Obama, Political Hack

During the campaign for the Democratic nomination last year, President Obama rejected Hillary Clinton's call for mandated health insurance. He claimed it wasn't needed, that if health insurance were more affordable, people would buy it. During the presidential camapagn against John McCain, President Obama called McCain's call for removing the tax advantage of employer provided health insurance a tax hike.

Now President Obama has embraced both ideas in the space of two days (via the NYT):

One day after signaling a fresh willingness to consider taxing employer-sponsored health insurance, President Obama indicated yesterday a new openness toward a nationwide requirement that every American have health coverage.

I think the basic premise of Democratic plans to reform health care is false. They claim that we can cover everyone and reduce the cost, but that claim makes one wonder whether anyone on the left side of the aisle passed Econ 101. Quite simply, you cannot increase the demand for a product or service without a corresponding increase the supply of the product/service and expect to see a reduction in cost. All of the plans to talked about to date will increase the demand for healthcare and do nothing to expand the supply. It seems to me, based on my understanding of supply/demand theory, that this has to cause an increase in price.

Until someone devises a plan to address the supply side of the equation, all claims of cost reductions are either fantasy or an implicit call for price controls (which would exacerbate the supply situation). The only other option is to reduce demand through rationing of some sort. I don't think that's what most people who voted for Obama had in mind.

President Obama ran as a different kind of politician. He's not. He's just like every other career politician of either party. He said what he needed to say to get elected and now he's backtracking. I'm not surprised, but I wonder how all those independents and quasi Republicans who voted for him feel.

A Charter School That Works

When it comes to education, President Obama has said that he wants to look at what works and then replicate it. He should take a look at American Indian Public Charters in Oakland, CA:

Reporting from Oakland -- Not many schools in California recruit teachers with language like this: "We are looking for hard working people who believe in free market capitalism. . . . Multicultural specialists, ultra liberal zealots and college-tainted oppression liberators need not apply."

That, it turns out, is just the beginning of the ways in which American Indian Public Charter and its two sibling schools spit in the eye of mainstream education. These small, no-frills, independent public schools in the hardscrabble flats of Oakland sometimes seem like creations of television's "Colbert Report." They mock liberal orthodoxy with such zeal that it can seem like a parody.

School administrators take pride in their record of frequently firing teachers they consider to be underperforming. Unions are embraced with the same warmth accorded "self-esteem experts, panhandlers, drug dealers and those snapping turtles who refuse to put forth their best effort," to quote the school's website.

It isn't politically correct, but it works:

It would be easy to dismiss American Indian as one of the nuttier offshoots of the fast-growing charter school movement, which allows schools to receive public funding but operate outside of day-to-day district oversight. But the schools command attention for one very simple reason: By standard measures, they are among the very best in California.

The Academic Performance Index, the central measuring tool for California schools, rates schools on a scale from zero to 1,000, based on standardized test scores. The state target is an API of 800. The statewide average for middle and high schools is below 750. For schools with mostly low-income students, it is around 650.

The oldest of the American Indian schools, the middle school known simply as American Indian Public Charter School, has an API of 967. Its two siblings -- American Indian Public Charter School II (also a middle school) and American Indian Public High School -- are not far behind.

Among the thousands of public schools in California, only four middle schools and three high schools score higher. None of them serves mostly underprivileged children.

At American Indian, the largest ethnic group is Asian, followed by Latinos and African Americans. Some of the schools' critics contend that high-scoring Asian Americans are driving the test scores, but blacks and Latinos do roughly as well -- in fact, better on some tests.

That makes American Indian a rarity in American education, defying the axiom that poor black and Latino children will lag behind others in school.

Read the whole story. Very inspiring. Chances of President Obama endorsing the approach? Zero...

Doctors Protecting Their Turf

Healthcare reform is unlikely to reduce the cost of healthcare for one simple reason. Universal coverage will increase the demand for heathcare services while the supply will remain constrained. We already have a shortage of healthcare professionals and at least part of the reason for that is the top down cost controls imposed by Medicare. In many states, it is difficult for Medicare patients to find doctors willing to take them. In MA where they have enacted a universal coverage mandate, the waiting times for doctors is rising rapidly as the demand outstrips the supply.

One way to increase the supply of healthcare services is to allow nurse practitioners to provide basic medical care. A number of retailers such as Walgreens and Walmart are already doing this. These clinics provide basic medical care and refer patients to doctors for more complicated procedures.

