The land of Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone finds itself in a very curious position these days. With the entry of both Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and former Governor Tim Pawlenty into the presidential arena, the election of a new congressional member from a district formerly considered a GOP black hole, and legislative majorities in both state houses committed to not just downsizing state government but completely overhauling its obsolete methods and assumptions, Minnesota is poised to be a major trend setter for the nation in the 2012 elections, perhaps THE trend setter.
Sounds funny, doesn’t it? “Minnesota” and “political conservatism” don’t exactly roll off the tongue here. The Scandinavian tundra is much better known for its ‘progressivism’, and downright socialistic tendencies in many respects. But things have been changing for awhile, even if establishment liberals have steadfastly ignored the shifting tides. More and more Republicans have been getting elected in the last 10 years, and those Republicans have trended more conservative than their 70s and 80s counterparts. Even though the 2010 election gave us a Democratic governor, he only garnered 44% of the vote, and he only managed to do that by spending more than $15 million – more than his two opponents combined. Buying an office isn’t exactly a voter mandate for the liberal agenda.
So what does Minnesota have to offer the nation?
First, we balance our budget every year. There is no such thing as deficit spending in our state government. We prove that it is possible to balance a budget and not run billions (or trillions) of dollars of debt. We had a governor who presided over that process for 8 years without raising taxes. Some Minnesotans will complain that he raised some fees, shifted some payments, and wasn’t exactly a libertarian’s dream. However, compared to governors in other states (Romneycare, anyone?), Tim Pawlenty’s record looks a darned sight better to regular voters. He can speak with authenticity about the reforms that are possible, and about the very serious reform limitations that challenge us if we don’t have the political will to make fundamental shifts in our thinking about government.
Second, we have a vibrant independent streak that demands politicians listen to us, or else. Michele Bachmann has become as popular as she is because she not only listens to what people are saying, she actually responds. Forget what the media elite are saying. Go beyond the Beltway Brie crowd, and you will find big chunks of voters who love the fact that she listens to them and respects what they have to say. Is her voting record perfect? Of course not. But her body of service shows that she actively works to learn what her constituents (and voters around the country) are clamoring to tell her, and then she takes that message back to Washington regardless of whether its popular or not.
Third, we have proven that the GOP should not write off ANY group of voters just because of past history. As they say in the financial world, “past performance is not indicative of future results”. The election of Chip Cravaack still has the Washington establishment shaking their heads in disbelief. They still think it was a weird fluke, that he can’t possibly get re-elected. The resignation to lose in certain districts among certain demographics is so ingrained that it will take a superhuman effort to instill a new paradigm of fighting for every district, every seat, every time. That’s what we did in Minnesota in 2010, and it worked. Every arm of the GOP – state party and house and senate caucuses – worked nearly seamlessly to recruit top quality candidates who fit their districts, train them, raise money and turn out the vote. Imagine what we could accomplish if we had the same level of teamwork on the national level among the RNC, the NRCC, the NRSC and the RGA?
Fourth, we are showing the nation what is possible when you have elected officials who deliver what they promised. Our Republican candidates campaigned not just on fiscal responsibility, but a complete overhaul on how government runs and a line by line review of what government should actually be doing according to our state constitution. Now that they’re in office, they’re doing exactly what they said they would do. Imagine that. Our Republican majorities are focused on narrowing the scope of government to align with our constitution and allowing Minnesotans to figure out the rest. This new paradigm is something our nation desperately needs. Americans want to trust their elected officials, but they’ve been betrayed and hoodwinked time and time again. Minnesota proves that politicians can and do follow through on their promises.
Minnesota has much wisdom and inspiration to offer the rest of our country at a time when it is sorely needed. That the wisdom and inspiration are coming from Republican leadership in a traditionally Democratic state only shows how truly progressive we are. Ya, you betcha.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
#FALSECRISIS
Minnesota’s newest revenue forecast came out today showing that the state will collect about a billion dollars more than previously expected. Democrats immediately went into spin mode about how, now that we “only have a $5 billion deficit”, it might be easier to convince us to raise taxes to close the gap – after all, raising taxes is the only sane thing to do to solve a state government budget crisis in the middle of a recession.
The problem is that the current budget assumptions increase spending nearly 30%, at a time when the rate of inflation is closer to 2%. We will take in almost 9% more revenue than we did the previous budget and yet the Democrats are still whining that we have to raise taxes. The problem is not that we don’t have enough money. The problem is that the Democrats want to spend still more money than we have. This is what we call a false crisis.
Imagine, if you will, that you are doing your own budget projections for your home or business. Over the next two years, you expect that you will bring in 9% more money than you did the last two years. First of all, most of us would be grateful that we’re seeing any increase at all considering the state of the economy. Secondly, we would go about planning our expenses to fit that revenue. That does involve having to prioritize our budgets and then sticking to our plan. If healthcare or energy costs go up more than planned in our own budgets, we cut back on other things. The same is true for governement spending.
Democrats are trying to create a false crisis to generate sympathy for their projects and bully us into extracting more money out of the private economy for their wish lists. Voters told us in no uncertain terms in November they aren’t interested in that agenda. By voting overwhelmingly for fiscally conservative candidates (remember that 56% of Minnesota voters voted AGAINST Mark Dayton), voters told us they want government to spend less money. They told us to focus on the few things that government is actually supposed to do, and cut the rest.
Lawmakers and the governor would do well to heed this advice. Voters want government to spend less money, but they also want to change the budgeting process on a fundamental level. Most of us are not strangers to this prioritization process, but it seems there are some folks who don't seem to understand how it works. For review: First, fund mandated/essential functions. Second, fund, as best as possible, the things that have a serious impact on the quality of performance and service. Lastly, look at funding the things that are nice to have but not really necessary. This process removes a lot of the personal biases and ties that inevitably grow up around any budget line item. It also prevents politicians from using certain hot button expenses like police and fire as political footballs to generate sympathy for spending. Essential services like law enforcement funding comes first. Effective initiatives to improve economic development are not mandated, but they can make a big difference to the health and productivity of the state, so they might fall into the second category. Items like park improvements and arts grants, while nice to have, would most likely fall into the third priority category in the middle of a recession. Within those categories, how do we most wisely spend the money we have?
By prioritizing categories and remaining committed to our promise to the voters that state government will live within its means, we can achieve a balanced budget without raising any taxes. #falsecrisis solved.
The problem is that the current budget assumptions increase spending nearly 30%, at a time when the rate of inflation is closer to 2%. We will take in almost 9% more revenue than we did the previous budget and yet the Democrats are still whining that we have to raise taxes. The problem is not that we don’t have enough money. The problem is that the Democrats want to spend still more money than we have. This is what we call a false crisis.
Imagine, if you will, that you are doing your own budget projections for your home or business. Over the next two years, you expect that you will bring in 9% more money than you did the last two years. First of all, most of us would be grateful that we’re seeing any increase at all considering the state of the economy. Secondly, we would go about planning our expenses to fit that revenue. That does involve having to prioritize our budgets and then sticking to our plan. If healthcare or energy costs go up more than planned in our own budgets, we cut back on other things. The same is true for governement spending.
Democrats are trying to create a false crisis to generate sympathy for their projects and bully us into extracting more money out of the private economy for their wish lists. Voters told us in no uncertain terms in November they aren’t interested in that agenda. By voting overwhelmingly for fiscally conservative candidates (remember that 56% of Minnesota voters voted AGAINST Mark Dayton), voters told us they want government to spend less money. They told us to focus on the few things that government is actually supposed to do, and cut the rest.
Lawmakers and the governor would do well to heed this advice. Voters want government to spend less money, but they also want to change the budgeting process on a fundamental level. Most of us are not strangers to this prioritization process, but it seems there are some folks who don't seem to understand how it works. For review: First, fund mandated/essential functions. Second, fund, as best as possible, the things that have a serious impact on the quality of performance and service. Lastly, look at funding the things that are nice to have but not really necessary. This process removes a lot of the personal biases and ties that inevitably grow up around any budget line item. It also prevents politicians from using certain hot button expenses like police and fire as political footballs to generate sympathy for spending. Essential services like law enforcement funding comes first. Effective initiatives to improve economic development are not mandated, but they can make a big difference to the health and productivity of the state, so they might fall into the second category. Items like park improvements and arts grants, while nice to have, would most likely fall into the third priority category in the middle of a recession. Within those categories, how do we most wisely spend the money we have?
By prioritizing categories and remaining committed to our promise to the voters that state government will live within its means, we can achieve a balanced budget without raising any taxes. #falsecrisis solved.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Trickle Down Economics Goes Negative
It is amazing how short-sighted some people can be. In all the talk about Governor Dayton's tax plan (let's face it, it wasn't a serious "budget proposal"), folks seem to have gotten caught up in the idea that it's ok to raise taxes on the richest Minnesotans because they should pay their "fair share". We need a little clarity on what this plan really does before we get too comfortable with the concept of soaking the rich because they won't really miss it anyway.
This plan is not about whether a few dozen ultra rich people will leave Minnesota altogether to avoid taxation or will stay to ante up their "fair share". This plan isn't about whether those ultra rich people will take their income and spend it elsewhere, or even whether business owners in S corporations or LLCs will move their headquarters elsewhere to avoid the tax increase. That's not the real problem with Mark Dayton's tax plan.
Here is the sneaky truth of how Dayton's tax plan will kill jobs:
Dayton's tax plan affects any single filer with a taxable income of $85,000 and joint filers with a taxable income of $150,000 or more. The biggest group of people who will be affected by this tax increase will be people with jobs that pay between $90,000 and $130,000 per year. What kinds of jobs are those? They're upper middle management jobs - the department heads, the project leaders, the division managers. Those are the jobs that will start to dry up first. They are positions that can go unfilled in a recession if necessary. If you do have them, they can be relatively portable (depending on industry) - even outsourced on a contract basis to consultants and free lancers using modern technology like that newfangled internet the kids keep talking about. Let's say I am a job seeker looking at two jobs in that pay range. One is in Minnesota, where the tax rate just shot up to the highest in the country, and one is just over the border in Wisconsin, Iowa or the Dakotas where the income taxes and the cost of government are much lower. Which job do you think I'll take? If I have any flexibility at all, I’ll take the job in the lower-tax state.
Project leaders, division managers and department heads lead other employees. If you don’t have those positions, or if those positions move to another state, you don’t have the same division, department or project member positions either – the $50,000 to $80,000 a year jobs shrink even more. Without those division, department and project teams on site, their support employees aren’t needed in the same number either so those jobs shrink as well – those are the $35,000 to $50,000 a year jobs.
The loss or transfer of those jobs costs outside businesses as well: the dry cleaners, the lunch spots, the suppliers who base much of their revenue from the business of daytime workers also see their revenue drop in the absence of these positions. When revenue drops for these small business owners, they cut their own employees’ hours. The slowdown continues to every aspect of life for any population center: without your leading community base (several studies show correlations between those who make $50,000 a year or more and those who contribute most to their local community activities), communities lose their vitality and their tax base.
Then the reality of tax increases on the “wealthy” shows its negative trickle-down effect on the rest of the economy. To put it simply, the loss or transfer of one $100,000 Minnesota job can easily lead to the loss or transfer of dozens of other jobs and their related economic activity, resulting in higher unemployment and lower tax revenues and, ultimately, the decline of entire communities. It doesn't happen overnight, but it happens as surely as the sun rises in the east. This is the wrong direction for Minnesota. Governor Dayton’s proposal to raise taxes on $85,000 a year jobs will result in job loss for Minnesota. Republicans should relegate it to the trash heap and find ways to encourage employers to expand in Minnesota rather than take their jobs - and their prosperity - elsewhere.
This plan is not about whether a few dozen ultra rich people will leave Minnesota altogether to avoid taxation or will stay to ante up their "fair share". This plan isn't about whether those ultra rich people will take their income and spend it elsewhere, or even whether business owners in S corporations or LLCs will move their headquarters elsewhere to avoid the tax increase. That's not the real problem with Mark Dayton's tax plan.
