of engineering.
Properly understanding the past and how it relates to conditions today, this helps explain why Louisiana is less likely to be affected by the fallout of this retrenchment. Had Beam a surer knowledge of history and economics, he might have contributed meaningfully to this assessment.
Beam asserts that the recent difficulties in the credit markets that caused big selloffs in the equities markets make 2008 too uncomfortably close to 1929, considered the start of the Great Depression, raising the specter of another economic dislocation of that magnitude. This misunderstands that the precipitant of the two events, easy credit. In 1929, borrowing money to buy securities without any real collateral was the straw that broke the camel’s back, whereas in 2008 the borrowing comes with substantial real assets attached. Nor are the magnitudes of the events even closely comparable.
Perhaps he does not recognize the difference because he does not understand what caused the Great Depression in the first place. Too much credit was being extended, but that doesn’t answer why that happened. The answer: government intervention that distorts the marketplace (this summation of a larger academic work probably explains it most elegantly). In the 1920s it was because of government’s expansionary monetary policy obsessed with price stabilization and trade flows, coupled with a sufficiently immature central banking system. None of these conditions operate today; rather, a reason just as political has caused it: policy to push lending to individuals of dubious ability to manage that debt (which Beam doesn’t seem to grasp, either).
Instead, Beam relies on one of the most discredited pieces of boilerplate explanation for the Great Depression, income inequality causing underconsumption at the lower end of the wealth continuum. This view totally ignores that overproduction from easy credit causes a supply problem (too much) yet props up prices artificially so underconsumption occurs not because too many people have too little money, but that artificially low credit pricing encourages them to overextend and waste their resources on something they cannot afford. (During the 1920s, this caused wage stagnation even as prices barely crept up, not the case today.) Proportion of wealth held by various income classes has nothing to do economic performance (unless it is a matter of government policy to redistribute income for that very reason of perceived inequality, which then impedes economic performance and growth).
Not only does Beam not know what caused the Great Depression, neither does he know what ended it. While he believes it was Pres. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, the historical record shows otherwise (this summarizes a good nonacademic and recent work on this point). It actually started with Roosevelt’s predecessor Pres. Herbert Hoover who began to ramp up government spending and planning but it was Roosevelt who started on direct cash payments. Either way, what could have been a relatively short if sharp downturn was prolonged by government interference in the marketplace. In fact, almost a decade later economic conditions hardly were any better than they had been at the beginning of 1929, years after New Deal implementation. Beam needs to understand there was little Roosevelt’s policies did that improved the situation in any way, while his optimistic rhetoric at least boosted confidence. What did end it was World War II, which demanded a massive efficient use of resources that government on its own could not and is institutionally incapable of engineering.
Properly understanding the past and how it relates to conditions today, this helps explain why Louisiana is less likely to be affected by the fallout of this retrenchment. Had Beam a surer knowledge of history and economics, he might have contributed meaningfully to this assessment.
12.10.08
Debate shows Kennedy has chance to make up ground
While polls show Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu holding a decent lead in her reelection bid against Republican Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy, she has been unable to gain a decisive advantage with public’s intended vote (which to some degree probably only reflected name recognition rather than real intent). She had a chance make progress towards that goal, and Kennedy an opportunity to work to closing the gap, at their Louisiana Public Broadcasting-sponsored debate Sunday night.
Landrieu’s strategy has been to assert she has some kind of “independence” from her party and ideology – despite the fact that she votes with it most of the time and has a lifetime 22.4 rating from the American Conservative Union (0 meaning a perfect liberal voting record – and trying to convince voters that Kennedy is shiftless. By the same token, Kennedy plays up her liberal votes and stresses a mix of conservative themes especially on fiscal issues while trying to demonstrate he has rethought some of his past preferences. In their debate, both candidates went after each others self-drawn perceptions.
On several occasions she touted how she was “independent,” that her “seniority” would benefit the state, how she had displayed “effectiveness,” and that she could work in a “bipartisan” manner – playing to the populist mentality in Louisiana where many see their elected officials as paraders throwing goodies off of floats. He refused to concede, such as describing her agreeing philosophically with Sen. Barack Obama’s nationalization of health care policy, or voting with Obama on the Democrat measure that would have forced withdrawal from Iraq, or that even as she is chairwoman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security responsible for disaster relief that her influence amounted to nothing in speeding up the ongoing recovery process from the 2005 hurricane disasters.
Landrieu’s strategy has been to assert she has some kind of “independence” from her party and ideology – despite the fact that she votes with it most of the time and has a lifetime 22.4 rating from the American Conservative Union (0 meaning a perfect liberal voting record – and trying to convince voters that Kennedy is shiftless. By the same token, Kennedy plays up her liberal votes and stresses a mix of conservative themes especially on fiscal issues while trying to demonstrate he has rethought some of his past preferences. In their debate, both candidates went after each others self-drawn perceptions.
On several occasions she touted how she was “independent,” that her “seniority” would benefit the state, how she had displayed “effectiveness,” and that she could work in a “bipartisan” manner – playing to the populist mentality in Louisiana where many see their elected officials as paraders throwing goodies off of floats. He refused to concede, such as describing her agreeing philosophically with Sen. Barack Obama’s nationalization of health care policy, or voting with Obama on the Democrat measure that would have forced withdrawal from Iraq, or that even as she is chairwoman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security responsible for disaster relief that her influence amounted to nothing in speeding up the ongoing recovery process from the 2005 hurricane disasters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)