Of course, doctors aren't happy about this since it reduces the demand for their services:

Despite better protections from malpractice lawsuits and lower malpractice premiums, Texas has a doctor shortage. Nevertheless, the Texas Medical Association took every step to ensure physicians will have a tight rein on the activities of well-trained nurses.

The barrier against nurses will continue to keep low-fee retail health clinics, such as those operated by Walgreen and CVS drug store chains, from expanding in Texas. The state law requiring doctor supervision adds too much cost to the clinics.

Texas has only about 85 of the 1,200 retail health clinics in the nation. San Antonio does not have a single one. The clinics are popular wherever they exist because nurse practitioners can treat common ailments and minor injuries with little waiting time and fees that average about $60, much less than emergency rooms. The clinics operate evenings and weekends and accept insurance plans.

The clinics would represent real health care reform, especially in Texas. Most of the state, 179 counties out of 254, is classified as medically underserved. Among them are 45 metropolitan counties, including Bexar.

Rules such as those that require a doctor to supervise a nurse practitioner are enacted under the banner of consumer protection, but what they really are is a way to limit competition in the market place. The AMA (and the state versions of same), like any professional organization, is primarily interested in protecting its members.

June Freeman Available

The June issue of The Freeman is available on line. I'll post articles later.

Supply and Demand Cannot be Conned

Who wrote this?

The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit....

The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money ... increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise.

You are excused if you didn't guess Alan Greenspan. I cribbed that from this essay by the indispensable Sheldon Richman.

It seems that Alan Greespan was fully aware of what he was doing during his tenure as Fed Chairman. He predicted the credit expansion and then ensured that it would happen. Thanks, Al.

A commodity standard is the only monetary system that can't be bent to the will of politicians. And of course, they will oppose it at every turn, so the only way we'll get it is after the dollar is completely destroyed. And that may not be as long as we might hope. See here and here

Sheldon Richman: Government IS the Problem with Healthcare

Sheldon Richman, the wonderful editor of The Freeman, exposes the real cause of healthcare inflation (via FEE):

It is not the free market that has failed. It is government.

Therefore, the second approach to cost-cutting is in order: Eliminate all the ways that government causes medical price inflation. These range from supply-side interventions—including occupational licensing, certificates of need, the FDA, and patents—to demand-side interventions—including tax favoritism toward employer-based insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. Third-party payment that makes medical services appear free or nearly so encourages overconsumption and raises costs indirectly for everyone, with particular hardship to those not participating in the programs.

To set things right, consumer prices and true costs must be aligned through the market process. People would then become cost-conscious buyers of services and would most likely reserve insurance for truly insurable catastrophic events. Of course, some who need medical attention wouldn’t be able to afford it. That would be less frequent in a real free market, but when it occurred, the answer would be voluntary charity rather than clumsy bureaucratic intervention.

Government always tries to blame its failures on the free market. Government intervention in the healthcare system goes all the way back to WWII, when the third party payment system emerged as a way to avoid government imposed compensation caps. The more government has gotten involved in healthcare, the faster the price has risen. The obvious answer is to reduce the role of government in healthcare (and the insurance companies who only got involved through government intervention in the market), but when was the last time government offered to reduce its role in anything?

The Climate Industrial Complex

Bjorn Lomborg had an OpEd in the WSJ yesterday with that title. The OpEd illustrates that the companies lobbying for cap and trade will benefit from the system. Well, duh. The companies that receive their permits for free, and there will be a lot of them after the lobbying is done, will receive a windfall just as they did when Europe enacted their cap and trade system.

Ronald Bailey at Reason also wrote about this last month and he's posted on it again today at their blog, Hit and Run:

A 2007 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study reported the results of a hypothetical 23 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions (the Waxman-Markey bill proposes a 20 percent cut by 2020). The CBO found that "giving away allowances could yield windfall profits for the producers that received them by effectively transferring income from consumers to firms' owners and shareholders." And how big would the windfall be? "If all of the allowances were distributed for free to producers in the oil, natural gas, and coal sectors, stock values would double for oil and gas producers and increase more than sevenfold for coal producers, compared with projected values in the absence of a cap," concluded the CBO report.

In 2007 Congressional testimony, then-CBO Director Peter Orszag explained, "The government could either raise $100 by selling allowances and then give that amount in cash to particular businesses and individuals, or it could simply give $100 worth of allowances to those businesses and individuals, who could immediately and easily transform the allowances into cash through the secondary market." More recently, in his March testimony before the House Budget Committee, Orszag, who is now President Obama's budget director declared, "If you didn't auction the permits it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States. All of the evidence suggests that what would occur is that corporate profits would increase by approximately the value of the permits."