Here is the sneaky truth of how Dayton's tax plan will kill jobs:
Dayton's tax plan affects any single filer with a taxable income of $85,000 and joint filers with a taxable income of $150,000 or more. The biggest group of people who will be affected by this tax increase will be people with jobs that pay between $90,000 and $130,000 per year. What kinds of jobs are those? They're upper middle management jobs - the department heads, the project leaders, the division managers. Those are the jobs that will start to dry up first. They are positions that can go unfilled in a recession if necessary. If you do have them, they can be relatively portable (depending on industry) - even outsourced on a contract basis to consultants and free lancers using modern technology like that newfangled internet the kids keep talking about. Let's say I am a job seeker looking at two jobs in that pay range. One is in Minnesota, where the tax rate just shot up to the highest in the country, and one is just over the border in Wisconsin, Iowa or the Dakotas where the income taxes and the cost of government are much lower. Which job do you think I'll take? If I have any flexibility at all, I’ll take the job in the lower-tax state.
Project leaders, division managers and department heads lead other employees. If you don’t have those positions, or if those positions move to another state, you don’t have the same division, department or project member positions either – the $50,000 to $80,000 a year jobs shrink even more. Without those division, department and project teams on site, their support employees aren’t needed in the same number either so those jobs shrink as well – those are the $35,000 to $50,000 a year jobs.
The loss or transfer of those jobs costs outside businesses as well: the dry cleaners, the lunch spots, the suppliers who base much of their revenue from the business of daytime workers also see their revenue drop in the absence of these positions. When revenue drops for these small business owners, they cut their own employees’ hours. The slowdown continues to every aspect of life for any population center: without your leading community base (several studies show correlations between those who make $50,000 a year or more and those who contribute most to their local community activities), communities lose their vitality and their tax base.
Then the reality of tax increases on the “wealthy” shows its negative trickle-down effect on the rest of the economy. To put it simply, the loss or transfer of one $100,000 Minnesota job can easily lead to the loss or transfer of dozens of other jobs and their related economic activity, resulting in higher unemployment and lower tax revenues and, ultimately, the decline of entire communities. It doesn't happen overnight, but it happens as surely as the sun rises in the east. This is the wrong direction for Minnesota. Governor Dayton’s proposal to raise taxes on $85,000 a year jobs will result in job loss for Minnesota. Republicans should relegate it to the trash heap and find ways to encourage employers to expand in Minnesota rather than take their jobs - and their prosperity - elsewhere.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
21st Century Public Education: Remodel the Framework
There is no doubt that the 1950s factory model of education no longer works. The needs and expectations of our students is vastly different now than it was 60 years ago (subject for an upcoming post). Just like teaching our students out of 1950s textbooks would be useless, trying to force-fit the needs and expectations of today's students into 60 year old operational framework will only stifle innovation and impede our students' future success. We routinely update and remodel outmoded HVAC systems, electrical wiring and other physical plant features to keep up with today's needs. We need to remodel the framework of our public education system so school board, administrators, teachers and parents have flexibility to design modern operational systems that work for today's students.
Did you know:
1. Local school boards are not allowed to determine their school calendar - the school calendar is dictated by a "meet and confer" committee of classified employees.
2. There is no formal, standardized performance evaluation measurement system that school districts can use to evaluate teacher performance. Some districts have developed their own; most have not.
3. Education Minnesota, the statewide union that all public school teachers must currently belong to, consistently ranks in the Top Five of expenditures on lobbying the legislature, which does not include the union dues that are contributed to candidates for office.
We need to shift this balance if we are going to succeed in remodeling our public education framework to meet the needs and expectations of 21st century students. Here is what school districts need:
1. Decide whether teachers fall into the "essential employee" category that already covers firefighters, police and school principals. If they don't, we need to give school board the latitude to make significant changes to teachers' Master Agreements. If they do, the legislature needs to classify them as such, eliminating their ability to strike over contract disputes.
2. Upgrade teacher and administrator training programs to require mastery of data use to improve student instruction and outcomes.
3. Modify PELRA (state laws governing contract negotiations) to ensure that school districts can retain the most effective teachers, not just the teachers with the most seniority, and give teachers and other staff assignments that best fit their skill sets and the district's needs rather than simply by who has "bumping rights". Allow districts to modify or eliminate the "steps and lanes" automatic increases that classified employees now enjoy as needed to fit budgetary requirements without having to renegotiate the master agreement.
4. Create an independent arbitrator corps that can only consider "last, best total offer" proposals on contract negotiations rather than acting as a negotiator in their own right, or allow districts the ability to implement a contract without the labor unions' agreement. This modification would go a long way toward balancing the needs of individual school districts that must, by law, negotiate individually against the power of the statewide union organization.
5. Allow school boards to determine school calendars, including staff development days and other non-student contact work days. Set a minimum school year length (there is currently no standard; each district's number of student contact days is set by the teacher committee).
By remodeling the framework by which we operate our schools, we will go a long way toward modernizing our publica school system and meeting the Minnesota constitutional requirement of "thorough and efficient schools".
Did you know:
1. Local school boards are not allowed to determine their school calendar - the school calendar is dictated by a "meet and confer" committee of classified employees.
2. There is no formal, standardized performance evaluation measurement system that school districts can use to evaluate teacher performance. Some districts have developed their own; most have not.
3. Education Minnesota, the statewide union that all public school teachers must currently belong to, consistently ranks in the Top Five of expenditures on lobbying the legislature, which does not include the union dues that are contributed to candidates for office.
We need to shift this balance if we are going to succeed in remodeling our public education framework to meet the needs and expectations of 21st century students. Here is what school districts need:
1. Decide whether teachers fall into the "essential employee" category that already covers firefighters, police and school principals. If they don't, we need to give school board the latitude to make significant changes to teachers' Master Agreements. If they do, the legislature needs to classify them as such, eliminating their ability to strike over contract disputes.
2. Upgrade teacher and administrator training programs to require mastery of data use to improve student instruction and outcomes.
3. Modify PELRA (state laws governing contract negotiations) to ensure that school districts can retain the most effective teachers, not just the teachers with the most seniority, and give teachers and other staff assignments that best fit their skill sets and the district's needs rather than simply by who has "bumping rights". Allow districts to modify or eliminate the "steps and lanes" automatic increases that classified employees now enjoy as needed to fit budgetary requirements without having to renegotiate the master agreement.
4. Create an independent arbitrator corps that can only consider "last, best total offer" proposals on contract negotiations rather than acting as a negotiator in their own right, or allow districts the ability to implement a contract without the labor unions' agreement. This modification would go a long way toward balancing the needs of individual school districts that must, by law, negotiate individually against the power of the statewide union organization.
5. Allow school boards to determine school calendars, including staff development days and other non-student contact work days. Set a minimum school year length (there is currently no standard; each district's number of student contact days is set by the teacher committee).
By remodeling the framework by which we operate our schools, we will go a long way toward modernizing our publica school system and meeting the Minnesota constitutional requirement of "thorough and efficient schools".
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
21st Century Public Education: Enact Funding Flexibility
Most people have no idea how complicated and painful education funding is. Virtually every dollar that comes into a district has strings attached in the form of mandates, restrictions and requirements. Some administrators have estimated that the staff time needed to keep up with all the mandated reporting and submission requirements amounts to nearly half of every full time employee in a school district. If you wonder why the ratio of administrators to teachers is so high, this is one big reason.
For instance, did you know:
1. School districts are required by law to keep separate accounts for capital, food service, debt service, future retirement benefit exposure, and operating funds, and those funds may not be transferred from one fund to another, even if they are not needed in their area;
2. Two percent of the budget every year is mandated to be set aside for staff development (continuing education, etc.), AND the locally elected school board has no control over how those funds are spent – those decisions are made by teachers and school building administrators according to state law;
3. If school boards don’t reach a contract settlement with their teachers’ bargaining unit (Education Minnesota) by January 15th of the contract year, the district is assessed a $25 per pupil penalty;
4. There are myriad “special pots” of money from state and federal sources that can only be used for specific things. Eligibility, submission and compliance requirements are often conflicting and negatively impact other sources of funding;
5. Various districts around the state have special local levying authority that other districts don’t have, and these authorities arise purely out of the clout their local representatives wield in the legislature (it's another form of earmarking). This creates a confusing and unequal playing field.
An economic downturn is the worst possible time for any government entity to ask for more funds. Minnesota’s school districts need funding flexibility. Here is what Minnesota’s public schools need right now:
1. Allow districts to transfer operating money from one fund to another. Locally elected school board members, accountable to the taxpayers, ought to be able to use capital, food service and staff development funds elsewhere depending on the needs of the individual district;
2. Minnesota’s state government should eliminate the 2% set aside for staff development, or at the very least, waive it for the next biennium so school boards can use that money where it is needed most in their districts. Additionally, the law should be amended to give school boards the final authority in how the money is spent to ensure that staff development programs are in alignment with the district’s goals for performance and student achievement;
3. The deadline for settling contracts, and the penalty for not meeting that deadline, needs to be eliminated, pure and simple. This requirement and penalty threat is one of many things that makes it very difficult for school boards to effectively negotiate labor contracts that are in the best interest of the school district;
4. Every “special pot” of money that is currently in existence, whether it’s a grant program, a local levy authority, or something else, needs to be carefully examined for relevance, effectiveness and ease of use, with most of them sunsetted. If the state of Minnesota adopted the same mantra that most moms use during spring cleaning, “for every one thing kept, two things must be tossed”, we would have a cleaner, easier to navigate, more transparent and equitable system of education funding in this state. Reserve special pots for top priority policy items: innovation, outstanding performance, substantial cost savings. Get rid of all the dust bunny programs hiding under the file cabinets because people never bothered to sweep them out.
5. The notion of creating "special" levy authorities for specific budget items like technology, health and safety equipment, etc. is silly. Local school boards should be able to assess their budgetary needs in total and assess property taxes with the approval of the taxpayers with one number. Trying to get around that accountability by creating all these special little categories is intellectually dishonest, takes too much staff time, and forces districts to make budget choices that may not best fit their needs. This line of thinking falls into the dust bunny category above. Instead, the legislature should craft language that grandfathers any existing special levy now in force into the local districts' current local operating levies (in the odd event one doesn't exist, the special levies would be pooled together to create a standard levy), and let districts work with the aggregate funding without worrying about whether they comply with each special levy's restrictions.
6. Here's another, bolder thought: in an effort to stabilize education funding while we work out the budget and restructuring at the state level, the Minnesota legislature could authorize an automatic extension for two years of any local levy scheduled to expire within the next biennium. Why would that be helpful? First, it would remove the huge budgeting uncertainty that exists in every district where a levy is scheduled to expire during a biennium when the state budget will almost certainly have to cut (or at best, hold steady) education funding. Second, it would maintain stable tax rates for local communities. Granted, tax rates would not decrease, but they would not be threatened with an increase either. Third, it would relieve everyone involved from having to go through the process of a levy referendum - expensive and time-consuming for district staff who have to prepare all the data and deal with submission, approval and reporting requirements, divisive for communities during a time when communities are already exhausted from financial pressures. A two year extension would, in effect, 'calm the system', and provide some breathing space for everyone from MDE to the legislature to school boards to communities while we restructure our public education system in Minnesota.
Simplfiying the budgeting and allocation process will allow school districts the ability to focus on their most important priorities, ease the contortions that legislators, staff members and the public have to go through to understand and administer the process, and might even save a little money to boot as districts spend less time searching for all the little scraps they can find to make up for general fund formula reductions.
For instance, did you know:
1. School districts are required by law to keep separate accounts for capital, food service, debt service, future retirement benefit exposure, and operating funds, and those funds may not be transferred from one fund to another, even if they are not needed in their area;
2. Two percent of the budget every year is mandated to be set aside for staff development (continuing education, etc.), AND the locally elected school board has no control over how those funds are spent – those decisions are made by teachers and school building administrators according to state law;
3. If school boards don’t reach a contract settlement with their teachers’ bargaining unit (Education Minnesota) by January 15th of the contract year, the district is assessed a $25 per pupil penalty;
4. There are myriad “special pots” of money from state and federal sources that can only be used for specific things. Eligibility, submission and compliance requirements are often conflicting and negatively impact other sources of funding;
5. Various districts around the state have special local levying authority that other districts don’t have, and these authorities arise purely out of the clout their local representatives wield in the legislature (it's another form of earmarking). This creates a confusing and unequal playing field.
