I will be appearing on Rick Adams’ radio show on WARL 1320 AM (“Reality Radio”) in Providence, Rhode Island, next Wednesday, December 15, from 8-9 p.m.
You can also hear the radio station streamed online at its Web site.
Yesterday I “braved” the rain to vote in a special election that sought to winnow down the candidates for an open school committee seat from 5 to 2. Dr. Saleh R. Shahid and Lucille Mota-Costa emerged as the winners. Shahid is a registered Republican who has unsuccessfully run for both the State Legislature and State Senate before, though he didn’t do so this year because of a technical filing error (he checked the wrong box!). Mota-Costa is a retired West Warwick school teacher who finished last in the four-way primary held on November 2 to fill two other vacant seats.
Turnout was extremely low, (only 711 of an eligible 18,756 voters casted ballots)
with Shahid receiving 278 votes, Mota-Costa receiving 165 votes and other candidates receiving 268 votes. The vote totals would seem to bode well for Shahid’s chances in the final election to be held in January. In addition, the fact that Mota-Costa has already been rejected within the past month or so for the same position may prove a tough hurdle for her to overcome. Will voters who have already rejected her turnaround and vote for her?
I took note of the statements made by the candidates (as quoted after the results were learned), which I believe provided a clue as to their disposition and “management style.”
“I feel relieved but not rested. I know there is a lot of work to be done,” Shahid said last night. “I want to congratulate Ms. Mota-Costa … and the other candidates for an honorable and well-fought race. I hope in January to convince the voters that I’m the best man for job.”
“I think if the people in the city continue to support me they won’t be sorry,” she said last night. “I’m a hard-working woman.”
However, Mota-Costa said that in January the voters must come out in greater numbers.
“They need to vote,” she said, “otherwise live with whoever you end up with, live with the decisions other people make.”
Notice the difference? Shahid is nothing but complimentary and thankful and realizes that he needs to do more work. Mota-Costa says she works hard, but puts the onus on the voters to turnout and vote for her “or else.” Shahid realizes it is his responsibility to convince the voters, while Mota-Costa indicates that her credentials are self-evident and it is up to the voters to realize that she is right choice. In short, she sounds as if she feels entitled to the position. This makes Mota-Costa sound like a lecturing teacher and contributes to what I believe is her significant handicap going into the election: she is a teacher. A teacher on the school committee is like the fox watching the henhouse and I think that the average Warwick voter believes this. Mota-Costa will need the votes of teachers, and those sympathetic to them, to win. Shahid will need to make sure that more parents and taxpayers turn out for him. The raw numbers would seem to favor Shahid, but the motivation of the teachers union can never be underestimated.
[Open full post]Marc:
I published a ProJo editorial in March that noted the ludicrous comments last Spring about Governor Carcieri’s then-proposed modest increase in charter school funding and insignificant reduction in general education funding.
What made the comments so ridiculous was the proposed small changes in funding for the upcoming year were completely dwarfed by the hefty spending increases of prior years. And what results do we have to show for all that spending?
Education is the gateway to the American Dream for all of our children. I continue to be astounded at how politicians, education bureaucrats, and the teachers’ unions oppose every meaningful reform to the ongoing failings of public education. As you note so well, they would rather protect their own special interests than help disadvantaged children who most need the benefits resulting from some freedom of educational choice.
While visiting The Learning Community Charter School in Pawtucket, Governor Carcieri floated the idea of removing the state’s charter school cap, which limits each school district to two charter schools (except Providence, which is allowed four). Predictably, there are those who disagree with the Governor about removing the cap, even though recent studies have shown that Charter Schools in Rhode Island are working well. (There are also those who oppose charter schools, but that is another debate entirely). One opponent to Carcieri’s idea is Rep. Paul W. Crowley, chairman of the House Finance Subcommittee on Education. However, his opposition seems based less on the merits of the proposal than on political calculation. Crowley stated that he opposed any changes in the cap unless the Governor
promises to do something about the way traditional public schools are financed. “Remember what he did last year,” said Crowley, who also serves on the Board of Regents. “He started a range war in education. It’s nice to say this about charters, but if it’s not part of a comprehensive package on public school funding, it’s not going anywhere.”
Crowley and the Governor have agreed on other education matters in the past, such as a common statewide curriculum, so I don’t automatically assume that he opposes Charter schools or the Governor per se. Rather, it appears he simply wants to employ the Charter School cap issue as a weapon in this so-called “range war.” He probably also doesn’t like the fact that he and the legislature will soon be losing some of their existing educational oversight power. In fact, Crowley proposed in 2001 to increase the seats controlled by legislators on both the Board of Regents and the Board of Higher Education by increasing the number of appointments made by the House and Senate, though State Representatives or Senators would not fill those new seats. As such, it is evident that Crowley is a proponent of the legislature having a greater control of not just educational funding, but also how the money is spent. Crowley is also a member of the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education. With the passage of the Separation of Powers Ammendment, I believe that Crowley will no longer be able to serve in both the Legislature and on the Board of Regents. This probably doesn’t sit well with him, either. In refering to a similar situation regarding the Board of Governors for Higher Education Crowley stated
“As we get into the separation-of-powers issue, we will lose our two seats on the board,” Crowley said, referring to the slots held by a state senator and a state representative on the 15-member Board of Governors. “We’ve got to improve our oversight.”