Being a believer in public choice theory, none of this surprises me. What does surprise me is that the allegedly intelligent people in the environmental movement didn't figure out that this would be the result of their push for more regulation. Haven't they ever heard of regulatory capture?

And why do so called liberals, who believe they know what's best for poor people (and everybody else too, the busybody motherfuckers), support policies which hurt the poor the most. First, they supported turning corn into ethanol so they could feel better about filling up their SUV. Sure it raised food prices, a large part of a poor person's budget, but hey, at least they lowered their carbon footprint. Or at least they thought they did. And now they support cap and trade which will raise energy costs, another large part of a poor person's budget. If I didn't know better, I'd think the liberals had a grudge against the poor.

90-6

That's the Senate vote tally on keeping Guantanamo open. James Taranto of the WSJ Best of the Web blog discovers Republican obstructionism in the vote:

During the dark days of the Bush administration, the United States of America held hundreds of innocent terrorists without charge in a maximum-security detention facility in a communist country. Barack Obama was elected on a promise to end this injustice, and just days after taking office, he issued an executive order promising to keep that promise. It was a victory for American values, but it is now being snatched away by Republican obstructionists.

Read the whole thing; it's hilarious.

On a more serious note, what are we to do about Guantanamo? I don't like the idea of holding people indefinitely without some kind of due process, but what exactly can we do with these people? It seems like every one we release ends up fighting against us again and I don't think they deserve the full US court treatment.

The best answer I can come up with is to get the hell out of Afghanistan and release them back there. No other country has ever been able to pacify the region and I think our chances are just as slim.

Fork in the Road

My daughter, an art student at San Francisco Art Institute, recently snapped this picture in Oakland, CA.




She asks: If you find a fork in the road, do you take it or take its picture?

New York's Millionaire Drain

From the Buffalo News:

ALBANY — B. Thomas Golisano, Florida's newest resident from New York, says he still thinks he can have a role to play influencing politics in the Empire State — while living 1,200 miles away in his Gulf-side condo.

Lamenting the high cost of taxes and spending by New York's governments, even Golisano, who ran for governor three times, sounded like some of the wind of his reform sails has diminished.

Just months after spending several million dollars in last fall's state elections trying, he says, to improve the ways of Albany, the former Rochester billionaire said today he did not know exactly what role he might try to play in next year's elections, which includes the entire Legislature and the governorship.

"I wish there were 100,000 people standing behind me feeling the same way and acting the same way, but they're not," Golisano told reporters at the state Capitol. But, he added, he still feels a sense of responsibility to stay engaged in trying to change the ways of Albany — even if he has moved his legal residence to Naples, Fla.

The only thing he knows for certain, at this point, is he will not be unloading his Buffalo Sabres. When he announced his decision to move last week, Golisano said his business interests in upstate, including the Sabres, would not be affected by his decision.

"Nothing changes," he said today of the Sabres' ownership. Asked if that meant he was going to be the exception to Florida transplants and remain in snowy Western New York during the Sabres' hockey season, Golisano just laughed, and added, "I get to see four games in Florida."

Golisano said this year's state budget — which increased income taxes on upper wage earners from 6.85 percent to 8.97 percent — was the final straw. His moving to Florida will save him $5 million in state income taxes. The billionaire founder of Paychex, a payroll processing company, has already registered to vote and gotten his driver's license in Florida, and signed the homestead exemption paperwork that will cap his annual property tax increases to 3 percent a year there.

The Governor's response is incoherent:

"I'm sorry Mr. Golisano feels that he has to change his residence at this time," Gov. David Paterson said today. "I understand the people moving out of this state is one of the reasons we don't want to raise personal income taxes as we did."

Huh? To Paterson's credit he did warn about this, but he signed the tax hike anyway.

How long until we start seeing the billionaires leaving the US altogether?

Mark Sanford Answers Lindsay Graham

Maybe all Republican aren't tools after all. Mark Sanford responded to Lindsay Graham:



Maybe there's hope for the Republicans after all.

Lindsay Graham is a Tool

Lindsay Graham, the Senator from my home state of South Carolina, had this to say about libertarians and the Republican party:



I've been a registered Republican since I first registered so I could vote for Ronald Reagan, but pretty much since then, the party has moved farther and farther away from my positions. You would think that the Republican would welcome the libertarians back in the fold (and embrace some of our positions) after the thumping they've been getting at the polls, but I guess Graham would rather go down with the ship.