An economic downturn is the worst possible time for any government entity to ask for more funds. Minnesota’s school districts need funding flexibility. Here is what Minnesota’s public schools need right now:
1. Allow districts to transfer operating money from one fund to another. Locally elected school board members, accountable to the taxpayers, ought to be able to use capital, food service and staff development funds elsewhere depending on the needs of the individual district;
2. Minnesota’s state government should eliminate the 2% set aside for staff development, or at the very least, waive it for the next biennium so school boards can use that money where it is needed most in their districts. Additionally, the law should be amended to give school boards the final authority in how the money is spent to ensure that staff development programs are in alignment with the district’s goals for performance and student achievement;
3. The deadline for settling contracts, and the penalty for not meeting that deadline, needs to be eliminated, pure and simple. This requirement and penalty threat is one of many things that makes it very difficult for school boards to effectively negotiate labor contracts that are in the best interest of the school district;
4. Every “special pot” of money that is currently in existence, whether it’s a grant program, a local levy authority, or something else, needs to be carefully examined for relevance, effectiveness and ease of use, with most of them sunsetted. If the state of Minnesota adopted the same mantra that most moms use during spring cleaning, “for every one thing kept, two things must be tossed”, we would have a cleaner, easier to navigate, more transparent and equitable system of education funding in this state. Reserve special pots for top priority policy items: innovation, outstanding performance, substantial cost savings. Get rid of all the dust bunny programs hiding under the file cabinets because people never bothered to sweep them out.
5. The notion of creating "special" levy authorities for specific budget items like technology, health and safety equipment, etc. is silly. Local school boards should be able to assess their budgetary needs in total and assess property taxes with the approval of the taxpayers with one number. Trying to get around that accountability by creating all these special little categories is intellectually dishonest, takes too much staff time, and forces districts to make budget choices that may not best fit their needs. This line of thinking falls into the dust bunny category above. Instead, the legislature should craft language that grandfathers any existing special levy now in force into the local districts' current local operating levies (in the odd event one doesn't exist, the special levies would be pooled together to create a standard levy), and let districts work with the aggregate funding without worrying about whether they comply with each special levy's restrictions.
6. Here's another, bolder thought: in an effort to stabilize education funding while we work out the budget and restructuring at the state level, the Minnesota legislature could authorize an automatic extension for two years of any local levy scheduled to expire within the next biennium. Why would that be helpful? First, it would remove the huge budgeting uncertainty that exists in every district where a levy is scheduled to expire during a biennium when the state budget will almost certainly have to cut (or at best, hold steady) education funding. Second, it would maintain stable tax rates for local communities. Granted, tax rates would not decrease, but they would not be threatened with an increase either. Third, it would relieve everyone involved from having to go through the process of a levy referendum - expensive and time-consuming for district staff who have to prepare all the data and deal with submission, approval and reporting requirements, divisive for communities during a time when communities are already exhausted from financial pressures. A two year extension would, in effect, 'calm the system', and provide some breathing space for everyone from MDE to the legislature to school boards to communities while we restructure our public education system in Minnesota.
Simplfiying the budgeting and allocation process will allow school districts the ability to focus on their most important priorities, ease the contortions that legislators, staff members and the public have to go through to understand and administer the process, and might even save a little money to boot as districts spend less time searching for all the little scraps they can find to make up for general fund formula reductions.
21st Century Public Education
Minnesotans believe in public education. Our state's founders believed in it so strongly that it was written into Article 13, Section 1 our state's constitution: "UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state."
In the last thirty years of the education wars, Minnesotans of various stripes have tried to reinvent, circumvent, shut down and compete with our statewide public school system. I have been one of them, because I believe that parents should be able to choose how their children are educated and that competition improves performance in any endeavor.
However, I'm also a Constitutionalist.
As a Constitutionalist, and as a Minnesotan, I have to understand that Minnesotans value public education. It is the most accessible, most affordable means of education that most families in Minnesota have. Abolishing or dismantling public education in Minnesota would be unconstitutional. And since the reality is that public education will remain the most accessible, most affordable form of education for most families, we should also heed our state constitution's requirements to make it thorough and efficient.
Note to Governor Dayton: that doesn't mean throwing more money at the system.
I've spent nearly 8 years serving on a local school board here in the Twin Cities. We have made some amazing progress in transforming our district's educational systems to better serve our students. Our high school has been listed in Newsweek's Top 1,500 High Schools for three years in a row. Our AP and other exceptional learner programs have some of the highest per capita ratios of disadvantaged students of any district our size. We serve a higher proportion of special needs students than most other districts in Minnesota because parents have confidence in our capabilities to educate their children. Our district's superintendent was the first superintendent in the state of Minnesota to base her entire potential salary increase on merit alone.
And we've done it with lower tax rates and lower per-pupil spending than almost any other district in the metropolitan area.
In this series of posts, I will outline the kinds of reform that public education really needs to allow it to perform in the 21st century. I believe in competition as much as I ever did, and I believe that public education can perform just as well as any other educational option if we have the flexibility and call to innovation that our districts need to get the job done. Public education is a core Minnesota value: let's get it right.
In the last thirty years of the education wars, Minnesotans of various stripes have tried to reinvent, circumvent, shut down and compete with our statewide public school system. I have been one of them, because I believe that parents should be able to choose how their children are educated and that competition improves performance in any endeavor.
However, I'm also a Constitutionalist.
As a Constitutionalist, and as a Minnesotan, I have to understand that Minnesotans value public education. It is the most accessible, most affordable means of education that most families in Minnesota have. Abolishing or dismantling public education in Minnesota would be unconstitutional. And since the reality is that public education will remain the most accessible, most affordable form of education for most families, we should also heed our state constitution's requirements to make it thorough and efficient.
Note to Governor Dayton: that doesn't mean throwing more money at the system.
I've spent nearly 8 years serving on a local school board here in the Twin Cities. We have made some amazing progress in transforming our district's educational systems to better serve our students. Our high school has been listed in Newsweek's Top 1,500 High Schools for three years in a row. Our AP and other exceptional learner programs have some of the highest per capita ratios of disadvantaged students of any district our size. We serve a higher proportion of special needs students than most other districts in Minnesota because parents have confidence in our capabilities to educate their children. Our district's superintendent was the first superintendent in the state of Minnesota to base her entire potential salary increase on merit alone.
And we've done it with lower tax rates and lower per-pupil spending than almost any other district in the metropolitan area.
In this series of posts, I will outline the kinds of reform that public education really needs to allow it to perform in the 21st century. I believe in competition as much as I ever did, and I believe that public education can perform just as well as any other educational option if we have the flexibility and call to innovation that our districts need to get the job done. Public education is a core Minnesota value: let's get it right.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Reconciliation is UnMinnesotan
Ken Martin is trying to shame us into thinking that wanting an accurate vote count in our gubernatorial election is un-Minnesotan. He said as much in an article today regarding the petition filed by the Emmer campaign and the Republican Party of Minnesota requesting the Minnesota Supreme Court to order a reconciliation of ballots to legal voters signed in at each precinct. "What is this really about? This is about damaging the ability of our next governor, Mark Dayton, to govern in this state," said Martin, according to the Politics in MN report. He continues: "And it's wrong, it's un-Minnesotan and I don't think the voters of this state will stand for it." (see full article:
http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/11/%e2%80%98phantom-votes-suit-hangs-over-gov-recount/ )
The current chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota suffers fools far more gracefully than some others would. Ken falls squarely into this category. How can reconciling the ballots in the election do anything but HELP the next governor's ability to lead? If the election results are scrutinized to this degree, they are bound to be more accurate. If they are more accurate, they are far more credible and lend even more gravitas to the governor - whoever that turns out to be. I'll give Martin credit for some understanding of Minnesota psyche: most citizens of this state would rather be dead than be considered 'un-Minnesotan'. He's softly trying to bully the supreme court justices into going with the flow, not making waves - don't do anything so un-Minnesotan as to question the judgement of the secretary of state or county workers. I would argue that it's very un-Minnesotan to want to disenfranchise our neighbors who cast their votes legally, and it's definitely un-Minnesotan to want to leave a pall of illegitimacy hanging over the next governor by not thoroughly, properly and accurately counting the ballots in our election. Let the justices determine whether administrative rule is equal in authority to state law passed by a duly elected legislature.
The article goes on with Hamline University political science professor David Schultz suggesting that the petition will get dismissed because it's "too soon" since the election results haven't yet been certified. However, in 2008, when the Coleman recount legal team tried to raise the issue late in the recount process once they realized there were more than 30,000 extra ballots, the argument was that trying to address it at that point was too late precisely because the election results had already been certified. Generally, the earlier these concerns are raised and addressed, the better chance we have of sorting them out and getting real answers.
Lastly, the argument is raised that if extra ballots must be randomly pulled out, both Emmer and Dayton would lose votes at roughly the same rate, and could even affect down ballot races. However, the writer fails to mention that the ballots are to be pulled within their precincts. If Hennepin and Ramsey counties are the areas with the highest proportion of potential problems, then the votes will hardly be lost at the same rate. Dayton would lose a disproportionate share of the vote, by a large percentage. And here is the crux of Martin's concern. He knows that if there are, say, 12,000 extra ballots in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, given the margin of difference between the two candidates in those counties - losing those extra ballots alone could easily wipe out the lead now enjoyed by Mark Dayton. And there would be no collateral damage to the legislative victories of the house and senate Republicans.
And if the Republicans are wrong and there is no phantom vote problem? Then we will have gone a long way to proving how good our election system is, and we can all be good Minnesotans knowing that our next governor is the man truly chosen by 44% of the people.
Let the chips fall where they may, indeed.
http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/11/%e2%80%98phantom-votes-suit-hangs-over-gov-recount/ )
The current chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota suffers fools far more gracefully than some others would. Ken falls squarely into this category. How can reconciling the ballots in the election do anything but HELP the next governor's ability to lead? If the election results are scrutinized to this degree, they are bound to be more accurate. If they are more accurate, they are far more credible and lend even more gravitas to the governor - whoever that turns out to be. I'll give Martin credit for some understanding of Minnesota psyche: most citizens of this state would rather be dead than be considered 'un-Minnesotan'. He's softly trying to bully the supreme court justices into going with the flow, not making waves - don't do anything so un-Minnesotan as to question the judgement of the secretary of state or county workers. I would argue that it's very un-Minnesotan to want to disenfranchise our neighbors who cast their votes legally, and it's definitely un-Minnesotan to want to leave a pall of illegitimacy hanging over the next governor by not thoroughly, properly and accurately counting the ballots in our election. Let the justices determine whether administrative rule is equal in authority to state law passed by a duly elected legislature.
The article goes on with Hamline University political science professor David Schultz suggesting that the petition will get dismissed because it's "too soon" since the election results haven't yet been certified. However, in 2008, when the Coleman recount legal team tried to raise the issue late in the recount process once they realized there were more than 30,000 extra ballots, the argument was that trying to address it at that point was too late precisely because the election results had already been certified. Generally, the earlier these concerns are raised and addressed, the better chance we have of sorting them out and getting real answers.
Lastly, the argument is raised that if extra ballots must be randomly pulled out, both Emmer and Dayton would lose votes at roughly the same rate, and could even affect down ballot races. However, the writer fails to mention that the ballots are to be pulled within their precincts. If Hennepin and Ramsey counties are the areas with the highest proportion of potential problems, then the votes will hardly be lost at the same rate. Dayton would lose a disproportionate share of the vote, by a large percentage. And here is the crux of Martin's concern. He knows that if there are, say, 12,000 extra ballots in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, given the margin of difference between the two candidates in those counties - losing those extra ballots alone could easily wipe out the lead now enjoyed by Mark Dayton. And there would be no collateral damage to the legislative victories of the house and senate Republicans.
And if the Republicans are wrong and there is no phantom vote problem? Then we will have gone a long way to proving how good our election system is, and we can all be good Minnesotans knowing that our next governor is the man truly chosen by 44% of the people.
