Thursday, 18 February 2021

Who should decide for K-12 education in America?

I have no idea what the right way to reopen schools is.  But it is clear to me that the wrong way to reopen schools is to apply the same rules to every school.

Reopening is a really hard decision. It means trading off public health and employment. But the balance between health risk and job destruction is different in every community. It's different within every community. It's different from one side of town to the other. It's different between towns and outside of town. The availability of hospital beds, hospital workers, PPE and testing on the one hand, and how resilientpeople are to the income impacts of lockdown on the other, vary enormously from one place to another.

Enter the Trump administration (Trump and DeVos) to help, by attempting to impose nation-wide rules on how states, counties and towns around the country reopen schools, and threatening to withhold federal funding to enforce their edict. 

A local board of ed that imposes the same rules on every school in its jurisdiction makes a big mistake, because conditions are different not only in every school district, but in every school. But the damage a board of ed can di is limited to that school district. A state governor who insists on applying the same reopening rules to every school district in the state makes a much bigger mistake on a much larger scale. Trump and Dovos are n=making an inescusable mistake on a vastly larger scale. For political gain, as they see it. (Keep digging, as I see it.)

The nineteen most un-American words ever spoken by an American president were delivered by Ronald Reagan on August 12, 1986, when he declared at a press conference:  "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

We don't know if Reagan was referring only to the federal government, or to state government, or all government. He probably was absent from civics class on the day they discussed the Declaration of Independence, which declared the independece of a new government, and made reference in passing to the independence of individuals. Reagan must not have returned to class until the day they discussed the Bill of Rights, some of which enumerate individual rights.

On the question of whether, when and how to reopen K12 education in America, however, Trump and Devos are not only telling us that the federal government is here to help. They are telling governors and mayors that the federal government is in charge.

Never mind that in 2018, responsibility for funding K-12 public schools in the USA was:  state governments (governors) - 47%; local governments (mayors and boards of ed)  - 45%; and thefederal government (Betsy DeVos) - 8%.

The federal funding for local K-12 schools mostly supports programs for the poor (school lunches) and the disadvantaged (special ed).  But for school districts, 8% of the budget is not negligible. Nationally this amounts to $ [  ]. Trump threatens to freeze the funds unless schools reopen on his terms, even though the funding is unconditionally mandated by federal law. (School lunch and special ed are also very popular within the school districts themselves, but that hardly matters to the President, who knows that "these people" don't vote for him.)

But in his never-ending quest for leverage in a negotiation, His Royal Heinous sees an opportunity here for extortion. Think of it this way. The nation's school districts are represented by Ukrainian president [  ]. Trump says to [  ] here's a deal you can't refuse. If you reopen all the schools in Ukraine immediately and indict [  ] Biden, I won't cut off the [  ] in funding USA gives to the Ukrainian military, or the [  ] we give to K-12 education.
  
K-12 education for all Americans should have been a responsibility of the federal government from 1789 onward. That the Founders allowed the states to be responsible for K-12, and that the states then decided that real estate taxes should pay half the bill  -- so that the quality of your children's K-12 education depends largely on the value of property in your ZIP-code -- is one of America's three great birth defects. (If you want to know, I'll say something about the other two in an addendum.)

But given that we are living with the birth defect of the way we fund K-12 in America, the question is this: with 8% of the responsiblity for funding K-12 coming from Washington, why should states, counties, cities, towns and local school districts not tell the federal government to butt out of the discussion about reopening schools while Covid-19 is rampant? 

There is only one federal government agency whose views on reopening should matter to state and local school officials -- the Center for Diseases Control. If CDC director Redfield were saying that it is NOT safe, the locals should and surely would pay attention. But on July 8, the hapless Dr. Redfield said . "I want it to be very clear that it is not the intent of the CDCs guidelines [on Covid-19] to be used as a rationale to keep schools closed."

Redfield's remarks came on the day that Donald Trump's Twitter messaging focussed heavily on "pressuring" (Trump's word) local K-12 decision-makers to open the schools. To those officials I say, "Tough decision, but the people who are paying for K-12 elected you, not Donald Trump, to make these decisions. Weigh what you're hearing from responsible experts with what you believe to be the interests of your constitutents. It's a state and local political choice. That's your job, not Trump's."

To Trump and Devos I say, "Butt out until you pass a bill making K-12 a 100% federal government responsibility. Then we will listen." 

Addendum

Of the other two other birth defects for which the Founders are responsible, one is the result of negligence, and the other of wilful perversion of one-man-one-vote democracy.

The Consitution and the Bill of Rights failed to make the federal government responsible for the health of citizens. It's clear today that this, along with universal access to equally-funded K-12, should have made it into the Bill of Rights.  But on health, what happened instead was that the quality Americans' access to health insurance, and therefore to health care, depends largely on their job (if they have one).

But given the indifference in all nations towards any government role in ensuring the health and education of the people in the 18th century, it is a stretch to charge the Founders with gross negligence for ignoring health and education.

The institution of the Senate, however, is a different matter.  It is no secret that the Founders found this wilful perversion of one-man-one vote to be necessary to ensure that the southern states would join the union. 

Here's one result of this birth defect: if you voted in the Senate elections in Wyoming in 2014, 2016, or 2018, your voice by itself carried the same weight on the Senate floor when Trump's impeachment came up for a vote as the voices of 44 Californians, 36 New Yorkers, 26 Texans and 24 Floridians. In the House of Representatives, your voice had the same weight as a voter in any other state. But under the Constitution, only the House could (and did) vote to impeach, while only the Senate could (and did not) vote to convict. 