Cap and Trade: The Lobbyist Full Employment Act

If we want to reduce carbon emissions - something I find dubious to begin with - the best way to accomplish that goal is a direct tax. So why do President Obama and Henry Waxman want to implement a cap and trade program instead? From the NYT:

Cap and trade, by contrast, is almost perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has used such concessions to patch together a Democratic majority to pass a far-reaching bill to regulate carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade plan.

Cap and trade allows the politicians to reward friends and punish enemies. They've successfully disguised the carbon tax under cap and trade. Most Americans have no idea what it is and that's exactly the way the politicians want it to stay. Will it reduce carbon emissions? Doubtful, but that isn't the goal.

Why Drug Companies Want Health Care Reform

Why would representatives (lobbyist) of the healthcare industry join President Obama in trying to pass health care reform? The usual reason - money. From the Washington Examiner:

To understand why the medical-industrial complex backs Obama’s reform, just read the executives’ words. Simply put, health care reform — if it’s the right blend of Obama’s plan and Sen. Ted Kennedy’s plan — will increase profits for health care giants while diminishing competition.

The insurers’ interest here is obvious: Half their business is reducing health care costs. Plus, Kennedy’s plan would mandate everyone maintain health insurance.

The drug makers’ angle was spelled out last month by David Brennan, chief executive officer of AstraZeneca and newly elected chairman of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the No. 2 lobbying organization in the country as measured by first-quarter spending this year.

At PhRMA’s annual conference, Brennan uttered the magic words of a corporate executive looking for a handout and beneficial regulation: “I’m an advocate of free-market-based health care solutions. But within that framework, I support appropriate government efforts to protect people whose health care needs aren’t met by the private marketplace.”

Specifically, PhRMA wants a government mandate that insurers cover prescriptions. Also, the biggest drug makers currently subsidize the prescriptions of poorer customers, and health care reform provides an opportunity to shift the subsidy costs onto the government and the insurers.

“Quite frankly, Americans deserve co-pay reform,” Brennan said. Translation: Government should regulate insurers in a way that subsidizes prescription drugs.

Brennan also bragged about the industry’s recent lobbying for big government, notably its central role in passing both the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug coverage.

Big Business + Big Government = Big Money for Both = Empty wallet for Taxpayers

The Great Ethanol Scam

The ethanol industry is lobbying to get Congress to raise the amount of ethanol added to liquid fuels. This story lays out the reasons why we shouldn't do that:

First, the primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).

Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.

Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA's fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.

Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline. Just these issues should have kept ethanol from being brought back for its fourth run in American history.

Don't let anybody mislead you: The new push to get a 15% ethanol mandate out of Washington is simply to restore profitability to a failed industry. Only this time around those promoting more ethanol in our gas say there's no scientific proof that adding more ethanol will damage vehicles or small gas-powered engines. With that statement they've gone from shilling the public to outright falsehoods, because ethanol-laced gasoline is already destroying engines across the country in ever larger numbers.

Ethanol never made sense from an environmental or any other standpoint. It's just old fashioned politics dressed up as environmental policy. Don't be fooled.

Krugman and Moral High Ground

Let's get this out of the way right up front. I don't believe that human CO2 emissions are the primary driver of climate change. There are a lot of reasons I believe this but I am most skeptical of two things:

1. I don't trust the motives of those who advocate limiting CO2 emissions.
2. I don't trust the computer models that are being used to promote man made climate change.

Paul Krugman (and others who believe humans are the main problem with the planet) believes that if the US acts to reduce CO2 emissions, we will occupy the moral high ground:

As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable.

It’s time to save the planet. And like it or not, China will have to do its part.

So, we should impose tariffs on Chinese goods to force them to reduce CO2 emissions and if we do this, Krugman assures us that it is a moral good. Reducing China's growth would mean that more of China's poor will stay poor, but we'll occupy the moral high ground? Ah, hell what do we care? We've got ours right? Fuck the Chinese. Let'em stay poor.

Why I'm a Libertarian

I couldn't possibly improve on this:

In a nutshell, I am a libertarian because conservatives are a bunch of gun-totting, Hummer-driving, hard-drinking, Bible-thumping, black-and-white-thinking, fist-pounding, shoe-stomping, morally-hypocritical blowhards, and liberals are a bunch of tree-hugging, whale-saving, hybrid-driving, sandle-wearing, bottled-water-drinking, ACLU-supporting, flip-flopping, wishy-washy, Namby Pamby bedwetters. There’s a better way. Libertarianism.

That's Michael Shermer on the Skepticblog. He had a post last week explaining his conversion to liberatarianism and due to some constructive comments, he now has a followup.