Let the chips fall where they may, indeed.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Reconciling Ritchie
The Emmer for Governor campaign and the Republican Party of Minnesota today filed a petition with the Minnesota Supreme Court asking the court “to ensure that reconciliation has occurred in each of Minnesota’s 4,136 precincts as required by Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 204C.20)”. Raucus howling immediately ensued from the peanut gallery, decrying Mr. Emmer and the Republican Party for trying to drag out the process, waste taxpayers’ money on the recount and generally rain on the DFL parade. The loudest and ugliest detractors are perfectly well aware that the recount is required by state statute because the margin between the two candidates is less than one half of one percent. But they never seem to let facts get in the way of a good tantrum, so they yell at each other in their echo chamber and soothe themselves with their smug self-satisfaction. Meh.
All the howling is a lame attempt to try to distract the public from two very obvious facts that the Emmer campaign and the state GOP have uncovered: Minnesota’s election system is not as squeaky clean and smooth as some people would have us think; and, some Democrats will happily look the other way rather than reform the system because the current looseness in the rules and lackadaisical habits of our election practices usually tend to favor their outcomes.
Same-day registration fiascos, no photo ID and our mockery of a vouching system have already been covered. The majority of Minnesotans want reform on these issues. What is more fundamentally disturbing is the complete lack of respect some DFLers seem to show for the laws already on the books, and the high tolerance they seem to have for mediocrity in our system performance. The poster child for mediocrity and disregard for the law appears to be none other than Secretary of State Mark Ritchie himself. Although reconciliation of ballots to voters in each precinct is required by statute, Ritchie apparently ignored the requirement and dismantled the reconciliation program designed to make sure that every legal vote is counted, and counted only once. Why? In his own words: "He said the goal was to match voter registration and the certified canvassing board totals within 1,000 names. ‘You'll never get a perfect correlation between the two,' he said. 'We were at 40,000 in April. We're at about 30,000 now.'" (Patricia Lopez, “Ritchie is sued over voter-registration records,” Star Tribune, May 28, 2009).
Problem Number One: Disregard for the law. Why are we having to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to force the Secretary of State to follow the law? Ballot reconciliation is required by statute. The system was in place to comply. Just do the job you’re supposed to do. Following state statute is not a suggestion; it’s a required part of the job description. How long would Ritchie survive in the private sector if he just chose to ignore required portions of his employers’ job description? About 2 seconds.
Problem Number Two: Why is it acceptable to Ritchie and his ilk to settle for mediocrity in our election system? I’ve heard two lines of flawed logic in this recount that boggle my mind:
1. Minnesota has one of the best election systems in the country, better than most other states.
2. In Ritchie’s own words, “You’ll never get a perfect correlation between the two.” (ballots counted to voters signed in)
It goes without saying that using “we’re better than the other guys” is about the dumbest piece of adolescent logic there is. That’s like having your kid come home with a ‘D’ on a test and hearing him or her say, ‘well the other kids got ‘F’ on theirs’. How we compare to other states is not the standard. The standard toward which we should strive in our election system is 100% accuracy and compliance with the law. This attitude is especially maddening when we know that there were systems and procedures in place to accomplish the reconciliation task, and they simply weren’t being followed.
Second, the acceptance of mediocrity as a matter of philosophy is utterly unacceptable. To say that “you’ll never get a perfect correlation between the two” is like a retail manager accepting that the cashiers’ tills will never balance. A 40,000 ballot to voter gap spread among 4,136 precincts averages less than 10 ballots per precinct. Figure it out for crying out loud. Make sure your systems and procedures are adequate, then train and support your election judges using the standard of 100% accuracy and compliance. The task is straightforward: the number of ballots must match the number of signed in, legally registered voters. The remedy for discrepencies is to discard any extra ballots. It’s not rocket science.
Minnesota is a state in fundamental political transition. We have seen a few cycles in a row now with extremely close elections in various races. Minnesota’s voters deserve to have confidence in the accuracy and integrity of our election process. Compliance with the law, a commitment to excellence and willingness to recognize – and reform – flaws in the system will earn and keep the trust and confidence so vital to our robust democracy for every citizen.
How does reconciliation work? Check out Mitch Berg's explanation at:
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/
All the howling is a lame attempt to try to distract the public from two very obvious facts that the Emmer campaign and the state GOP have uncovered: Minnesota’s election system is not as squeaky clean and smooth as some people would have us think; and, some Democrats will happily look the other way rather than reform the system because the current looseness in the rules and lackadaisical habits of our election practices usually tend to favor their outcomes.
Same-day registration fiascos, no photo ID and our mockery of a vouching system have already been covered. The majority of Minnesotans want reform on these issues. What is more fundamentally disturbing is the complete lack of respect some DFLers seem to show for the laws already on the books, and the high tolerance they seem to have for mediocrity in our system performance. The poster child for mediocrity and disregard for the law appears to be none other than Secretary of State Mark Ritchie himself. Although reconciliation of ballots to voters in each precinct is required by statute, Ritchie apparently ignored the requirement and dismantled the reconciliation program designed to make sure that every legal vote is counted, and counted only once. Why? In his own words: "He said the goal was to match voter registration and the certified canvassing board totals within 1,000 names. ‘You'll never get a perfect correlation between the two,' he said. 'We were at 40,000 in April. We're at about 30,000 now.'" (Patricia Lopez, “Ritchie is sued over voter-registration records,” Star Tribune, May 28, 2009).
Problem Number One: Disregard for the law. Why are we having to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to force the Secretary of State to follow the law? Ballot reconciliation is required by statute. The system was in place to comply. Just do the job you’re supposed to do. Following state statute is not a suggestion; it’s a required part of the job description. How long would Ritchie survive in the private sector if he just chose to ignore required portions of his employers’ job description? About 2 seconds.
Problem Number Two: Why is it acceptable to Ritchie and his ilk to settle for mediocrity in our election system? I’ve heard two lines of flawed logic in this recount that boggle my mind:
1. Minnesota has one of the best election systems in the country, better than most other states.
2. In Ritchie’s own words, “You’ll never get a perfect correlation between the two.” (ballots counted to voters signed in)
It goes without saying that using “we’re better than the other guys” is about the dumbest piece of adolescent logic there is. That’s like having your kid come home with a ‘D’ on a test and hearing him or her say, ‘well the other kids got ‘F’ on theirs’. How we compare to other states is not the standard. The standard toward which we should strive in our election system is 100% accuracy and compliance with the law. This attitude is especially maddening when we know that there were systems and procedures in place to accomplish the reconciliation task, and they simply weren’t being followed.
Second, the acceptance of mediocrity as a matter of philosophy is utterly unacceptable. To say that “you’ll never get a perfect correlation between the two” is like a retail manager accepting that the cashiers’ tills will never balance. A 40,000 ballot to voter gap spread among 4,136 precincts averages less than 10 ballots per precinct. Figure it out for crying out loud. Make sure your systems and procedures are adequate, then train and support your election judges using the standard of 100% accuracy and compliance. The task is straightforward: the number of ballots must match the number of signed in, legally registered voters. The remedy for discrepencies is to discard any extra ballots. It’s not rocket science.
Minnesota is a state in fundamental political transition. We have seen a few cycles in a row now with extremely close elections in various races. Minnesota’s voters deserve to have confidence in the accuracy and integrity of our election process. Compliance with the law, a commitment to excellence and willingness to recognize – and reform – flaws in the system will earn and keep the trust and confidence so vital to our robust democracy for every citizen.
How does reconciliation work? Check out Mitch Berg's explanation at:
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/
Monday, March 22, 2010
A little self-flagellation
Here's a riddle for you: What do you get when you cross 12 years of majority status with a party that has its collective head in the sand?
Answer: Obamacare.
As much as we conservatives and Republicans want to wail and gnash our teeth over the heavy-handed, manipulative tactics of the Democrats in getting this behemoth of a bill passed, we really have only ourselves to blame. Healthcare reform is not a new issue. In 1992, when President Clinton took office, consumers were complaining about runaway costs, capricious insurance denials, no real choices, and haphazard delivery. Hillary Clinton became the first First Lady to take an active policy role in trying to shape an overhaul of the healthcare system to address these issues and create a system that insured everyone. We heard exactly the same arguments for and against her ideas as we've heard over Obamacare. Republicans - and the general public - recoiled. Of course we need healthcare reform, we said, but it should be targeted to the real needs in the system - we didn't need some sweeping overhaul that would destroy the best medical system in the entire world. We needed lawsuit reform, portability, more consumer choice and direct access so people could see how much their healthcare actually costs. Eventually Hillary Clinton's plans were tossed out as too far-reaching, too socialistic. Americans didn't want socialized medicine, plain and simple. They elected Republicans to a majority in 1994 to rein in the left and bring balance back to federal government.
Republicans held Congressional majorities for 12 years. For 8 of those years, we held control of the executive and the legislative branch. There was nothing we couldn't have done. We had a golden, perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity to enact the kind of reforms that would have transformed the medical industry in America and provided a shining example for the rest of the world for how to provide effective, cost-efficient healthcare that rewarded innovation and success and left no patient behind.
Instead, we did...nothing.
No tort reform. No delivery streamlining. No portability. No reforms of insurance pools or patient coverage. Oh, we managed to create a bill to cover prescription medications for some folks, but we even screwed that up. All we really did was expand bureaucracy and increase costs. For the most part, Republicans put healthcare reform on the back burner, telling ourselves that the public cared more about the war on terror than the state of our medical system.
The funny thing is, people did continue to care. The healthcare system is something that affects all of us every day - taking care of children or aging parents; dealing with insurance companies, providers, pharmacies, government agencies; paying the co-pays, the deductibles, the out-of-network, out-of-pockets. The maze is confusing at best, rife with traps that cost you dearly or dead ends that don't heal your ills. The costs are ridiculous - insurance premium increases of 15% or more annually are not unusual even when inflation stays near zero.
So, the Democrats come along, led by this charismatic "Yes We Can!" leader who promised to bring Utopia into being with his presidency. With commanding majorities in both houses, he had a golden, perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity to enact the kind of reforms that will transform the medical industry in America. The difference? President Obama did it. We may not like his vision or his methods, but he did it. The Democrats now own the healthcare issue. And beyond our goldfish bowls of cynicism and beltway politics, here is a sampling of real statements from average people about the bill:
"I'm glad that now self-employed people can buy into insurance pools like employees do."
"Now my husband doesn't have to stay with his job to keep our health insurance. We can take our policy with us."
"My neighbor can't be denied coverage for her heart condition."
"I know there are things in the bill I won't like, but we can fix those. At least this is a start."
Hear that? That's the sound of American common sense and compassion talking. Those are Republican ideas. But we will never be able to claim them now, because we failed to provide clear leadership when we had the chance. The American people wanted action. They wanted some direction. We didn't provide any, so they took the only direction that was laid out, knowing it would have to be fixed later.
We have a chance to fix it in November. Will we be fit to lead?
Answer: Obamacare.
As much as we conservatives and Republicans want to wail and gnash our teeth over the heavy-handed, manipulative tactics of the Democrats in getting this behemoth of a bill passed, we really have only ourselves to blame. Healthcare reform is not a new issue. In 1992, when President Clinton took office, consumers were complaining about runaway costs, capricious insurance denials, no real choices, and haphazard delivery. Hillary Clinton became the first First Lady to take an active policy role in trying to shape an overhaul of the healthcare system to address these issues and create a system that insured everyone. We heard exactly the same arguments for and against her ideas as we've heard over Obamacare. Republicans - and the general public - recoiled. Of course we need healthcare reform, we said, but it should be targeted to the real needs in the system - we didn't need some sweeping overhaul that would destroy the best medical system in the entire world. We needed lawsuit reform, portability, more consumer choice and direct access so people could see how much their healthcare actually costs. Eventually Hillary Clinton's plans were tossed out as too far-reaching, too socialistic. Americans didn't want socialized medicine, plain and simple. They elected Republicans to a majority in 1994 to rein in the left and bring balance back to federal government.
