Is Blogging a Social Movement that will change the political culture
Minnesota, a relatively small state in population, may be one of the leading U.S. states in the production of bloggers. After all, TIME designated Minnesota-based Powerlineblog as the "Blog of the Year." That's no surprise, given that blog's central role in the "Rathergate" dustup that produced even more mistrust of what has been dubbed "the MSM" (mainstream media).

The success of the Powerlineblog guys has, of course, drawn a lot of attention in Minnesota, both from an informal group called the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers (see Fraters Libertas for the roster), and now from the local newspapers.

Paying particular attention to Powerlineblog is Nick Coleman, an opinion columnist for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Coleman took out his poison pen to comment on Powerlineblog, and the three-man blogging team responds here, here, and here. (Admittedly, it would be nice to have links to Coleman's work, but they are behind a corporate firewall. In a week or so, you will have to pay to get access to the articles.)

A SOCIAL MOVEMENT?
One of the most intriguing classes to grace my graduate school career of years ago was a seminar on social movements. It was an informative yet unusual course, at least as measured by my curriculum. The academic focus of nearly every participant in the seminar (including the professor) was the politics of sexual identity. ("The personal is the political," you know.)

At least at the time, the various arguments in play agreed that a social movement must by definition challenge something about the status quo, preferably social norms or political expectations. A social movement is a challenge to some existing power. Feminism is a social movement, but, theologically and socially conservative churches that teach traditional sex roles are not, for example. Or a collection of anti-war protests may be signs of a social movement, but a demonstration in support of an ongoing war is not a social movement.

So as you might expect, there's room for some political posturing in deciding what is a social movement and what is not. (TIME, for example, asserted in the same issue that conservatives rule the country, an assertion that will find some vigorous dissent among libertarian-leaning conservatives, the political lineup in Washington, DC notwithstanding.)

To bring this post to a premature end, the argument could be made that blogs are a new social movement, because they change expectations about the world. They challenge an existing power (mainstream media) to boot, particularly its ability to frame the issues of the day. The notion of what constitutes journalism, and what we expect of it, has implications for the political debate.

Do a Google search for the terms "blogs," "social movement" and "MSM,” and you will find roughly 90 hits.

Maybe that’s grist for an article sometime. While the implications of blogging for the political culture or public policy are still not fully played out, they are worth watching. (permalink)

More Pro-Sports Subsidies Follies.
Writing for Tech Central Station, James H. Joyner, Jr., examines the stadium-financing fiasco that may (or may not) befall Washington, DC.

He reviews the standard arguments against taxpayer financing of playgrounds for the rich and famous, but also adds some noteworthy comments from sports-industry types who know the truth:

We all know that stadiums rarely spur economic development. We all know they often don't lead to success in the standings (the Brewers have finished fourth, last, last, and last since Milwaukee's new stadium opened). The only guarantee to a new stadium is the profits it generates for the owners.

It is true, as Joyner says, that there are a limited number of high-level professional sports teams. This does not, in itself, make the desire to spend taxpayer dollars foolishly anything new. (Many economic development projects come to mind.) It just happens that the "product" sold by this small group of private business owners is highly visible and tied up with civic pride, community identity, and personal fantasies of athletic achievement. As a result, the usual rationale for handouts--economic development--is only a secondary player. (permalink)

Should Teachers Be Paid More?
In Texas, a proposal is floating to give all government-school teachers a raise of $3,000.

Teachers are the key to education, which is important for the health of the economy and the republic.

So the proposal is a good idea?

Not quite, says Byron Schlomach.

For starters, the across-the-board proposal would do nothing to deal with the problem that some teachers are, relative to others, underpaid. They would still be underpaid.

The best way of making sure that teachers who deserve to get paid more do get paid more: enact merit pay and educational choice, so that parents can search out the best-performing teachers, who will be rewarded accordingly.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

These Drugs Free. But these? Not at Any Price.
Chip Taylor comments on our current drug policy, both in terms of pricing and availability.