Another excerpt:

Basically, libertarians are for freedom and liberty for individuals, and we prefer not to have the state involved in either our bedrooms or our boardrooms. This is not a simple hedonistic “I want to move to Idaho and smoke pot and watch porn and the rest of you all be damned” (although I’m sure there are libertarians who want precisely this). Rather, libertarianism is based on the principle that individuals should be free to choose for themselves. Libertarianism is grounded in the Principle of Freedom: All people are free to think, believe, and act as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

Cap and Trade? What's That?

From Rasmussen:

The gap between Capitol Hill and Main Street is huge when it comes to the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation being considered in Congress. So wide, in fact, that few voters even know what the proposed legislation is all about.

Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea.

Why do you think they aren't pushing a carbon tax? I'm sure the politicians pushing this (primarily Democrats, but some Republicans have drunk the global warming kool-aid too) are pleased with this result. Their goal is to enact a massive energy tax without the public having any clue as to what is going on. They claim to want to reduce CO2 emissions but if that happens it will just be a coincidence. What this is about is revenue and the power to dole it out.

California: Vassal State

From the LA Times:

Reporting from Sacramento -- The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

The news comes as state lawmakers are already facing a severe cash crisis, with the state at risk of running out of money in July.

The wages at issue involve workers who care for some 440,000 low-income disabled and elderly Californians. The workers, who collectively contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to the influential Service Employees International Union and the United Domestic Workers, will see the state's contribution to their wages cut from a maximum of $12.10 per hour to a maximum of $10.10.

The SEIU said in a statement that it had asked the Obama administration for the ruling.

The states of the United States are now no more than vassal states. Alexander Hamilton and the other Federalists must be smiling.

Paying Teachers Not to Teach

What is the purpose of a union? Unions bargain on behalf of their members for wages, work rules and rules about hiring and firing among other things. Remember that the next time someone claims that teachers unions are only interested in educating young people. Individuals may be dedicated, caring teachers but that has nothing to do with the union to which they belong. The union's job is to negotiate the most favorable set of rules for their members, regardless of how it impacts the children they are charged with educating. And they will negotiate the most stringent set of conditions they can for hiring and firing as their mission is to protect first and foremost, their existing members. The union is not interested in the least in whether kids are being educated because that is not their job. It is the job of parents and I suppose their representatives on the school board.

Why do I mention this? Well, this story in the LA Times caught my eye. It seems that the LA Unified School District is paying a group of teachers roughly $10 million a year to not teach. Why? They've been accused of wrongdoing of some kind and have been "housed":

For seven years, the Los Angeles Unified School District has paid Matthew Kim a teaching salary of up to $68,000 per year, plus benefits.

His job is to do nothing.

Every school day, Kim's shift begins at 7:50 a.m., with 30 minutes for lunch, and ends when the bell at his old campus rings at 3:20 p.m. He is to take off all breaks, school vacations and holidays, per a district agreement with the teacher's union. At no time is he to be given any work by the district or show up at school.

He has never missed a paycheck.

In the jargon of the school district, Kim is being "housed" while his fitness to teach is under review. A special education teacher, he was removed from Grant High School in Van Nuys and assigned to a district office in 2002 after the school board voted to fire him for allegedly harassing teenage students and colleagues. In the meantime, the district has spent more than $2 million on him in salary and legal costs.


Last week, Kim was ordered to continue this daily routine at home. District officials said the offices for "housed" employees were becoming too crowded.

About 160 teachers and other staff sit idly in buildings scattered around the sprawling district, waiting for allegations of misconduct to be resolved.

The housed are accused, among other things, of sexual contact with students, harassment, theft or drug possession. Nearly all are being paid. All told, they collect about $10 million in salaries per year -- even as the district is contemplating widespread layoffs of teachers because of a financial shortfall.

Most cases take months to adjudicate, but some take years.

Kim, 41, has persisted the longest.

And what, pray tell, did Mr. Kim do?

Kim's troubles with the district began in 2000, when a classroom aide reported inappropriate comments and advances.

In class one October day, according to her testimony before an administrative panel, Kim asked her to stand closer to him while interpreting his speech for the students. When she moved closer, she said, he touched her breast with his left hand, the only one he could slightly control.

Students immediately started making comments about what they'd seen. One said: "Oh, come on, Mr. Kim, you know you liked it," according to a summary of allegations against Kim prepared by a state review panel in 2008. Kim responded to the students that he had.

Over the next two years, another adult andsixstudents would make similar complaints against Kim,according to the summary.