Republicans held Congressional majorities for 12 years. For 8 of those years, we held control of the executive and the legislative branch. There was nothing we couldn't have done. We had a golden, perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity to enact the kind of reforms that would have transformed the medical industry in America and provided a shining example for the rest of the world for how to provide effective, cost-efficient healthcare that rewarded innovation and success and left no patient behind.
Instead, we did...nothing.
No tort reform. No delivery streamlining. No portability. No reforms of insurance pools or patient coverage. Oh, we managed to create a bill to cover prescription medications for some folks, but we even screwed that up. All we really did was expand bureaucracy and increase costs. For the most part, Republicans put healthcare reform on the back burner, telling ourselves that the public cared more about the war on terror than the state of our medical system.
The funny thing is, people did continue to care. The healthcare system is something that affects all of us every day - taking care of children or aging parents; dealing with insurance companies, providers, pharmacies, government agencies; paying the co-pays, the deductibles, the out-of-network, out-of-pockets. The maze is confusing at best, rife with traps that cost you dearly or dead ends that don't heal your ills. The costs are ridiculous - insurance premium increases of 15% or more annually are not unusual even when inflation stays near zero.
So, the Democrats come along, led by this charismatic "Yes We Can!" leader who promised to bring Utopia into being with his presidency. With commanding majorities in both houses, he had a golden, perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity to enact the kind of reforms that will transform the medical industry in America. The difference? President Obama did it. We may not like his vision or his methods, but he did it. The Democrats now own the healthcare issue. And beyond our goldfish bowls of cynicism and beltway politics, here is a sampling of real statements from average people about the bill:
"I'm glad that now self-employed people can buy into insurance pools like employees do."
"Now my husband doesn't have to stay with his job to keep our health insurance. We can take our policy with us."
"My neighbor can't be denied coverage for her heart condition."
"I know there are things in the bill I won't like, but we can fix those. At least this is a start."
Hear that? That's the sound of American common sense and compassion talking. Those are Republican ideas. But we will never be able to claim them now, because we failed to provide clear leadership when we had the chance. The American people wanted action. They wanted some direction. We didn't provide any, so they took the only direction that was laid out, knowing it would have to be fixed later.
We have a chance to fix it in November. Will we be fit to lead?
Saturday, October 24, 2009
At the intersection of Walmart & Amway: the transformation of human civilization, brought to you by capitalism
I read a galvanizing Wall Street Journal article Wednesday on my morning flight to Chicago. The article focused on a new trend in India: companies that are designing and selling new products geared toward improving the quality of life for India’s poorest populations, and giving individual entrepreneurs the opportunity to build their own businesses along the way.
That bears repeating: Indian companies are now focusing their resources on designing and selling new products geared toward improving the quality of life for India’s poorest populations, and giving individual entrepreneurs the opportunity to build their own businesses along the way.
Those in the know in India have figured out that they don’t have to settle for scraps of hand-me-down technology and jobs outsourced from the West to sustain their economy. Armed with some of the best designers and engineers in the world along with a highly skilled workforce and motivated customer potential, they have decided to build their own internal engine – I’m not even sure they realize exactly what they are unleashing in their country. In addition to the obvious economic explosion coming their way, it will have incredibly profound and far reaching social and political effects.
It started when they channeled Henry Ford with the release of the Nano, Tata Motors tiny little $2,200 car that the bulk of Indians could afford to buy and could physically drive throughout their country’s widely varied road system. Here are some other examples:
- One company has produced a small refrigerator that runs on batteries designed for use in India’s rural areas that sells for $70. Although it is a “major appliance purchase” for small Indian farming families, it significantly improves the safety of their food supply and their quality of life at a purchase price they can afford and a low cost of use they can sustain. It’s kinder to the environment just by its necessary design. Its sale and distribution is handled by women who go from village to village with the small refrigerator on their bicycles.
- Another company has figured out how to open bank “branches” virtually: it has designed a special cell phone with a chip that can compute and transmit basic banking transactions using portable fingerprint identification technology for account holders. A bank representative basically sets up shop in any given small village with the phone and a lockbox of rupees. Customers sign into their accounts using the fingerprint technology, do their transactions electronically, and either deposit or withdraw the physical rupees from the representative’s lockbox. The representative takes the physical currency back to a brick and mortar branch at the end of his/her run.
These are just two examples of ways that Indian companies are transforming the lives of their own citizens. Along the way, they are also blazing a revolutionary path to economic recovery and growth for the entire global market. Want to use less energy? Look to India’s innovative uses of rechargeable batteries and low-power drain electrical devices. Looking to improve product affordability? See how India’s new technologies and production methods are reducing manufacturing and transaction costs. Racking your brain over how to create new business and job opportunities for your underclass? India is leading the way by working with their culture: building distribution channels with independent entrepreneurs and small local businesses that create local jobs, thereby improving standards of living in villages and rural areas all over India. Wishing you could recoup some of the losses you took in the stock market plunge? Has India got some investment opportunities for you, even if your available investment dollars are modest.
Sam Walton opened Walmart with the vision of bringing affordable products to people who needed and wanted them to improve their quality of life. Amway built its global company with the vision to provide a path to business ownership for anyone with the drive to be an entrepreneur regardless of investment capital or previous experience. Those two philosophies are revolutionizing the culture and the economy of India – it’s only a matter of time before they light the way for the rest of us to follow.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125598988906795035.html
That bears repeating: Indian companies are now focusing their resources on designing and selling new products geared toward improving the quality of life for India’s poorest populations, and giving individual entrepreneurs the opportunity to build their own businesses along the way.
Those in the know in India have figured out that they don’t have to settle for scraps of hand-me-down technology and jobs outsourced from the West to sustain their economy. Armed with some of the best designers and engineers in the world along with a highly skilled workforce and motivated customer potential, they have decided to build their own internal engine – I’m not even sure they realize exactly what they are unleashing in their country. In addition to the obvious economic explosion coming their way, it will have incredibly profound and far reaching social and political effects.
It started when they channeled Henry Ford with the release of the Nano, Tata Motors tiny little $2,200 car that the bulk of Indians could afford to buy and could physically drive throughout their country’s widely varied road system. Here are some other examples:
- One company has produced a small refrigerator that runs on batteries designed for use in India’s rural areas that sells for $70. Although it is a “major appliance purchase” for small Indian farming families, it significantly improves the safety of their food supply and their quality of life at a purchase price they can afford and a low cost of use they can sustain. It’s kinder to the environment just by its necessary design. Its sale and distribution is handled by women who go from village to village with the small refrigerator on their bicycles.
- Another company has figured out how to open bank “branches” virtually: it has designed a special cell phone with a chip that can compute and transmit basic banking transactions using portable fingerprint identification technology for account holders. A bank representative basically sets up shop in any given small village with the phone and a lockbox of rupees. Customers sign into their accounts using the fingerprint technology, do their transactions electronically, and either deposit or withdraw the physical rupees from the representative’s lockbox. The representative takes the physical currency back to a brick and mortar branch at the end of his/her run.
These are just two examples of ways that Indian companies are transforming the lives of their own citizens. Along the way, they are also blazing a revolutionary path to economic recovery and growth for the entire global market. Want to use less energy? Look to India’s innovative uses of rechargeable batteries and low-power drain electrical devices. Looking to improve product affordability? See how India’s new technologies and production methods are reducing manufacturing and transaction costs. Racking your brain over how to create new business and job opportunities for your underclass? India is leading the way by working with their culture: building distribution channels with independent entrepreneurs and small local businesses that create local jobs, thereby improving standards of living in villages and rural areas all over India. Wishing you could recoup some of the losses you took in the stock market plunge? Has India got some investment opportunities for you, even if your available investment dollars are modest.
Sam Walton opened Walmart with the vision of bringing affordable products to people who needed and wanted them to improve their quality of life. Amway built its global company with the vision to provide a path to business ownership for anyone with the drive to be an entrepreneur regardless of investment capital or previous experience. Those two philosophies are revolutionizing the culture and the economy of India – it’s only a matter of time before they light the way for the rest of us to follow.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125598988906795035.html
Friday, October 9, 2009
It's not the thought that counts.
So the Big O has won the Nobel Peace Prize. To me it is no surprise and of no consequence. It is no surprise because all American presidential winners of the prize have been Democrats. It is of no consequence because the nomination deadline for this particular round was February 1, 2009 - barely 10 days after the president took the oath of office. Even though the actual voting occurred later, there was absolutely not enough time for the president to accomplish anything substantial enough to merit consideration, even working at his feverish pace.
This cheapening of the Nobel Peace Prize is extremely disappointing. It was foolish and shallow of the Nobel nominating committee to nominate anyone with such a slim record, regardless of how much Hope he spreads around. This was not the Nobel Hope Prize. It was the Nobel Peace Prize – arguably the most prestigious award in the world for a subject held in the highest regard by all of humankind. My disappointment, however, has nothing to do with President Obama, how I feel about his agenda, or the political party to which he belongs. My disappointment goes much deeper than that.
The gravitas of the Nobel Peace Prize should, in my opinion, be reserved until a person's whole body of work can be judged for its effect on the subject matter involved. Consider the polio vaccine, for example. The three scientists who won that award didn't win because they announced they would try to eradicate polio. They didn't win because they started on their experiment protocol. They won because they developed and proved a viable, economically and socially sustainable solution that could be replicated worldwide to eliminate polio as a threat. Now THAT'S an accomplishment worthy of a Nobel award. It's the worldwide effect of the accomplishment that matters and should be judged. If high-minded thoughts and good intentions were all that mattered to qualify someone for a Nobel award, nearly everyone would deserve one.
I don’t take issue with President Obama over this. I take issue with the Nobel committee. Either they don’t understand the importance of the award and have decided to hand it out willy nilly, or they do understand its importance, and they handed it to the least experienced and accomplished president in modern times because they want to lend weight to his agenda. Which one is worse?
This cheapening of the Nobel Peace Prize is extremely disappointing. It was foolish and shallow of the Nobel nominating committee to nominate anyone with such a slim record, regardless of how much Hope he spreads around. This was not the Nobel Hope Prize. It was the Nobel Peace Prize – arguably the most prestigious award in the world for a subject held in the highest regard by all of humankind. My disappointment, however, has nothing to do with President Obama, how I feel about his agenda, or the political party to which he belongs. My disappointment goes much deeper than that.
The gravitas of the Nobel Peace Prize should, in my opinion, be reserved until a person's whole body of work can be judged for its effect on the subject matter involved. Consider the polio vaccine, for example. The three scientists who won that award didn't win because they announced they would try to eradicate polio. They didn't win because they started on their experiment protocol. They won because they developed and proved a viable, economically and socially sustainable solution that could be replicated worldwide to eliminate polio as a threat. Now THAT'S an accomplishment worthy of a Nobel award. It's the worldwide effect of the accomplishment that matters and should be judged. If high-minded thoughts and good intentions were all that mattered to qualify someone for a Nobel award, nearly everyone would deserve one.
I don’t take issue with President Obama over this. I take issue with the Nobel committee. Either they don’t understand the importance of the award and have decided to hand it out willy nilly, or they do understand its importance, and they handed it to the least experienced and accomplished president in modern times because they want to lend weight to his agenda. Which one is worse?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Remembering 9/11
'Please pray for all who were murdered by Islamic terrorists on this day in 2001. Pray for their families. Pray for all those who fight terrorism & terror sponsors "over there" so we can live in safety here. Pray for all peace-loving democracies, that God will give us the grace to reach out to all who want peace & freedom, the fortitude to stand strong against those who do not, and the wisdom to know the difference.'
That was my Facebook status today. I still mourn when I recall how that perfect September morning morphed into surreal horror as more than 3,000 Americans and foreign guests lost their lives – and thousands more lost their way in the aftermath.
Free commerce and global trading as we know it vaporized as the World Trade Center towers collapsed upon themselves.
The enormous gash in the Pentagon punched straight through to our very sense of American security and complacency.
The peace and tranquility of ordinary citizens living ordinary lives abruptly shattered when Flight 93 slashed through a Pennsylvania meadow in a searing jolt of terrorism with global reach.
Revulsion still shudders through every angry nerve when I recall the glee expressed by Osama bin Laden and his minions over the unprecedented success of their attacks.
I still weep at recordings of the last phone calls made by Flight 93 passengers to their loved ones, knowing they would not see them ever again.
