Unintended consequences—birth control

Oral contraception was developed in the West to control the populations of black and brown people in developing countries. (All the experimentation was done there first, then tried on poor Americans.) The unintended consequences are that our birth rate is below replacement and health issues for children have soared in the last 40 years of its expanded use in the USA. Now we have to bring in the people it was intended to control to work, pay taxes and support our elderly. Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, was at least honest in her opinion of minorities whom she called "weeds" and in her support of Nazi infanticide projects and killing of the disabled. Today Democrats call it "women's health."

Unintended consequences of helping

Together our two parties have created a cushion for the unemployed, disabled, the poor, single mothers and low income--the earned income tax credit (EITC), child tax credits, Supplemental Security Income for the elderly poor, Medicaid, S-CHIP, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), unemployment insurance, food stamps (SNAP), subsidized school meals, summer lunch programs, low-income housing assistance, energy assistance, block grants to create education programs that have almost no long term results (like Head Start), Social Services Block Grants (Ohio got $63 million+)  and more. GW Bush expanded the food stamp coverage in 2002 and 2008, and Obama added the people to the nearly 50 million today, so if there is a food stamp president, they should both have the “honor.”

For many receiving state and federal benefits, they can't afford to work, or take a raise/better job because they would lose benefits. I heard a man on a Christian talk show last week say that after he and his wife lived together (blended family) for 3 years, they decided to marry because they thought it was a poor example for the kids, but she lost a lot of benefits by getting married.  I doubt that this was the intention of these programs, many begun in the 1960s, but it is the unintended consequences of making people more helpless and less independent. 

The only difference between the parties is the Republicans say this isn't good but vote to add to the deficit anyway, and the Democrats love it because it buys them votes. And it takes 74% of our federal budget when you toss in Social Security and Medicare for the older not poor (who paid into those programs their entire working lives).

"

Nathan Glazer's Warning

I've expressed concern often at this blog about what government is doing to non-profits and church charities and outreach. Nathan Glazer warned that social policy often does more harm than good, and extends this to what happens when the government footprint squashes local charities.

Just as families and buildings risk harm from social policy, so too do nonprofit social-services organizations. In The Limits of Social, Policy

Glazer makes clear that the sort of marriage between government and nonprofits that the Obama White House is pursuing may fundamentally change what makes the helping organizations of civil society so great. As an example, he points to the Meals on Wheels programs that bring food to elderly shut-ins. These programs were effective and cheap back when local charities ran them on their own. “They are small, they rely on volunteers to cook and deliver the meals (often using their own cars and their own gasoline), they are sponsored by churches and other voluntary organizations, they depend on local contributions for the cost of food and whatever paid staff they use, they generally charge for the meals but provide them free for those who cannot afford to pay. All in all, a useful and economic service.”

But then Congress voted to provide federal assistance to the programs. The result was a “host of potential difficulties,” including requirements “that each service must provide more than one hundred meals daily, that they provide auxiliary social services to meals recipients, that they cooperate with area-wide comprehensive planning services for the elderly, that they train their staffs and send them to seminars provided by the Administration on Aging, . . . that they have full-time directors.” Glazer’s concluding reflection can be applied to other programs as well: “When one realizes that meals-on-wheels programs are small, use volunteers, are unacquainted with elaborate paperwork and regulations involved in qualifying for federal assistance, one sees the difficulties they will have in satisfying government regulations and in also remaining who they are.” Government’s seemingly benign endeavor to extend the reach of local social programs, then, is deeply hazardous.

Nathan Glazer's Warning by Howard Husock, City Journal Summer 2011

But in addition, churches that take government money are then stifled in their primary responsibility--providing the Gospel to the needy. Who is it that tries to stop the Gospel?

The down side of historic preservation

I love “historic preservation.” After all, preservation, conservation and confirming what was good in the past is what conservative politics means. It represents what is often years of work and lobbying by local groups.