The same month the aide complained, Kim asked a girl if she had a boyfriend and if she was a virgin, according to the girl's testimony during an administrative hearing.

Another girl said that Kim kept staring at her and urged her at one point not to change her hair color, according to documents filed with the state.

Joseph Walker, then the principal at Grant, confronted Kim, who denied most of the allegations. Walker then wrote a memo to the teacher telling him that it was important "to stay out of the students' personal life and personal space," according to district records filed in court.

And that wasn't all:

Complaints of misconduct kept coming, according to district records filed in court.


After a male classroom aide reported that he had seen Kim touch a girl on the shoulders and near her crotch, Walker asked for advice from L.A. Unified's personnel division. The principal noted that Kim "has been charged with sexual harassment for the fourth time within a one-year period," according to his December 2001 memo in court files.

Two months later, a school counselor complained that Kim ran his hand back and forth across one of her breasts during a meeting, according to the court filings and the commission summary.

So, why didn't they just fire him? Well, according to the union contract, as a tenured teacher, he was entitled to a set of hearings before being fired. He also sued the district for disability discrimination (he has cerebral palsy), although he eventually lost the suit.

And the union contract also forbid him from being assigned other work:

Now, district officials say, they are prohibited from assigning chores under the contract with the teachers' union. Although there is no specific reference in the contract to housed employees, an attorney for L.A. Unified pointed to Article 9, Section 4.0, which defines the "professional duties" of a teacher, such as instructional planning and evaluating the work of pupils.

With no mention of photocopying, stuffing envelopes or answering telephones in the contract, the district and union have interpreted this provision as prohibiting clerical duties.

So why has it taken so long to fire him?

In February 2002, the district ordered Kim housed at an administration building while the allegations were formally investigated. The school board voted to fire Kim in October 2003.

For seven years, the district and Kim have battled in administrative forums and courtrooms.

Kim sued Walker and the district for disability discrimination and ultimately lost. By then, Walker had retired -- exhausted, he said, by the battle to fire Kim. He currently heads a charter school in Pacoima.

Separately, a Commission on Professional Competence -- a three-member panel with ultimate administrative authority over teacher firings -- concluded that Kim had indeed engaged in unprofessional conduct by touching three female students. But, the panel decided, he should not be fired because "his conduct was a result of poor judgment, rather than overtly sexual."

The panel found no evidence that Kim was a poor teacher or that he had injured his students. Instead it faulted the district for poorly documenting its case and not informing Kim promptly of the allegations.

The district successfully appealed to the superior and appellate courts, which sent the case back to the commission for reconsideration. Earlier this year, the commission backed Kim again, ruling this time on a 2-1 vote that all of the touching was the result of "involuntary arm movements."

And so it goes on, with no end in sight. As Kim continues to collect his teacher's salary, the district is planning yet another court appeal.

His conduct was the "result of poor judgement"? And that isn't enough to get him fired?

The unions have negotiated such stringent rules that a teacher effectively can't be fired except for criminal behavior for which they've been convicted. If you can't get rid of this guy, what are the chances you can fire someone for just being incompetent?

The education system in this country was built by the unions for the benefit of the unions and their members. We will never get better results from this system. This isn't something that can be tinkered with around the edges and get better results. Public education is a public good and I have no problem with the government collecting tax money and distributing it to ensure that children are educated, but there is absolutely no reason to insist that those children be educated in this rotten system. It is immoral and unacceptable.

White House Intimidation

In his press conference on Chrysler yesterday, President Obama singled out some of the secured creditors of Chrysler for not playing ball:

Now, while many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you, some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.

They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none. Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting.

I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars.

I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices. That's why I'm supporting Chrysler's plans to use our bankruptcy laws to clear away its remaining obligations so the company can get back on its feet and on to a path of success.

These creditors have offered to take $0.50 on the dollar for their secured claims. Secured creditors take a lower interest rate on their loans in exchange for a pledge of collateral. That ensures that in the case of bankruptcy, they will be paid first. Before anyone else gets a nickel, these secured creditors, by law, should be paid in full. In attempting to enforce those rights, they have been demonized by the President of the US as not worth of his support.

Unsecured creditors, such as the union, who shouldn't be paid anything until the secured creditors have been paid, have been offered more attractive terms. The union will get a 55% equity stake in the reorganized company. The secured creditors have been offered just $0.29 on the dollar for their loans and no equity. In other words, they are being asked to accept a permanent loss of their capital with no chance of recovering the remainder.