Almost in answer, Jeffrey Selingo, political editor for the Chronicle of Higher Education, observed, “Lawmakers usually have short-term views and are more parochial, focusing on projects in their districts….They sometimes do what is politically expedient to get themselves reelected.” That is exactly why so many Rhode Islanders supported Separation of Powers in the first place. It seems Rep. Crowley is more interested in the political advantage to be gained by opposing an idea proposed by the Governor than in broadening the access to a successful and innovative method of educating poor and at-risk children. Of course, the issue is more than a political bargaining chip, it is also based upon satisfying a key constituency: teachers and their union. In this, Crowley is not alone as the General Assembly has declared
“The Board of Regents shall not grant final approval for any new charter school to begin operations in the 2005-2006 school year.”
As usual, it is the children, especially those who start with the biggest disadvantages, who are being victimized by both an unnecessary political turf war and legislators who prioritize “special” interests over the best interests of the next generation.
[Open full post]Talking about a pro-tax ballot initiative defeated in Oregon during 2002, a Wall Street Journal editorial stated:
When the budget issue is framed in terms of higher taxes, voters don’t understand why government should be exempt from the same spending discipline the rest of us live by. “I am a normal person and when I don’t have enough money I have to change my habits,” 26-year-old Heather Bryan told the AP, explaining her vote against the measure. “Government should be the same way.”
But it isn’t and that begs the question of why?
Terry Moe offers this opinion of why government behavior is problematic (PDF):
Public agencies usually have no competition and are not threatened by the loss of business if their costs go up, while workers and unions know they are not putting their agencies or jobs at risk by pressuring for all they can get. Governmental decisions are not driven by efficiency concerns, as they are in the private sector, but by political considerations, and thus by [political] power.
In comparison, when faced with competition in the private sector, irresponsible management action eventually results in loss of market share, lower profits, and loss of jobs. In other words there are direct and dire consequences to bad behavior.
Or, as Wendell Cox wrote last year in a National Review Online article:
How different government is to the real world of the private sector. When [corporations get] into financial trouble, they cut costs and get concessions from their unions, while doing everything they [can] to maintain service levels. When government gets into trouble, it threatens deep service cuts, all too often cuts aimed at the programs that cause the greatest public consternation, in a calculated strategy to obtain the additional funding necessary to maintain the status quo.
The bottom line consequences for working families and retirees are clear: When taxes increase, your standard of living declines.
Practically speaking, the decline in your family’s standard of living results in some combination of the three following outcomes: (i) you incur new debt; (ii) you use some of your savings; and/or (iii) you reduce your current spending for items such as food, clothes, heating oil, medical care, car repairs as well as savings for college and retirement. All three outcomes are direct and tangible costs incurred by every family – you have less of your hard-earned income to spend on your family’s needs.
It is worth noting that politicians, bureaucrats, and public sector unions suffer no similar consequences when they act irresponsibly. This creates a curious lack of incentive for them to change their behavior.
It was what led Calvin Coolidge to say:
Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.
Or, as Lawrence Reed said in his October 2001 speech to the Economic Club of Detroit:
When you spend other people’s money to buy something for someone else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is most remote – and the potential for mischief is the greatest.
That mischief is obvious when you read about the ridiculous spending approved by lawmakers from both parties. See Citizens Against Government Waste’s Pig Book.
The mischief is clear when you see powerful interest groups (including both corporations and unions) manipulate the system for their advantage, all to the detriment of individual families who lose more of their freedom through ever-increasing tax burdens.
So, what can we do about this problem? Any solution requires a vigilant citizenry that makes the mischief transparent to the voting public. And then it comes down to engaged citizens gathering enough political power to bring about change.
Talking about a pro-tax ballot initiative defeated in Oregon during 2002, a Wall Street Journal editorial stated:
When the budget issue is framed in terms of higher taxes, voters don’t understand why government should be exempt from the same spending discipline the rest of us live by. “I am a normal person and when I don’t have enough money I have to change my habits,” 26-year-old Heather Bryan told the AP, explaining her vote against the measure. “Government should be the same way.”
But it isn’t and that begs the question of why?
Terry Moe offers this opinion of why government behavior is problematic (PDF):
Public agencies usually have no competition and are not threatened by the loss of business if their costs go up, while workers and unions know they are not putting their agencies or jobs at risk by pressuring for all they can get. Governmental decisions are not driven by efficiency concerns, as they are in the private sector, but by political considerations, and thus by [political] power.
In comparison, when faced with competition in the private sector, irresponsible management action eventually results in loss of market share, lower profits, and loss of jobs. In other words there are direct and dire consequences to bad behavior.