But there is a down side of unintended (or sometimes intended) consequences. There is no place for the poor or low income in historic, authentic neighborhoods, whether it’s Lakeside, Ohio, the German Village area of Columbus, Bay Point, Michigan, or Williamsburg, Virginia. Even if the government (assuming it is done with government grants) has set asides for low income, the requirements would mean a low income resident would lose his home if his income rises, and it won’t bring back the former residents now scattered through subsidized housing--it will only draw new “poor.” Nor is there any way you can require that your next door neighbor on government assistance or who is a plumber's assistant with a 25 year old truck, will necessarily have the values of the rest of the "preservationists."

A case in point is the restoration and renovation of The Abigail Tearoom (1933-2008). I used to suspect that the wallpaper (pieces of which are for sale at the Archives) and grape vines were holding it together. We had many wonderful meals there from 1974 until it was sold and then closed and auctioned, purchased by a young, talented architect. The meals were not gourmet, but ham loaf, stuffed green peppers and Swiss steak tasted pretty good there topped off with home made peach pie, or Mississippi Mud cake. The Abigail was two houses--one on Central built in the classic 19th c. style, and one on Third, a former boarding house with sleeping porches. The two houses were probably only about 2 feet apart, so a passage was built, and a kitchen tacked on to the rear.

The 20th c. house has been finished, staged, and is for sale--for $549,000. The other one which is still a work in progress will have 5 bedrooms, a family room, huge bathrooms, a lovely patio and landscaping, plus all the amenities today’s family thinks it needs, and will probably be around a million. Not even school teacher DINKS will be able to afford such a home--it will need to be lawyer, businessman, funds manager with a stay at home wife, and some money in the family tree that will fall when shaken.

These renovations are private money, but there are always tax credits for “green” and energy efficient appliances and building innovations, even insulation, which most cottages don’t have. Tax credits are also something only the well off can afford--like cash for clunkers and home insulation breaks. And what they truly cost after they pass from the tax payer in Ohio to the agency in Washington which will redistribute the money though dozens of agencies and the paychecks of bureaucrats, to the appliance dealer who has to fill out the paperwork and the owner’s accountant who has to figure it all out next April, with several forms, each costing you. Home mortgage “loopholes” are something we’ve all come to expect, but which the low income can’t really qualify for. At least I hope we've learned from the last housing bubble that tried that and crippled the nation economically.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions--Andrew Klavan

Full entry here.

More unintended consequences caused by Congress

Last night's Glenn Beck program was a rerun of some features he's done on American history and the treatment of minorities and aliens, primarily by Democrats. Woodrow Wilson and the reinstatement of segregation in government employment and the military, aka, Jim Crow; Andrew Jackson and the forceable relocation of American Indians; FDR and the internment of Japanese, German and Italian Americans in camps.

And I just came across a little known problem dealing with minorities and Democrats during the FDR years that I'd never heard of: The Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934, named for two Democrats in Congress, Maryland Senator Millard E. Tydings and Alabama Representative John McDuffie. It provided for the drafting and guidelines of a Constitution for a 10-year "transitional period" which became the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines before the granting of Philippine independence, during which the US would maintain military forces in the Philippines.

Furthermore, during this period the American President was granted the power to call into military service all military forces of the Philippine government. The act permitted the maintenance of US naval bases, within this region, for two years after independence.

The act reclassified all Filipinos that were living in the United States as aliens for the purposes of immigration to America. Filipinos were no longer allowed to work legally in the US, and a quota of 50 immigrants per year was established."

Sounds to me like the Filipinos lost much more than they gained on this one, particularly if they were already living and working in the U.S. or the Territory of Hawaii, and needed to send money home to their families.

See what happens when you don't read the bill? White House fights state challenges to Obamacare

And of course, we taxpayers will be footing the bill for these challenges--both at the state end and the federal. Sigh. Full employment for government lawyers. Now that's job security!

The Obama administration responded to the first court challenge to health care this week, asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit from Virginia the claims that the federal law violates a state statute.

The Congressional Budget Office released figures that suggest the health care law will $115 billion more than previously estimated.

Another aspect of the law that flew under the radar is potential tax penalties for as many as one-third of companies subject to the law.