I don't see any way one can view this accept as a raw exercise of power on behalf of the union. The President is openly favoring the union over contractually secure creditors. Does the rule of law mean nothing? Can the President just break contracts on a whim? Didn't President Obama swear an oath to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws?

The right to be secure in your property is one of the most basic rights in this country. The government cannot take your property except for a public use and even then they have to provide equitable conpensation. In this case, the office of the President is attempting to take property from one group of citizens so he can award it to another group. How is that any different than what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela?

Citizens have a right to expect that the government, through the court system, will enforce contracts. What do you do when it is the government itself that is trying to break the contract?

The attorney for some of the holdout creditors was on Frank Beckman's radio show this morning. In that interview, he alleges that the "executive branch" intimidated one of his clients into taking the offered deal. That client was Parella Wienberg. They were told that if they didn't take the deal that the entire weight of the White House press corps would be brought to bear against them. That sounds a lot like extortion to me. And who still believes the press is objective in covering this White House?

This episode says something about President Obama and the tactics he is willing to employ to get his way. It isn't a pretty picture.

Does Henry Waxman Know the Meaning of the Word Chutzpah?

Newt Gingrich also testified on the climate change bill today. How Newt wrangled that I have no idea, but here's what he said:

WASHINGTON (AP)—Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says a Democratic proposal to limit global warming pollution will "punish the American people" with higher energy costs and lost jobs.

Gingrich appeared before a House subcommittee writing a broad energy and climate bill aimed at cutting greenhouse gases by 80 percent by mid-century.

Gingrich, a leading Republican voice who has indicated he may seek the presidency in 2012, criticized the Democrats' cap-and-trade climate proposal. He called it "an energy tax" that will increase Americans' cost of living and kill jobs.

While I'm not much of a Newt fan, I do think he's right about raising energy costs and costing jobs. Just as an aside, why are politicians testifying on this? Do they have some expertise on this topic? Were all the real scientists busy today?

Henry Waxman's response is the best example of chutzpah I've seen in a long time:

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California accused Gingrich of trying to scare people into opposing action on climate change. Waxman argued the bill is designed to contain energy cost increases.

Are you fricking kidding me?!!! Al Gore has spent his entire career trying to scare the shit out of people about global warming - and doing a damn fine job of it - but Gingrich is the one trying to scare people? The entire global warming industry is based on scaring the shit out of people who don't have the capacity to comprehend the results at the local science fair, but it's the skeptics who are guilty of scaring people? Chutzpah in the extreme.

Truth About Cap and Trade

Al Gore testified today about cap and trade. During the questioning, John Dingell (D-MI) said the following:

"Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax -- and it's a great big one."

Here's the video



Notice what Gore says after Dingell is done. This is during a debate about what is better: a straight carbon tax or cap and trade. Gore advocates both! How much would a gallon of gas cost in this Gore world? How much would my electric bill be? To his credit, he does say a carbon tax should be revenue neutral, but why doesn't he say the same about cap and trade? Shouldn't that be revenue neutral as well? Or is it okay to raise taxes as long as its disguised and no one understands it? And does anyone really believe that Congress could or even has any desire to design a revenue neutral approach?

Congressional Extortion

From a WSJ editorial today about the recent EPA ruling on CO2:

Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey put it this way at MIT recently: "Do you want the EPA to make the decision or would you like your Congressman or Senator to be in the room and drafting legislation? . . . Industries across the country will just have to gauge for themselves how lucky they feel if they kill legislation in terms of how the EPA process will include them."

The Obama administration is using the EPA as the hammer to get their cap and trade program passed through Congress. If a business doesn't want to deal with the draconian rules of the EPA, they better get on board with cap and trade. Regardless of whether cap and trade is a good idea, doesn't this amount to extortion?

I wonder what the going price is in terms of a campaign contribution for an exemption?

Americans Dumber Than I Thought

From Rasmussen:

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

Yeah, because, you know, socialism has worked so well everywhere its been tried. We may be finding out how well it works up close and personal.

The Circular Flow Economic Model

Keynes described the economy in terms of a circular flow of money. Maybe this is what he meant:

Top recipients of federal bailout money spent more than $10 million on political lobbying in the first three months of this year, including aggressive efforts aimed at blocking executive pay limits and tougher financial regulations, according to newly filed disclosure records.

The biggest spenders among major firms in the group included General Motors, which spent nearly $1 million a month on lobbying, and Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase, which together spent more than $2.5 million in their efforts to sway lawmakers and Obama administration officials on a wide range of financial issues. In all, major bailout recipients have spent more than $22 million on lobbying in the six months since the government began doling out rescue funds, Senate disclosure records show.