Or, as Wendell Cox wrote last year in a National Review Online article:
How different government is to the real world of the private sector. When [corporations get] into financial trouble, they cut costs and get concessions from their unions, while doing everything they [can] to maintain service levels. When government gets into trouble, it threatens deep service cuts, all too often cuts aimed at the programs that cause the greatest public consternation, in a calculated strategy to obtain the additional funding necessary to maintain the status quo.
The bottom line consequences for working families and retirees are clear: When taxes increase, your standard of living declines.
Practically speaking, the decline in your family’s standard of living results in some combination of the three following outcomes: (i) you incur new debt; (ii) you use some of your savings; and/or (iii) you reduce your current spending for items such as food, clothes, heating oil, medical care, car repairs as well as savings for college and retirement. All three outcomes are direct and tangible costs incurred by every family – you have less of your hard-earned income to spend on your family’s needs.
It is worth noting that politicians, bureaucrats, and public sector unions suffer no similar consequences when they act irresponsibly. This creates a curious lack of incentive for them to change their behavior.
It was what led Calvin Coolidge to say:
Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.
Or, as Lawrence Reed said in his October 2001 speech to the Economic Club of Detroit:
When you spend other people’s money to buy something for someone else, the connection between the earner, the spender and the recipient is most remote – and the potential for mischief is the greatest.
That mischief is obvious when you read about the ridiculous spending approved by lawmakers from both parties. See Citizens Against Government Waste’s Pig Book.
The mischief is clear when you see powerful interest groups (including both corporations and unions) manipulate the system for their advantage, all to the detriment of individual families who lose more of their freedom through ever-increasing tax burdens.
So, what can we do about this problem? Any solution requires a vigilant citizenry that makes the mischief transparent to the voting public. And then it comes down to engaged citizens gathering enough political power to bring about change.
Robert Whitcomb’s writing, as much as conservatives might find to disagree with, is refreshing for the simple fact that he obviously thinks things through and is willing to take an unpopular position when his thinking demands it:
Corporate-income taxes — local, state or federal — are absurd, and should be abolished. I say that as we come out of a political season in which some politicians said that they wanted “corporations to finally pay their fair share” of government expenses, and that it’s outrageous that corporations are “getting away with murder,” by paying a smaller percentage than “hard-working Americans.”
But the “corporate-income” tax is actually paid by plenty of “hard-working people”: the employees of the taxed company; the company’s customers, to whom the costs of the tax are passed on, in the price of goods and services; and, of course, the investors who help start and expand companies.
His view of what we need tax dollars for, and from whom we ought to take them leaves room for argument. But in our nation’s current state of affairs, anybody who agrees that taxes should be instituted “as simply and honestly as possible” is a welcome ally.
[Open full post]I was surprised to read in Sunday’s Projo that the Taricani case continues.
There is still a fundamental question I have yet to see answered anywhere in public. Did Taricani waive his right to a jury trial in this case? If so, why? If not, how has Judge Torres’ managed to skirt the whole right-to-trial-by-jury detail?
Glen Peck of Barrington thinks that:
House Republicans have done something truly appalling. They’ve knocked down a Republican House ethics rule that banned House members from holding leadership positions if they’ve been indicted on felony charges. They did it on behalf of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Texas). …
This is no mere act of hypocrisy, though. Nor is it just a Beltway issue, relevant only in Washington. This is a national moral lapse that cuts to the heart of our government.
Curiously, Mr. Peck doesn’t seem interested in the question of whether the other major party at “the heart of our government” has a similar rule. (Of course, in Rhode Island, the Democrats are the head, hands, and pockets of government, too.) In trying to answer that question for myself, I didn’t come across any “appalled” liberals demanding that the Democrats institute one. The closest was a parenthetical note from the apparently liberal Bert Caradine at WatchBlog — offered without evidence or opinion — that “House Democrats are now considering one.”
News readers might suppose that Washington Post writer Charles Babington would think it a relevant factoid for his piece on the matter. But the information remains absent, even as he quotes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as saying that the rule change would “confirm yet again that [Republicans] simply do not care if their leaders are ethical.” (Pelosi, herself, didn’t seem to notice that her standard for the Republicans implies a lack of ethics as the norm.)
Bill Bowman, writing from Bruce Springsteen’s old stomping grounds in New Jersey in the Asbury Park Press, outdoes the WaPo coverage in this respect, if only because a New Jersey Republican spokesman thought to say the unspeakable:
The Republicans’ new rule is “considered tougher than the Democrats’, who have no rules whatsoever. A Democrat leader could be indicted and found guilty and still hold their post,” Sagnip said.
And the folks at Power Line join me (or at least their emailers do) in finding it curious that Democrats would fling the word “hypocrisy” on this count.
I’m not interested enough in this matter to engage in adequate research to form a definitive opinion. Still, indictment seems a rather strict measure in an innocent-’til-proven-guilty society. A rule such as the following, described in the WaPo article, seems most reasonable to me, given political circumstances:
[Open full post]Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.