Read the whole article. But in a nutshell, this may be the messiest legislation, and the most expensive, in my life time.

Congress.org - News : White House spars with states

Unintended consequences--livestock production

Or was it? New laws in Europe regarding the caging of chickens might destroy the industry and remove a valuable food source from the table.

How to destroy an industry

"Are EU consumers to be deprived of eggs based on the misplaced perceptions of flock wellbeing by extremists intent on destroying established intensive livestock production? Will EU consumers be supplied with eggs from countries with a lower cost of production from cages or cage free systems or even eggs labeled as "cage free or free range" but derived from conventional cages? Either way consumers will be deprived of the nutritional value of eggs or will be required to pay more for their purchases.

We should carefully monitor events in the "old world" and be careful not to emulate the folly of the EU in our industry."

Unintended consequences of trying to save the earth

The Army has a new blog--it's quite interesting. The Earth Day entry reports on how environmentally proactive the Army is, which was a surprise to the writer. What s/he writes about here I've seen up at Lake Erie. Attempts to control the lake and where it wants to be have been disastrous for the shore line, the beaches, the plant life, the fish, and eventually property owners. Imagine trying to hold back the ocean. Fortunately, the U.S. Army came to the rescue in Flordia.

"Just one example is the Soldiers with the 97th Transportation Company at Fort Eustis. They traveled to Florida to help dismantle the world’s largest man-made reef, and a manmade creation that had proven to be destructive to the coastal marine life, as the tires were dismantled by the pounding waves. This wasn’t just an everyday mission for the Soldiers - it was a project they cared about. In several interviews, the crew explained how their environmental standards are of the highest caliber, and they work hard to ensure that with every mission their environmental footprint is as small as possible. They were proud of the opportunity to help the coastal Florida community preserve the marine habitat."

You wonder how much damage is going to be done to our greatest resource--people--considering that only about 1% of our energy is supplied by the so-called alternatives. The measures to destroy fossil fuel through regulation and taxation before there is actually an alternative, to say nothing of the products made from petroleum that are NOT fuel, are mind boggling. We did this with DDT and malaria--millions and millions (mostly Africans) have died and they are just now hoping for a vaccine that might be 30% effective, and using bednets soaked in insecticide (who knows the side effects of breathing that?).

Save the earth; kill the people.

Every improvement has a consequence down the line

Our polio epidemics of the 20th century were a result of good sanitation--the flush toilet. Here’s one I wouldn’t have thought of--clean water increases poor sanitation.

"Clean Water Makes You Dirty: Water Supply and Sanitation Behavior in the Philippines"
Daniel Bennett, Assistant Professor, Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago
June 12, 2008

Improving the water supply is a common policy response to endemic diarrhea in developing countries. However, water supply interventions may inadvertently worsen community sanitation by mitigating the consequences of unsanitary behavior. Since sanitation has large health externalities, the impact of declining sanitation may overwhelm the benefit of receiving clean water. This paper shows how the expansion of municipal piped water in Metro Cebu, the Philippines has exacerbated public defecation and garbage disposal. According to estimates, a neighborhood’s complete adoption of piped water increases public defecation and garbage by 15-30 percent.

I think there’s a message here for us, but I’ll have to think about what it is. Something like "it’s not my problem any more," or “now the government will take care of me so I can do anything I want.”

Unintended consequences

My favorite breakfast is a sliced Honey Crisp apple (preferably huge and from Minnesota, but I'll take Michigan or NY if nothing else is available) and half a cup of whole walnuts. The problem is I had a frenulectomy in 1977 to close the gap between my front teeth. Let me tell you, when you've had surgery in your mouth you'll know it forever. I can't actually bite into a whole apple--it has to be sliced. After that surgery, all my teeth started to shift. You wouldn't think a tiny piece of flesh removal could do that much, but it did. Probably because I still have all my permanent teeth, even four wisdom teeth, as well as most of my childhood fillings. Even brushing my teeth and flossing can't remove the residue from this sticky breakfast, so I often don't eat until I get back from the coffee shop where I might talk or smile. The tiny shift of my front teeth has affected the enamel on my bottom teeth wearing it thin--so on it goes, 30 years later.