I’d say these companies have gotten their money’s worth. As long as investments in lobbying yield more than, you know, actually getting out and competing, companies will keep the cash flowing to DC. Now, if we could just figure out a way to capture a little of that flow for the real economy…..

Ron Paul on Secession

Here's an interview with Ron Paul about the possibility of Texas seceding from the US:





Paul doesn't come out in favor of Texas seceding but he does endorse the concept. IMHO, it is ridiculous to say that the states don't have the right to secede. Would the states have ratified a document (the Constitution) which abrogated their own sovereignty?

Obama to Hold Another Prime Time Press Conference

Geez, can somebody please tell President Obama that he's not on a reality series? He's planning another Prime time news conference next Wednesday at 8:00 PM. Better be done by the time Lost comes on dude....

Narcoleptic Larry

Is Larry Summers narcoleptic or is government just boring?

You might remember that Summers also fell asleep during Obama's Fiscal Responsibility Summit:



Maybe if Geithner and Bernanke fell asleep for a while, we could get out of this recession.

Shit Eating Grin

This photo of President Obama with Hugo Chavez should make every freedom loving person cringe. If one judges foreign policy by whether we are pissing off the right people (and I do) then you can't be happy. Or at least not as happy as Chavez looks in this picture. On the other hand, I suppose Obama's old buddy, Bill Ayers, is ecstatic.

Education Reform the Obama Way

Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, has an editorial in the WSJ today about education reform. Mr. Duncan seems to believe that it is a lack of information that is holding back education reform (via the WSJ):

When stakeholders -- from parents and business leaders to elected officials -- understand that standards vary dramatically across states and many high-school graduates are unprepared for college or work, they will demand change. In fact, dozens of states are already independently working toward higher standards in education. Union leaders have also signed on.

When parents recognize which schools are failing to educate their children, they will demand more effective options for their kids. They won't care whether they are charters, non-charters or some other model. As President Barack Obama has called for, states should eliminate restrictions that limit the growth of excellent charter schools, move forward in improving or restructuring chronically failing schools, and hold all schools accountable for results.

When educators fully understand which of their colleagues are pulling their weight through a rigorous and fair evaluation system, they will hold each other more accountable. Teachers above all want a professional learning environment that supports them and recognizes and rewards excellence.

When community leaders understand that teacher and principal quality varies dramatically as the best educators gravitate toward higher performing schools, they will push for incentives that bring our most talented educators to schools in need. That requires being open-minded to policies like differential pay.

And when we can link student outcomes to teacher quality and teachers to their colleges of education, we can challenge these institutions to do the best possible job in preparing a new generation of outstanding educators. Without the data, we cannot even have the conversation, let alone discuss solutions.

I suppose it is possible that all these people are clueless about the state of the education system but it seems unlikely. Any parent who has atteneded one of those beginning of the year open houses at the local school knows that some portion of their child's teachers are either indifferent or obviously incompetent. Any good teacher knows which other teachers are incompetent. They don't need a better evaluation system to figure it out. The problem is not that we don't know what the problems are. The problem is that the teacher's unions and the politicians they fund are not willing to relinquish their stranglehold on the public teat that is the school system.

Not once in this editorial does Arne Duncan mention vouchers. He mentions charter schools repeatedly as if it were some kind of mantra, but nary a peep about vouchers. They've worked everywhere they've been tried, but we won't have any of that. They're being used in countries like Norway and Denmark and other countries that are much more socialist than the US, but no, not here. The message to the states is pretty clear; reform is only what we in Washington DC say it is. You'll do it our way or we'll cut off your funds:

Through the guidance we have published on our Web site, we explicitly told governors, state education chiefs, mayors and district superintendents that the application for competitive grants will begin by asking how noncompetitive grant funds are being spent. If they used the funding to invest in more of the same ineffective programs, they will not receive grant money.

Moreover, a significant share of the Recovery Act's State Fiscal Stabilization Fund will be used to hold states and districts accountable for meeting the reform requirements of the law. If they divert money intended for education to noneducational purposes, we may deny future funding or even seek to recover misspent funds.

Who decides what programs are "ineffective"? Anyone want to take a bet on whether using the funds for a voucher program would be considered effective? Money from DC comes with union strings attached. Any program which is not union approved need not apply.

This administration's approach to education is the same as its approach to everything else. The central planners of the Obama administration have it all worked out for us whether its the automobile business or energy or education. Just get on board with the smart liberals who know what's best for us. It didn't work in the Soviet Union but that's because they weren't as smart as the Obama administration. Or at least we better hope so.