  

Friday, 7 February 2020

The Art of the Steal

The best way to think about the deal Trump and his son-in-law are offering the Palestinians is to remember that they are real-estate developers.  If you listen closely to Kushner's discussion of his proposal with Ian Bremer, his approach comes to this: the Palestinians aren't in a strong enough position to expect to be treated fairly, whatever thay means.  There are many approaches to deal-making, but many dealers ask for everything their position of leverage allows, and then a bit more. You figure out what the options are for the person on the other side of the table, and offer just one penny more than his next best option. This kind of deal-maker sees it as a zero-sum game.

Of course in the context of human, of which international relations is a subset, considerations of fairness and justice usually constrain the exercise of leverage, and hold players back from demanding everything their position allows.  It is not surprising that Kushner doesn't attempt to explain why his proposal is fair, however, because he is of the zero-sum-game school.

The interesting thing is, the deal-makers who do best in the long term understand that deals that disadvantage one party far more than the other have a nasty way of unravelling as time goes by. In the commercial world, what happens next is litigation. In international relations, it's war.

Friday, 24 January 2020

The Thinking Man's Case for Leave

If you have read (or watched) Captain Corelli's Mandolin, you may be especially interested in Louis de Berniere's op-ed in today's FT -- Why I Believe in Brexit.

Sunday, 17 November 2019

the Memory at 3

Today I asked Bennett if he remembered playing car crashes with me in Los Angeles. "No," says he, "It was in Nantucket." Correct.

Thursday, 14 November 2019

A Little Liberal, A Little Conservative - Prologue

When all night long, a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains
Assuming that he's go any

Though never nurtured in the lap of luxury
Yet I admonish you
I am an intellectual chap
And think of things that would astonish you

I often think it comical
Fa la-la-la
Fa la-la-la
How nature always does contrive
Fa la-la-la la-la
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little liberal
Or else a little conservative
Fa la la

These ruminations of private Willis, on "sentry-go" at midnight in Palace Yard, Westminster, open Act II of Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe.

So how does nature contrive that every one of us is either a little liberal or else a little conservative? And can some of us become some of each?







Wednesday, 13 November 2019

Rudy's Defense

Bill Taylor will testify before the House Intelligence Committee this morning. Rudy Giulini has offered this defense against the Trump impeachment in a WSJ op-ed.  Stripped of the rhetoric, some questions of fact arise:

  • "A Ukrainian court ruled in December last year that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ukrainian lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko interfered in the 2016 election by releasing documents related to Paul Manafort."  
What is the relationship between the NACB and Leschenko? Did they release the Manafort documents separately or together? Why was it illegal to release them? Is there evidence that they did so at the behest of the DNC? 
  • "A January 2017 report from Politico implied that the officials released the information to hurt the Trump campaign. The site reported that a Democratic National Committee contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, dug for dirt on Mr. Manafort’s work in Ukraine. This past May, Valeriy Chaly, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., told the Hill’s John Solomon that Ms. Chalupa came to the embassy looking for damaging information on Mr. Manafort. Ms. Chalupa has denied conducting opposition research with Ukrainian officials for the DNC but told Politico that she provided what information she found on Mr. Manafort to 'a lot of journalists.' ”
Does the Politico report say that "officials released the information to hurt the Trump campaaign" at the behest of Ms. Chalupa? On what evidence did Politico base its reporting? Has evidence for this charge been produced by any source other than Politico?
Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament, told the press in early October that he had reviewed documents showing that Burisma transferred $900,000 to Rosemont Seneca Partners, a lobbying firm owned by Hunter Biden, and that the money was for lobbying Joe Biden.

  • "Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament, told the press in early October that he had reviewed documents showing that Burisma transferred $900,000 to Rosemont Seneca Partners, a lobbying firm owned by Hunter Biden, and that the money was for lobbying Joe Biden."
Has any other source confirmed the existence of the documents cited by Derkach? Would it be illegal under Ukrainian or US law for Burisma to pay Biden Jr. to lobby his father?

Without knowing the answers to these questions, there are arguable grounds for the US government to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate, notwithstanding what would be investigated are the activities of Trump's political opponents -- the DNC and Joe Biden. 

But the impeachable offense is this: the Trump administration made clear to Zelinsky that $400 million in US aid was frozen until Zelinsky announced publicly that Ukraine would initiate the investigations demanded by Trump. This is impeachable becauseTrump was allowing his political interests to trump US foreign and national security policy, both of which have been firmly aligned to provide Ukraine with American political and financial support ever since Russia's annexation of Crimea of invasion of the Dongas.


Tuesday, 12 November 2019

Elizabeth Warren's Medicare Plan reviewed

Here's a good critique of Warren's plan by Jordan Weissman in Slate.  He points out that the "employer medicare contribution" is in effect an head tax on employment, and would cost the employer the same for every employee (since it's calculated as the average amount the employer currently pays for his employees' plans). Starbucks would therefore pay the same amount for the CEO's plan as for the barista's. And if Starbucks adjusts wages to increase or decrease each employee's wage  by the difference between what the employer is currently paying for the employee's plan and the uniform "medicare contribution" amount, the CEO would be a winner and barista would be a loser, assuming Starbucks currently pays more for the CEO's plan than for the barista's.  But this raises the question: to what degree does the amounts employers currently pay vary according to the wage of the employee? If there's very little variation, then switching to the Warren's plan wouldn't change much.