Every time we do something to improve something else, or to discourage something, or to destroy something, there are unintended consequences waiting. For instance, polio was virtually unknown when my grandmothers were children. Improved sanitation of the 20th century actually created the epidemics that began around the time of WWI. Middle class people were much more likely to get polio than the poor, and there was a time when they thought African Americans were immune! But in fact, in earlier times, everyone had had some exposure as children, got sick, and then recovered but had continued immunity. After the public water supplies were cleaned up, no one was able to withstand the exposure, which occasionally still lurked in water.

Let's jump a head to a bigger problem. Slum housing. At least, that's what it used to be called. In the earlier centuries in America, poor people built or rented their homes, and moved up or down as their income and circumstances dictated. The freedom to own land was a huge appeal to the immigrants who came here in the 18th and 19th centuries. My maternal grandparents had rented in Wichita when they were first married in 1901, then returned to Illinois in 1908 and lived out their lives on a farm inherited from grandma's father. My paternal grandparents were tenant farmers in the next county in the 1920s, had a large family (nine children) and a disability (my grandmother was blind). My grandmother's parents and other relatives were very good about helping, but there wasn't a government plan to assist them like there would be today for disabled poor people. There was charity, of course--my dad got a grant to go to college from the Polo Women's Club. So first their own children helped with the farm labor doing age appropriate tasks, and eventually, their adult children pooled their money and purchased a small home for them in town during WWII. Later, my grandfather who went to work in a plant when all the younger men had gone off to war (he really wasn't suited for farming), was able to save money, buy another home, and then another home, renting one. That's how housing worked in the early to mid-20th century.

Both Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt extended what started as a panic, then became a recession and then a depression by inserting government programs into problems instead of letting them heal themselves. My maternal grandparents had already begun sinking because of the easy credit for agricultural land and products in the 1920s. Like today, it was an over extension of credit that brought the economy down, but my other grandparents, tenants who had nothing anyway, really weren't affected. The New Deal of the 1930s built on Hoover's (a liberal Republican) mistakes and extended the Depression another 8 years. But worse still are the long term, unintended consequences of those programs.

The New Deal began the federal government's interference in the housing market which extends right up to the balance today in our 401-k and 403-b. It went way beyond zoning and health and safety, long a concern of government. The reason for the housing shortage after WWII, for the existence of all those Lustron homes in Mt. Morris, was rent control, and the government giving a corporation money to develop a house to meet the need and use factories developed during the war. Cheap housing just disappeared from the market, so rent and home prices soared. The government created that shortage. We didn't have fewer buildings in 1946 than 1941, just more rules. So who benefited from that? Certainly not the poor. Then when the poor had no access to even bad housing, the government stepped in again and built public housing, which quickly became a cesspool of crime, rigid segregation by race and very inhospitable living conditions. When public housing failed (remember the demolition of Cabrini Green in Chicago?), the government came up with new plans to "solve" the housing crisis--housing vouchers, community development agencies and non-profits, tax breaks or subsidies, condemning large tracks and rebuilding with tax incentives which created gentrification and scattered the poor yet again!

You think Katrina destroyed housing and hurt the poor? Nothing like what the residue of our federal government's housing experiments over the years have done! At every step, private enterprise has either been discouraged through regulation, or allowed to run wild through lobbying efforts and kick-backs to government officials who hold the keys to housing very tightly. Fast forward to the latest failure of our government to help the poor and low income with housing: the creation of the Community Redevelopment Act under Jimmy Carter, and it's expansion during the Clinton era to the point where banks were held hostage by "non-profits" with massive amounts of government funding receiving huge fees for each low income family they stuffed, unprepared, into a mortgage that didn't fit.

None of this was intended. There were enough good intentions to wall paper Washington DC. But there are consequences when you try to change people's behavior through government programming or reprogramming. Don't be fooled by politicians who weep and mourn over our "selfishness" when we have spent trillions on these government created crises and have only kept the poor down longer than they would have been if we'd done nothing and only stood by and wrung our hands.