My patriotic blood still courses at the phrase, “Let’s roll”.
Our very sense of American identity was transplanted that day. We were forcibly torn from our deep-rooted belief that because we stand for freedom, because we are the strongest, most able nation in the world, because we devote untold human and capital resources to helping less fortunate global neighbors, deep down other nations must like us – or, at the very least, have a grudging respect for us. Since entire generations had grown up in a post Cold War world with America as the only superpower, we had absorbed a complacent belief that we were invincible. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 ripped out that diseased belief structure and replaced it with Homeland Security, hundreds of thousands of combat soldiers in action, fighter jet patrols over our major cities and fundamental economic upheaval.
In the eight years since the attacks, we have behaved very much like transplant patients. Even though we know we now need these things – these intrusions into our civil liberties, these daily security inconveniences, these economic restructurings – to stay alive, our body politic still tries to reject the new transplanted reality. We still long for our old belief structure, even though we know it was diseased and unsustainable. We still try to avoid taking our daily dose of reality medicine, even though we know it’s the only way to stay strong and healthy. And we will always bear the permanent scars of our ordeal, no matter how much we try to eradicate them.
We Americans, eternal optimists that we are, need to strive forward. It is part of our national DNA. However, we also now carry with us the sorrow of knowledge that not everyone shares our outlooks and our beliefs, and they want us dead. Wisdom can spring from that sorrow. We can use that wisdom to improve how we influence the world. We can look to the world stage with our eyes wide open and see our friends – and our enemies – for who they are, understanding that our beliefs and our traditions may not necessarily reflect today’s current realities. We can then act accordingly to further the ideals of freedom, democracy and justice in the world. Let us pray that we do so with grace, fortitude and discernment in all things.
That was my Facebook status today. I still mourn when I recall how that perfect September morning morphed into surreal horror as more than 3,000 Americans and foreign guests lost their lives – and thousands more lost their way in the aftermath.
Free commerce and global trading as we know it vaporized as the World Trade Center towers collapsed upon themselves.
The enormous gash in the Pentagon punched straight through to our very sense of American security and complacency.
The peace and tranquility of ordinary citizens living ordinary lives abruptly shattered when Flight 93 slashed through a Pennsylvania meadow in a searing jolt of terrorism with global reach.
Revulsion still shudders through every angry nerve when I recall the glee expressed by Osama bin Laden and his minions over the unprecedented success of their attacks.
I still weep at recordings of the last phone calls made by Flight 93 passengers to their loved ones, knowing they would not see them ever again.
My patriotic blood still courses at the phrase, “Let’s roll”.
Our very sense of American identity was transplanted that day. We were forcibly torn from our deep-rooted belief that because we stand for freedom, because we are the strongest, most able nation in the world, because we devote untold human and capital resources to helping less fortunate global neighbors, deep down other nations must like us – or, at the very least, have a grudging respect for us. Since entire generations had grown up in a post Cold War world with America as the only superpower, we had absorbed a complacent belief that we were invincible. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 ripped out that diseased belief structure and replaced it with Homeland Security, hundreds of thousands of combat soldiers in action, fighter jet patrols over our major cities and fundamental economic upheaval.
In the eight years since the attacks, we have behaved very much like transplant patients. Even though we know we now need these things – these intrusions into our civil liberties, these daily security inconveniences, these economic restructurings – to stay alive, our body politic still tries to reject the new transplanted reality. We still long for our old belief structure, even though we know it was diseased and unsustainable. We still try to avoid taking our daily dose of reality medicine, even though we know it’s the only way to stay strong and healthy. And we will always bear the permanent scars of our ordeal, no matter how much we try to eradicate them.
We Americans, eternal optimists that we are, need to strive forward. It is part of our national DNA. However, we also now carry with us the sorrow of knowledge that not everyone shares our outlooks and our beliefs, and they want us dead. Wisdom can spring from that sorrow. We can use that wisdom to improve how we influence the world. We can look to the world stage with our eyes wide open and see our friends – and our enemies – for who they are, understanding that our beliefs and our traditions may not necessarily reflect today’s current realities. We can then act accordingly to further the ideals of freedom, democracy and justice in the world. Let us pray that we do so with grace, fortitude and discernment in all things.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Muzzling the President
The heated controversy around an upcoming speech planned for the beginning of the school year by President Obama on the importance of education is dangerously close to at least equal mankind’s annual contribution to global warming. Parents are threatening to pull their children from school on September 8th, political organizations are calling for boycotts of schools that show his nationally televised speech, teachers’ unions are issuing marching orders for their members to show the speech no matter what parents and school administration officials say, and policy think tanks are renewing their arguments for private and charter schools to ensure that students have “freedom of thought” rather than suffer from government-imposed indoctrination of leftist values.
What???
This is the President of the United States. This is the leader of the free world. This is the highest office of the most free and prosperous nation in the history of mankind – one that considers the right of free speech as one of its most sacred foundational cornerstones. Yet people are calling for a ban on his welcome back to school speech. Consider what is being demanded: people are calling – no, they are howling – for public schools to suppress a speech from the President of the United States.
Have a large number of Americans suddenly lost their minds? Have they decided that free speech is no longer an essential right, and the best way to set the example is to gag the President?
I would suggest that this is not quite the case. Rather, the outrage is coming from a keen sense of deep distrust on this particular President’s motives. It is unprecedented for the President to deliver a back to school welcome speech, but that isn’t enough to raise this kind of ire. That his soft, feel-good message of working hard and staying in school comes precisely when his approval ratings are suffering a TKO and his bungled health care plan is barely hanging on life support smacks of pandering still doesn’t deserve such passionate opposition to a mere back to school speech. No. Anger this visceral comes from a deep-seated belief that Barack Obama isn’t addressing our nation’s students to encourage them to stay in school. Instead, concerned people believe that Barack Obama is trying to indoctrinate their children over to his side on policy, pitting child against parent in a war over values, priorities and a fundamental vision of what America should be as a nation. That’s pretty powerful stuff.
But does he deserve such a reputation? Well, let’s look at his very short history:
In the first month of his administration, Barack Obama shoved Republicans aside from discussions on economic stimulus, smugly telling them “he won”, so things were going to be done his way;
In the second month of his administration, Barack Obama put together a plan to take over the financial industry and the auto industry all while protecting those who decimated the housing industry;
In the third month of his administration, Barack Obama appointed multiple Cabinet and staff whose tax dodging and other legal entanglements compromised his pledges of honesty and integrity in government;
In the fourth and fifth months of his administration, Barack Obama’s right hand Rahm Emmanuel was caught trying to take control of the U.S. Census process to tilt the counting of American citizens to favor Democrats in election politics;
In the last three months of his administration, Barack Obama has tried to shove an unbelievably bloated, contorted, impossible to understand, implement and pay for healthcare system under the guise of reform without letting people read or debate it. We also discovered that he had reached back room deals with a number of insurance companies in the process – a practice he specifically said would not happen during his term.
Now, it has come to light that Barack Obama’s education speech isn’t just a speech, it’s the focus of a lesson plan developed by the White House to challenge children to find ways they can help him.
I’m sorry, but if the shoe fits…
Barack Obama has caused this outrage because of his heavy-handed tactics to push his policies through, his arrogance and smugness, his willingness to intentionally surround himself with people who do not measure up to public standards of moral and ethical conduct, and his brazen (and ill-conceived) intentions of taking control of just about every industry in America. That kind of conduct breeds intense distrust in Americans; we don’t like people who act like they’re better than we are, and we surely don’t like people who try to pull the wool over our eyes and then insult us for taking it off. Barack Obama has politicized the office of the Presidency so much so that 63% of Americans (according to a recent Facebook poll) would rather ban public addresses by the President in schools unless they have been reviewed by parents and teachers first than let those addresses happen without oversight. This is a serious problem. If Americans distrust their President so deeply they would rather censor him than listen to him, how can we hope to build any kind of common ground anywhere going forward?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
How do we really approach health care reform?
Beyond tax cuts, more important than foreign policy, a core foundation for my conservative philosophy is the protection of innocent and vulnerable human life.
I have always been pro-life. I have carried the pro-life message with me wherever I could. I used it as a topic for persuasive argument assignments in high school. I taught about it at our church youth group. In college I picketed Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, counseled girls and young women before and after having abortions, and volunteered my time to pro-life causes and political candidates. While the pro-life cause wasn’t my only issue, it was certainly a defining issue – if the candidate wasn’t pro-life first, then we weren’t working from the same philosophical framework. Being pro-life didn’t guarantee that a candidate would get my vote. But, not being pro-life certainly guaranteed that he/she wouldn’t get it.
I tell you this only to provide background. I recently gave birth to my fourth child 2 months before her due date. As I looked at her tiny face, I couldn’t help but think of this glaring contradiction in our society: we seem to be equally willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of staff resources to keep our youngest babies alive on the one hand, yet on the other hand we pervert the talent and skills of medical staff supposedly committed to healing to killing off these same babies when it suits the whim of the mother (or others who coerce her). What kind of philosophical schizophrenia allows us to do this?
I would suggest that we, as a nation, are simply too psychologically cowardly to face the truth of what we are doing and take responsibility for changing it.
There is no reconciling this dichotomy of national consciousness. Until we, as a nation, commit to a consistent, cohesive set of values regarding our care and concern for human life in all its stages, we will not be able to create a health care system that genuinely works. We cannot commit to both saving people and actively killing them, selecting who will live and who will die according to a false code of ethics built on the idea of ‘choice’ – because choice for one necessarily eliminates the choice for another. There is only one equation that works here: all human life is equally deserving of protection and healing. In order to build a health care system that works for everyone, we must first work from the premise that everyone counts equally. Every person in our society has innate value; it is up to us to develop a health care system dedicated to honoring that value. Here’s a hint: a health care system that works for everyone won’t involve a government funded plan.
I have always been pro-life. I have carried the pro-life message with me wherever I could. I used it as a topic for persuasive argument assignments in high school. I taught about it at our church youth group. In college I picketed Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, counseled girls and young women before and after having abortions, and volunteered my time to pro-life causes and political candidates. While the pro-life cause wasn’t my only issue, it was certainly a defining issue – if the candidate wasn’t pro-life first, then we weren’t working from the same philosophical framework. Being pro-life didn’t guarantee that a candidate would get my vote. But, not being pro-life certainly guaranteed that he/she wouldn’t get it.
I tell you this only to provide background. I recently gave birth to my fourth child 2 months before her due date. As I looked at her tiny face, I couldn’t help but think of this glaring contradiction in our society: we seem to be equally willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of staff resources to keep our youngest babies alive on the one hand, yet on the other hand we pervert the talent and skills of medical staff supposedly committed to healing to killing off these same babies when it suits the whim of the mother (or others who coerce her). What kind of philosophical schizophrenia allows us to do this?
I would suggest that we, as a nation, are simply too psychologically cowardly to face the truth of what we are doing and take responsibility for changing it.
There is no reconciling this dichotomy of national consciousness. Until we, as a nation, commit to a consistent, cohesive set of values regarding our care and concern for human life in all its stages, we will not be able to create a health care system that genuinely works. We cannot commit to both saving people and actively killing them, selecting who will live and who will die according to a false code of ethics built on the idea of ‘choice’ – because choice for one necessarily eliminates the choice for another. There is only one equation that works here: all human life is equally deserving of protection and healing. In order to build a health care system that works for everyone, we must first work from the premise that everyone counts equally. Every person in our society has innate value; it is up to us to develop a health care system dedicated to honoring that value. Here’s a hint: a health care system that works for everyone won’t involve a government funded plan.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Yet more good news
Over the weekend I attended some local Republican conventions in Minnesota. Minnesota is a caucus state, which means that local grassroots activists have much greater influence in determining everything from the party platform to the selection of candidates to the execution of campaigns across the state. It is a terrific leveling force against the complaint that “big money” rules politics; unlike primary states where candidates run their campaigns largely through paid media, caucus states ensure that the people who truly care about the direction of their party and the quality of their candidates are heard loud and clear.