The new face of homelessness

is a woman driving and sleeping in her SUV. If you believe CNN news. I stopped to watch a feature about the plight of women in Santa Barbara or one of those upscale California coastal communities who were sleeping and living in their vans and SUVs. Their city had an ordinance about that, but had made a concession and opened a city parking lot 7 p.m.-7 a.m. where they could be reasonably safe. The info-babe interviewed two of them. As I recall, one had a job, but had lost her condo in foreclosure. Her daughter was staying with friends.

There were two huge holes (or more since I didn't see the whole thing) in the story. First, the economy has gone south since Democrats have taken over Congress with their big anti-Bush "we need to have change" push, but the implication is always that all problems reside in Bush's hip pocket. Second, one woman had at least 2 very large dogs in her SUV--either Goldens or Labs, and the other woman had 4 cats. Now pets are OK in your own property, but many, many landlords and agents will not accept pets. So even if you love your pets, even if you think they are your children, whose responsibility is it that you're sleeping in a van with dogs if you can't make other arrangements after losing your home?

This is the kind of inanity that passes for serious journalism--that even walking through the room and seeing 30 seconds of the story, I can figure out that much.

So I checked Google. The 67 year old with the 2 large dogs has 3 adult children and lost her job as a loan processor, but gets SS and works for $8/hr. One could live modestly in Columbus, Ohio on that, or probably even in rural California. However, on the left coast, most communities have ordinances to protect the environment and green spaces that have the unintended (or intended) consequence of keeping out the poor and working class folks. They usually don't allow the big box stores either that provide food and goods at a reasonable price for low income people. Now that she's "retired," she really can't expect to live there. She apparently never saved privately for her retirement, isn't married and isn't welcome to live with her adult children. There are 49 other states (well, except maybe Oregon and Wisconsin which are just as liberal) who will be happy to have her and where she can live with her pets, but she just may have to give up those beautiful ocean views and her unhelpful children.

Grain into gas tanks

for the global warming hoax, the unintended consequences. WaPo reports: "Soaring Food Prices Putting U.S. Emergency Aid in Peril: The U.S. government's humanitarian relief agency will significantly scale back emergency food aid to some of the world's poorest countries this year because of soaring global food prices."

The unintended consequences of pro-active medical care

Name the disease or condition, and early diagnosis and treatment can reduce poor outcomes. Who knows what could happen in health care if patients heeded the advice on diet, exercise and smoking? Yes, who knows. Actually, we do know. Longer life resulting in higher Medicare and Medicaid costs further down the road. Another outcome we know about because it has already happened, is fewer primary care physicians. The expanding menu of interventions, screening tests, vaccines and devices has dramatically increased the work of patient care for all medical specialties, but particularly the guy who's going to make the decision when you complain of feeling poorly, according to JAMA Commentary, November 21, Vol. 298, no. 19.

"Providing all recommended preventive services to a panel of 2500 patients could require up to 7.5 hours a day of physician time; generalists report that roughly 4 separate problems are addressed at each office visit for those older than 65, and even more for those with chronic illnesses such as diabetes," writes John D. Goodson.

The workload is overwhelming and the reimbursement levels for primary care physicians favor the interventions and more expensive care which in turn passes the patient on to specialists. Now, if you were in med school (or paying for your child to go to med school), looking down the road at even more interference by the federal government, and higher insurance costs, would you choose family medicine or pediatrics, or would you head for the safer and richer green pastures of a specialty? Goodson reports that first-year internal medicine residents who express an interest in general internal medicine are less than 20%, but only about half of those will remain committed to this area.

Goodson goes on to recommend higher compensation by the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services), the federal agency that determines how doctors will be paid. If this problem isn't corrected, a large portion of the population will lose access to personal care (or any care). Imagine. The government creates a problem with layers of bureaucracy and regulations (low reimubursement for general care) and is then expected to fix it (with more layers, studies, panels and commissions).