I was delighted to see excellent turnout at these local conventions in a non-election year. It was obvious to me that conservatives are motivated and focused on rebuilding the Republican Party in Minnesota. I heard lots of good ideas, substantive discourse on a variety of topics, and one overall message loud and clear:
The Republican Party is a conservative party, with conservative principles that we are not interested in leaving behind. On the contrary, the folks at these conventions believe (rightly so, in my opinion), that we need to do a much better job of adhering to our conservative principles and articulating the success of those principles to the rest of the voters. America is a center right country; even apolitical people cringe at the idea of “socialism” and government control of their lives. Americans believe that the government that governs best governs least, and that there is no government control that will substitute for personal responsibility, integrity and conviction.
The success of our local conventions combines with a spontaneous explosion of conservative activity around the country: Tea Party rallies with tens of thousands of participants, governors making the very hard (but wise) choice to eschew the Big O’s “free” candy because they know that their state’s freedom will be held for ransom in return, bank executives telling the federal government they can take their TARP funds and put them somewhere else because their intrusion and control isn’t wanted in our free market system, and local groups of all kinds springing up, using the power of the internet to connect with each other and spread the conservative message.
This is how it all starts: conservatives banding together on the issues, educating and motivating each other so we can go out and literally evangelize the general electorate. As we build our momentum, we need to keep our message clear: the Republican Party is a conservative party. We are not Democrat Lite, we are not Mushy Middle. We’re not interested in wannabes or RINOs. We have no patience for whining, grousing, or petty personal agendas. We want tried and true positive conservatives who will build on the momentum we see starting and take advantage of all the innovation that the web and other tools have to offer to catapult the Republican Party back into the majority in Minnesota and across the country. We've got a great start. Let’s keep it going!
I was delighted to see excellent turnout at these local conventions in a non-election year. It was obvious to me that conservatives are motivated and focused on rebuilding the Republican Party in Minnesota. I heard lots of good ideas, substantive discourse on a variety of topics, and one overall message loud and clear:
The Republican Party is a conservative party, with conservative principles that we are not interested in leaving behind. On the contrary, the folks at these conventions believe (rightly so, in my opinion), that we need to do a much better job of adhering to our conservative principles and articulating the success of those principles to the rest of the voters. America is a center right country; even apolitical people cringe at the idea of “socialism” and government control of their lives. Americans believe that the government that governs best governs least, and that there is no government control that will substitute for personal responsibility, integrity and conviction.
The success of our local conventions combines with a spontaneous explosion of conservative activity around the country: Tea Party rallies with tens of thousands of participants, governors making the very hard (but wise) choice to eschew the Big O’s “free” candy because they know that their state’s freedom will be held for ransom in return, bank executives telling the federal government they can take their TARP funds and put them somewhere else because their intrusion and control isn’t wanted in our free market system, and local groups of all kinds springing up, using the power of the internet to connect with each other and spread the conservative message.
This is how it all starts: conservatives banding together on the issues, educating and motivating each other so we can go out and literally evangelize the general electorate. As we build our momentum, we need to keep our message clear: the Republican Party is a conservative party. We are not Democrat Lite, we are not Mushy Middle. We’re not interested in wannabes or RINOs. We have no patience for whining, grousing, or petty personal agendas. We want tried and true positive conservatives who will build on the momentum we see starting and take advantage of all the innovation that the web and other tools have to offer to catapult the Republican Party back into the majority in Minnesota and across the country. We've got a great start. Let’s keep it going!
Monday, March 23, 2009
And now for the good news.
The media is full of bad news. I managed to work myself into a full-blown fit the other day before work because I made the mistake of watching the morning news as I got ready. By the time I got into the car I was a nervous wreck, ready to throw in the towel on everything we were doing to build our business. I have a pretty thick skin, which tells you how dramatically bad the commentary was that morning.
But just as the media started reporting on the recession long after it actually began, so they are lagging behind on highlighting the improvements we are seeing on the ground. My business – the restaurant business – is much like the canary in the coal mine of the economy. Eating out is almost completely discretionary for most people, so restaurants tend to be more sensitive to even minor changes in the economy. It doesn’t take much for people to decide to eat out less often, choose less expensive venues, and spend less on their meal when they do go out.
The good news is that sales in our restaurants are up – strongly up.
Digging into further research gave me even more reason to be optimistic that we’re seeing the bottom of the economy and are moving out of the recessionary period. Here are a few stats to consider, according to Gallup Research Polling rolling averages:
Consumer spending is up to $58*, an increase of 6 points
People who are “Not Worried” about their personal finances: 63%
Consumer mood: Happiness is up 10 points to 54%
People who feel “Energized” is up 3 points to 53%
People who think the economy is getting better: 27%, a 20 month high
Consumer mood has improved by 31 points over past 10 days
Support for nuclear energy: 59%, all time high
Economy trumps environment: for the first time, 51% of Americans say economic growth should be given top priority, even if the environment suffers for it
*Note: this number is still lower than it was earlier this year; however, there is no adjustment available to account for the lower prices people are paying for goods. So, while people may not be spending more hard currency, they are coming out and buying more goods – they’re just getting better deals due to reduced pricing.
This is great news for Main Street. When people start to feel better, they relax. When they relax, they open themselves up to possibilities and new perspectives – like, maybe the sky isn’t really falling after all. There are always caveats: Obama’s stupidity could easily derail this delicate improvement; China, Russia or any number of other countries could short circuit our recovery with their own problems because we owe them so much money at the federal level, and the Democrats in Congress are quite able to reroute any improvements to their own districts and then take credit for everything good that happens from here on out, and many banks are still making things difficult for business, and the Big O’s spending sprees have done absolutely nothing to improve that at any level.
I believe we will still see some job shedding in fat or outdated industries. However, with public sentiment swinging toward making the economy a priority over everything else including the environment, we will begin to see new jobs opening up in other industries by the end of the year – if we don’t let the Big O and Co. screw it up too badly.
Obama is an idiot.
For the past few weeks I’ve been paying very close attention to the Big O’s administration and movements as he tilted this way and that on his agenda, his positions on various issues, and trying to fill his Cabinet. I tried to cut him a little slack regarding ignorance in the actual “being president” part of this historical juggernaut; after all, he’d only been a US Senator for 43 days when he announced he was running for President. One could understand that he hadn’t had a chance to really absorb the finer points of running the country day to day in such a short time – details such as choosing Cabinet members without major legal and tax problems, paying more than momentary lip service to the idea of getting to know the folks on the other side of the aisle before insulting them, and actually putting a mature White House staff in place that knows how to do more than just campaign for the liberal agenda, they might also be able to spell.
However, enough is enough. The Big O has shown that while he’s a stellar campaigner, he’s a completely incompetent leader. He hasn’t a clue what he’s doing. Unfortunately, like so many others who are products of free passes in life, he thinks he’s a lot smarter than he is. He’s not interested in being corrected because he smugly thinks he already knows everything. In fact, he knows very little from a practical standpoint. Forget the Harvard degree. With all due respect to Harvard graduates, the only thing Obama had to do to get his degree was agree with the left-wing teachings of his professors – not exactly a difficult thing to do for a master manipulator.
Oh, the Big O knows plenty about putting on a cool front – but just about any teenager can school you in the art of being cool. He knows a lot about manipulating words and images to get people to do what he wants – as do my 2 year old and my 6 year old. He is a truly gifted orator, an important skill for which he not only has a natural talent, but which he also learned at the feet of Reverend Wright and others who are also accomplished in emotional manipulation to further their own agendas. It’s easy for the lay person to confuse master manipulation for wisdom; it’s even easier to mistake gifted eloquence for intelligence. They are neither.
The Big O has now shown without a doubt that he is not only a dedicated and unapologetic socialist who seems to despise the very socioeconomic and political systems that gave him the opportunity to become President of the most powerful nation on earth, he’s not even remotely good at the most basic functions of the job. And he doesn't seem to care about that. He brushes off the near daily mistakes of his administration and aides as unimportant distractions from the "real" business of being President, when in fact, these near constant errors are symptomatic of a fundamental lack of competence that affects every aspect of policy and politics.
The question is being asked: when will the media turn on him? The answer is absolutely never. Not a chance. Instead, they’ll blame nitpicky critics who are out to “get” him, and an outmoded system of standards that are unrealistic and probably irrelevant in this txt msg age. They will never expect their golden boy to conform to the universe as it stands; instead, they will expect the universe to evolve around to his style.
That is, if there are any traditional media outlets left in business to even talk about it.
However, enough is enough. The Big O has shown that while he’s a stellar campaigner, he’s a completely incompetent leader. He hasn’t a clue what he’s doing. Unfortunately, like so many others who are products of free passes in life, he thinks he’s a lot smarter than he is. He’s not interested in being corrected because he smugly thinks he already knows everything. In fact, he knows very little from a practical standpoint. Forget the Harvard degree. With all due respect to Harvard graduates, the only thing Obama had to do to get his degree was agree with the left-wing teachings of his professors – not exactly a difficult thing to do for a master manipulator.
Oh, the Big O knows plenty about putting on a cool front – but just about any teenager can school you in the art of being cool. He knows a lot about manipulating words and images to get people to do what he wants – as do my 2 year old and my 6 year old. He is a truly gifted orator, an important skill for which he not only has a natural talent, but which he also learned at the feet of Reverend Wright and others who are also accomplished in emotional manipulation to further their own agendas. It’s easy for the lay person to confuse master manipulation for wisdom; it’s even easier to mistake gifted eloquence for intelligence. They are neither.
The Big O has now shown without a doubt that he is not only a dedicated and unapologetic socialist who seems to despise the very socioeconomic and political systems that gave him the opportunity to become President of the most powerful nation on earth, he’s not even remotely good at the most basic functions of the job. And he doesn't seem to care about that. He brushes off the near daily mistakes of his administration and aides as unimportant distractions from the "real" business of being President, when in fact, these near constant errors are symptomatic of a fundamental lack of competence that affects every aspect of policy and politics.
The question is being asked: when will the media turn on him? The answer is absolutely never. Not a chance. Instead, they’ll blame nitpicky critics who are out to “get” him, and an outmoded system of standards that are unrealistic and probably irrelevant in this txt msg age. They will never expect their golden boy to conform to the universe as it stands; instead, they will expect the universe to evolve around to his style.
That is, if there are any traditional media outlets left in business to even talk about it.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The best thing to happen to education is a budget shortfall.
I serve on our local school board, one of seven elected representatives of the taxpayers in our school district ISD 199. First, let me say without equivocation that I think we have one of the best school districts in the Twin Cities metro area, if not one of the best in the state. Our district isn’t perfect, to be sure, but because we have a no-nonsense board combined with a results-oriented superintendent and building administrators, we put 70% or more of our dollars directly into the classrooms, we’ve limited our district administrative staff to just seven key people (with limited clerical support), we’ve implemented pre-AP and AP courses and gifted programs that draw students from surrounding districts, we serve a disproportionately large special needs population very well, and we renewed an operating referendum without raising property taxes last year.
Last night we heard the first rollout of our budget proposal for the next two years. We knew going into this presentation that we needed to cut $1.3 million from our expected budget (which essentially meant a cut of $71,755 in actual dollars spent from the year before). Unlike other government entities, school districts cannot deficit spend. By law, we have to maintain balanced budgets or we go into statutory operating debt, which makes us vulnerable to a state government takeover of district operations. And we do make reductions to proposed budgets every year based on enrollment figures in each grade and participation levels in all programs and activities. This, however, was by far the biggest reduction proposal we had had to consider since 2001.
We could have tried the approach of a simple spending freeze, but that wouldn’t have addressed many of the educational issues we faced, and it would have required the buy-in of the unions in our district – highly unlikely.
Instead, our district and building staff, led by our superintendent Dr. Dee Wells, conducted an all out assault on Business As Usual practices in the district. Everyone was engaged in the process, from building maintenance workers to teachers to district department heads. Every line item was debated. All expenditures had to prove their worth and value to the goals of the district (improving test scores and graduating students who are prepared for whatever they want to accomplish in life). Priorities were clear: core academics came before everything else; all other classes, programs and services were prioritized based on use and usefulness to the students.
It was a beautiful sight to behold: educators willingly hacking over a million dollars from their own budgets and finding ways to improve our education along the way. They found new cost efficiencies in purchasing; outsourced some services while bringing others in house; combined some programs and services with other districts; completely redid the scheduling in the middle school to increase student teaching time and cut under-utilized staff; found ways to implement brand new uses of technology to improve teaching quality while cutting personnel costs, and came up with better ways to achieve our AYP goals under No Child Left Behind.
The result: a proposal for a leaner, cleaner, better organized and more efficient school district that will be much better positioned to prepare its students for 21st century careers and lives. Like all crises, this budget shortfall forced everyone in our district to look at all aspects of product and service delivery in completely new ways. It brought out the best in creativity and innovation, resulting in proposed solutions that will save us money, increase productivity and give us better results as we go forward. That’s the American way.
It’s a pity that Washington has forgotten that.
For a closer look at how this school district balanced the budget without bilking the taxpayers, go to: http://www.invergrove.k12.mn.us/Proposed_Budget_Reductions.html
Last night we heard the first rollout of our budget proposal for the next two years. We knew going into this presentation that we needed to cut $1.3 million from our expected budget (which essentially meant a cut of $71,755 in actual dollars spent from the year before). Unlike other government entities, school districts cannot deficit spend. By law, we have to maintain balanced budgets or we go into statutory operating debt, which makes us vulnerable to a state government takeover of district operations. And we do make reductions to proposed budgets every year based on enrollment figures in each grade and participation levels in all programs and activities. This, however, was by far the biggest reduction proposal we had had to consider since 2001.
We could have tried the approach of a simple spending freeze, but that wouldn’t have addressed many of the educational issues we faced, and it would have required the buy-in of the unions in our district – highly unlikely.
Instead, our district and building staff, led by our superintendent Dr. Dee Wells, conducted an all out assault on Business As Usual practices in the district. Everyone was engaged in the process, from building maintenance workers to teachers to district department heads. Every line item was debated. All expenditures had to prove their worth and value to the goals of the district (improving test scores and graduating students who are prepared for whatever they want to accomplish in life). Priorities were clear: core academics came before everything else; all other classes, programs and services were prioritized based on use and usefulness to the students.
It was a beautiful sight to behold: educators willingly hacking over a million dollars from their own budgets and finding ways to improve our education along the way. They found new cost efficiencies in purchasing; outsourced some services while bringing others in house; combined some programs and services with other districts; completely redid the scheduling in the middle school to increase student teaching time and cut under-utilized staff; found ways to implement brand new uses of technology to improve teaching quality while cutting personnel costs, and came up with better ways to achieve our AYP goals under No Child Left Behind.
The result: a proposal for a leaner, cleaner, better organized and more efficient school district that will be much better positioned to prepare its students for 21st century careers and lives. Like all crises, this budget shortfall forced everyone in our district to look at all aspects of product and service delivery in completely new ways. It brought out the best in creativity and innovation, resulting in proposed solutions that will save us money, increase productivity and give us better results as we go forward. That’s the American way.
It’s a pity that Washington has forgotten that.
For a closer look at how this school district balanced the budget without bilking the taxpayers, go to: http://www.invergrove.k12.mn.us/Proposed_Budget_Reductions.html
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Playing in Zero Gravity
I’m tired of everyone acting as if the Big O pulled off a miraculous feat of marketing genius in 18 months by building the electronic campaign and social networking machine that we saw in the 2008 campaign. The truth is, while the effectiveness of the Big O’s new media campaign was awe-inspiring, the signs of the electronic transformation have been around for us to see for awhile. If conservatives want to even begin to think about becoming competitive again, we need to understand what has happened to American culture in the last 20 years, and how it is being expressed through the technology of the last 5 years.
First, for the culture change.
It all goes back to education. For more than 20 years in some states, conservatives have been fighting the culture wars in the education establishment. We have focused on standard public education, arguing about curriculum content, teaching methods, test results, tax rates and spending patterns. In many cases, we made substantial progress in improving graduation standards. We passed No Child Left Behind, which, despite its flaws, finally gave school boards a big enough stick to use against the power of the teachers’ unions to improve teaching methods and testing results. Nonetheless, we missed a couple of crucial elements that we cannot control through regulations or standards.
The first thing we missed is that no matter what the standard curriculum content is, teachers have the ability to supplement the curriculum with additional materials. That means that if they feel there is something lacking in the regular textbooks they’re using, they can add other materials, activities, projects and assignments to “flesh out” what they think should be taught. If a teacher is motivated by a particular social, religious or political concern, it is not unusual for them to bring this into the classroom in that way, whether it's conservative or liberal. The coverage of the presidential inauguration provided a classic example of how easy it is for a civics lesson to turn into an opportunity for political indoctrination. Even if teachers focus on seemingly non-controversial aspects of the inaugural, there is no way for the student to escape the politicization of the office by the current holder. Students are learning in subtle and not-so-subtle ways the finer aspects of liberal thought just by the ancillary teaching that occurs in the classroom.
The second thing we missed is the nature of “character development” that is occurring in the classroom. While we were busy lamenting the lack of discipline in the classroom and the fact that Judeo-Christian values cannot be taught for fear of running afoul of the First Amendment, schools were busy filling that void with less controversial values. Now we have a whole generation of voters aged 18 to 30 who literally grew up with these ideas of American values:
Cooperation instead of competition
Consensus instead of majority rule
Community instead of individuality
Celebration of racial and cultural diversity instead of American unity
Fairness of outcome instead of equality of opportunity
Non-judgementalism instead of discernment and strength of conviction
Thus, these younger voters truly believe that fairness is patriotic, that cooperation and consensus are more American than the cruelty of competition and majority rule. How exactly do we re-educate them?
Now for the technology.
So we have these younger voters who have been educated for some 20 years in these systems with these values, and they begin to connect with others in Europe, Asia, South America, Africa and elsewhere who think like they do via outlets like Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, MySpace, YouTube and other social networking sites. If you don’t know what those are, you’re not alone. That also means you’re officially part of the problem. These plugged in young Americans may just as easily have a best friend in Zurich whom they've never met in person as one down the block from their childhood home. They meet their spouses online, they find jobs online, they look for and buy homes, clothes, cars, electronics, gifts and illicit substances online. While people over 40 use the internet, for people under 40, the internet is so integrated into their lives that they live partially in the physical world and partly in cyberspace – and both places are equally real and valuable in their lives. They literally don't know how to live without the web, nor do they find any value in the idea that they should live without it.
Most importantly, they are getting their news and information on the web and forming their opinions on the web based on information they seek out from multitudes of sources (reliable and not so reliable) and from the people with whom they connect online. While we were busy shaking our heads at the “crazy things kids do online”, those kids were busy building entirely new cultures that transcend national boundaries, ethnic divisions, religious differences, and political labels. If you ask them what it means to be an American, you might be very surprised at their responses. You might even find that "being American" isn't all that important to some of them.
This isn’t just a new playing field or a different playbook. We have to learn how to play an entirely different game in a zero gravity atmosphere.
We can start by reading this excellent article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601131.html
and by reading every book on the list - even Al Gore's book. Some of us need more schooling than others, but we all need to understand the new world we live in if we’re going to make conservative values relevant again.
First, for the culture change.
It all goes back to education. For more than 20 years in some states, conservatives have been fighting the culture wars in the education establishment. We have focused on standard public education, arguing about curriculum content, teaching methods, test results, tax rates and spending patterns. In many cases, we made substantial progress in improving graduation standards. We passed No Child Left Behind, which, despite its flaws, finally gave school boards a big enough stick to use against the power of the teachers’ unions to improve teaching methods and testing results. Nonetheless, we missed a couple of crucial elements that we cannot control through regulations or standards.
The first thing we missed is that no matter what the standard curriculum content is, teachers have the ability to supplement the curriculum with additional materials. That means that if they feel there is something lacking in the regular textbooks they’re using, they can add other materials, activities, projects and assignments to “flesh out” what they think should be taught. If a teacher is motivated by a particular social, religious or political concern, it is not unusual for them to bring this into the classroom in that way, whether it's conservative or liberal. The coverage of the presidential inauguration provided a classic example of how easy it is for a civics lesson to turn into an opportunity for political indoctrination. Even if teachers focus on seemingly non-controversial aspects of the inaugural, there is no way for the student to escape the politicization of the office by the current holder. Students are learning in subtle and not-so-subtle ways the finer aspects of liberal thought just by the ancillary teaching that occurs in the classroom.
The second thing we missed is the nature of “character development” that is occurring in the classroom. While we were busy lamenting the lack of discipline in the classroom and the fact that Judeo-Christian values cannot be taught for fear of running afoul of the First Amendment, schools were busy filling that void with less controversial values. Now we have a whole generation of voters aged 18 to 30 who literally grew up with these ideas of American values:
Cooperation instead of competition
Consensus instead of majority rule
Community instead of individuality
Celebration of racial and cultural diversity instead of American unity
Fairness of outcome instead of equality of opportunity
Non-judgementalism instead of discernment and strength of conviction
Thus, these younger voters truly believe that fairness is patriotic, that cooperation and consensus are more American than the cruelty of competition and majority rule. How exactly do we re-educate them?
Now for the technology.
So we have these younger voters who have been educated for some 20 years in these systems with these values, and they begin to connect with others in Europe, Asia, South America, Africa and elsewhere who think like they do via outlets like Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, MySpace, YouTube and other social networking sites. If you don’t know what those are, you’re not alone. That also means you’re officially part of the problem. These plugged in young Americans may just as easily have a best friend in Zurich whom they've never met in person as one down the block from their childhood home. They meet their spouses online, they find jobs online, they look for and buy homes, clothes, cars, electronics, gifts and illicit substances online. While people over 40 use the internet, for people under 40, the internet is so integrated into their lives that they live partially in the physical world and partly in cyberspace – and both places are equally real and valuable in their lives. They literally don't know how to live without the web, nor do they find any value in the idea that they should live without it.
Most importantly, they are getting their news and information on the web and forming their opinions on the web based on information they seek out from multitudes of sources (reliable and not so reliable) and from the people with whom they connect online. While we were busy shaking our heads at the “crazy things kids do online”, those kids were busy building entirely new cultures that transcend national boundaries, ethnic divisions, religious differences, and political labels. If you ask them what it means to be an American, you might be very surprised at their responses. You might even find that "being American" isn't all that important to some of them.
This isn’t just a new playing field or a different playbook. We have to learn how to play an entirely different game in a zero gravity atmosphere.
We can start by reading this excellent article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601131.html
and by reading every book on the list - even Al Gore's book. Some of us need more schooling than others, but we all need to understand the new world we live in if we’re going to make conservative values relevant again.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Extorting Socialism
I was talking with a banker friend of mine today about the “bailout” of the financial markets. I learned a few things. For instance, it’s not enough that Capital Hill financiers are creating enormous welfare programs for banks of a certain size in this country. It’s not enough that they are flirting with nationalization of some banks to prop them up. Because Capital Hill has both the funding and the legal authority to do so, it is not only providing funds for banks – it is forcing banks to take those funds or the FDIC will not guarantee the banks because it assumes the banks are insolvent and will not be operating in a year. So banks like TCF Financial, Wells Fargo and US Bank, which didn’t really even need the TARP funds, are getting them because Capital Hill is forcing them to take it if they want to retain their FDIC insurance.
Further, Capital Hill isn’t content with forcing banks to take loans. The structure of the transaction is in the form of preferred non-voting stock. In essence, the federal government is buying non-voting ownership in these banks at a preferred rate of return beginning in two years.
So let me get this straight. The federal government is forcing banks to take its money in return for insurance protection, then forcing banks to pay the money back in two years at a higher rate of return than other shareholders get. Sounds suspiciously like a protection racket.
And the Don lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Further, Capital Hill isn’t content with forcing banks to take loans. The structure of the transaction is in the form of preferred non-voting stock. In essence, the federal government is buying non-voting ownership in these banks at a preferred rate of return beginning in two years.
So let me get this straight. The federal government is forcing banks to take its money in return for insurance protection, then forcing banks to pay the money back in two years at a higher rate of return than other shareholders get. Sounds suspiciously like a protection racket.
And the Don lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)