The perfect storm of immigrants flooding the country needing massive social services, to mix with a growing cloud of aging baby boomers who demand only the best. Katrina anyone?

4307

Unintended consequences of over protecting children

Yesterday there was an article in the WSJ about "the bubble wrap generation." Using that article, plus my memory of being in public school in the 40s and 50s and having children in the public schools in the 70s and 80s, I came up with a list of what may not be allowed anymore (can vary by district).

dodge ball
tag
chatter on the baseball diamond
chasing on the playground
running in the halls
swings
teeter totters
hugs between classmates, same sex or opposite sex
sand boxes
cops and robbers
cowboys and Indians
touch football
junior ROTC
prayer
moment of silence
Bible reading
Pledge of Allegiance
Christmas programs
Halloween parties
single sex sports
chastity
creation
walking to and from school
unshaded playgrounds
any words that could be perceived as harming another’s self-esteem
pranks of any kind
sharing an aspirin or Excedrin with a classmate (zero tolerance)

Teens are bringing alcohol and drugs to school in candy dispensers and water bottles, but being expelled for sharing an aspirin. I asked a teacher why the zero tolerance rule, and she said school administrators refuse to make judgement calls--they won't accept the responsibility since parents blame them for everything, big or small. What does that teach the kids about personal responsibility and making choices, I asked. She just shrugged.

And yet, on the far side of overprotectiveness--all the way to harmful to the environment--are the blue dyed, shredded and mulched automobile tires spread on the children's playground where we voted on Tuesday. When it rains, the 1/2 inch dyed chips wash out under the fence into the parking lot, get on our shoes, tracked into our car, and I'm guessing animals might eat them, or even small children. All to protect kids from a few bumps and bruises. Green greed turned blue.

3761

Unintended consequences of emissions control

In my opinion, the most sensible gas saving regulation ever to go into effect was the 55 mph speed limit back in the 1970s. I'm sure it cut into someone's profits, but overnight it saved many lives--thousands a year--and miraculously, it seems to cut down on travel time because there were far fewer accidents holding you up on the roadways and interstates. One benefit never measured was that on the cardiovascular system of the drivers and passengers who weren't driving at 75 mph in a moving parking lot with their heart in their throats.

Now there are hearings for new regulations on emissions control of heavy trucks, which really are the life blood of this country. Virtually everything we eat, or wear or use one square of each time we go to the rest room, is shipped by truck.

Stricter emissions:

Worse mileage will mean more fuel. 1 mile less per gallon

Worse road conditions for other vehicles. Longer, heavier trucks will need to make up the added costs for everything moved by truck, tearing up our asphalt and concrete, causing more fatal accidents when we hit them.

More unsafe trucks. Current trucks will be kept in service longer because they will not be covered by the new regulations.

Hotter trucks. Engines need to burn at a higher heat with the new standards.

Reduced competition. New standards hurt independents and small truckers, and some will go out of business.

Stockpiles. Larger companies have stockpiled new trucks built before the new standards, raising costs for independents.

Add to this the cost of gasoline blends we're going to be forced to burn in our cars, and we're going to have a huge increase in food prices, hurting the poor who spend a larger percentage of their dollar on food.

I like clean air as much as the next gal, but green air costs you the green.

Is this like that?

While browsing through some "Rachel Carson is our hero" blogs, I noticed a carbon neutral festival. I didn't click on it because it seemed to be serious. But it would be a great put up/down, wouldn't it? "What if we gave a festival and nobody came?". Just ask the folks to mail their ticket money and stay home. That would be carbon neutral. No cars driven from the neighboring city, no food stands burning fuel, no fast-food-consuming people wandering the booths expelling CO2, no trash to clean up, no garbage to bag, no Sheryl-porta-potties. I love it.

3699

The unintended consequences of protecting women

Don Imus and Mike Nifong aren't the only guys with funny names apologizing in stories about women. Now Paul Wolfowitz is doing it for having a girlfriend at the World Bank. And she's Arab. Frankly, what DA Nifong did makes all the others pale by comparison, and is a horrible abuse of power, but since the MSM helped create that lynch mentality (Ladies of the View included), it is being soft pedaled and Imus is getting the play by play. He's expendable.

"Paul Wolfowitz's position as president of the World Bank appears shaky, as the bank's Board of Directors met overnight to discuss what to do about a favoritism scandal he is involved in. . . The World Bank's board released a statement early Friday detailing its review involving Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Riza. She was given a job at the U.S. State Department when Wolfowitz took charge of the bank in 2005. World Bank rules ban romantic involvement between workers and supervisors." Story here.

As I understand it, you can't supervise a "friend," and if you help her get a job somewhere else on the advice of your ethics committee, you are then violating another rule. Should he have just put her out on the street, or should he keep her as a paid mistress off the payroll of the bank?

This happens all the time in academe, but because salaries aren't the greatest and they don't have much power (and no ties to the present administration), no one objects. Presidents and deans are recruited. But a deal has to be struck to bring along the wife, the girl friend, boy friend or significant other. I remember one time getting a science librarian with no science background but who had a husband recruited for another department in the university. If the wife didn't get the job, he didn't come. If there is no position open at the university that fits her/his qualifications a position miraculously opens up on the art faculty. When he finds a better position at Yale or Brown or in industry marketing pet food, there will be only one position open when he/she leaves.

Bankers and former Bush appointees (there wouldn't have been a problem if he'd been a Democrat from Clinton's reign) need to learn that "me two" excuse that deans and college presidents use.

3679

Poverty stories--unintended consequences

The Columbus Dispatch a few weeks ago reported on the front page the sad story of a "Decade of Gains Dissipating." A decade ago the Ohio Supreme Court issued four rulings that the state funding system for schools was unconstitutional, and there were dramatic changes in the Appalachian areas of southern Ohio.

In "Southern Local" new schools replaced the old, the high school was renovated, special teachers were hired, science labs opened, and computers brought in. Graduation rate went from 88% in 1997 to 94% in 2006. Spending went from $4,780 per student 10 years ago to $10,043 today, and teachers with 20 years + an MS are getting $51,686.

Now salaries have been frozen, and special programs are being dropped. What happened? Life. The local property taxes can't keep up with costs, like benefits. The district has many expensive students--two thirds qualify for free breakfast and lunch, one fourth have special needs. Once the children are educated, many move away for better jobs. The young man whose parents brought the law suit against the state went on to college, is married and lives in a city in central Ohio and is considering private school for his kids.

Do these stories help or hurt? I think a 94% graduation rate is pretty spectacular--in fact, 88% is waaaaaaay above Cleveland's and Columbus' graduation rate, which have much higher costs per student, nicer buildings and better paid teachers.

I think we need to send a few administrators to southern Ohio to find out how they are doing a better job with less money and poorer facilities. I think I know the answer. Do you?

3613

Stretching the Constitution

Daniel Henninger had an op ed about the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case (Morse v. Frederick) coming before the Supreme Court in yesterday's WSJ. He traces the problem of the Supremes inappropriately moving the free speech border to a case in 1969 when during the Vietnam War it ruled that high schoolers could violate school policy and call it "protected speech."

Although the "Bootleggers and Baptists" theory applies primarily to regulation, the concept of two diametrically opposed value systems joining forces for unrelated goals is apparent in this case. Christian groups have filed friend of the court briefs for this pro-drug speech case. Why? So their kids can wear t-shirts proclaiming pro-life and other Christian slogans in school. I don't think the Bloods and the Crips have filed, but they probably could on colors being protected speech. What a can of worms!

What are the unintended consequences of the Supremes throwing local schools overboard, expecting principals to wade to shore in a sea of confusing cases? Rich liberals like Al Gore and Jesse Jackson just sent their kids to private schools (don't know about Jackson's love child), as do conservative Christians, and millions of parents have decided to homeschool their kids rather than have local standards set in Washington.

Story here

Supreme Court, Morse v. Frederick, unintended consequences