First, he points to a recent HHS report on drug reimportation, and the NY Times' summary:

The Bush administration said Tuesday that commercial importation of some low-cost prescription drugs from Canada might be feasible. But the savings to consumers would be small, it said, and the federal government would have to spend hundreds of million dollars a year to ensure the drugs' safety.

The administration said in a report to Congress that legalizing imports would probably hurt the development of new drugs for Americans.

Speaking of the economics of the issue, Taylor notes that "Reimportation as a means of lowering drug prices is about as effective as propping open your refrigerator door as a means of cooling your kitchen."

Here's a link to the (PDF file) report from the HHS, as well as the HHS Task Force on Importation.

On the same day, Taylor also argues that the feds are overly aggressive in limiting access to painkillers:

Do we strive to make access so restrictive that absolutely no abusers get access, even thought that means some legitimate patients do without? Or do we allow doctors to prescribe as they see fit, realizing that some abusers are going to get unneeded pain relievers?

Public policy, he argues, opts for the former rather than the latter. It's all of a piece with the philosophy demonstrated in the Vioxx post (see below), which holds that the federal government is the optimal actor for making decisions on the use of drugs. (permalink)

You, or the FDA?
The blogger behind What If? comments on the recent controversy surrounding the arthritis medication Vioxx:

While some may choose to not take these drugs because they don't wish to be exposed to the increased risk, others may feel just the opposite. Arthritis can be a crippling and painful disease. For some, such a risk may be well worth the reward: far lessened pain. Why should the government dictate that these patients must continue to suffer, rather than take on a 2.5 or 3% chance of heart attack instead of 1%?

Of course, if you believe as I do, you must trust that the government and the drug companies are engaging in full disclosure. Patients and their doctors have a right to know the full scope of benefit and downside. Without this, they are incapable of making informed decisions.

But assuming that full and honest disclosure is forthcoming - why then can't the public decide? (permalink)

In Praise of Alternative Education.
Mitch, of Shot in the Dark, has some interesting thoughts on the de facto requirement of a college degree.

Among his recommendations: De-stigmatize vocational education; encourage education in the broadest sense (whatever contributes to "further development" of a person, including earning power); and improve K-12 education.

It's that last item that points to perhaps the most important reason for the widespread requirement for a 4-year degree: the decline in the value of a high school education. As a study from several years ago showed, business spends a lot of money (in training costs, as well as for buying machinery to substitute for less-than-skilled labor) to make up for the weaknesses of K-12 education.

How much money do we spend on remedial education? At least $16 billion. No wonder that so many jobs "require" a degree. (Sadly, even a college degree does not guarantee an educated person.)

Labels: Education

(permalink)

The PolicyGuy is #1 in Traffic.
The PolicyGuy is #1 in traffic.

Let me rephrase that. I wrote the op-ed that generated the most traffic of any commentary published in 2004 by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.Mackinac, if you have missed it, is a fine state-focused organization that applies economic principles to the problems of public policy today. Based in Michigan, it tackles policy issues such as education and public budgeting.

It's a special honor to have penned their single most popular op-ed, especially given their roster of outstanding writers and scholars such as Andrew J. Coulson and Lawrence W. Reed. (I also snagged items #9 and #10 on the top 25 list.)

Thanks go to the Mackinac staff, especially to senior editor Thomas A. Shull, who improves every essay I turn in to him.

The #1 essay, Tax Cut Stories Miss the Picture, was a response to a series of "Doom and Gloom" articles published by the Detroit News. The series examined the effects of federal income tax cuts during the Bush Administration, suggesting that much bad and no good came from the cuts. Rather than pursue an article-by-article reply, I stepped back to take a broader view. The public response to the essay reflects a widespread dissatisfaction (at least among Mackinac friends and constituents) with the one-sided view of economics often presented by the popular media.

Of the items on the Top 25 list, taxes and K-12 education were the most popular subjects. (permalink)

End the Protection of In-State Wineries and Distributors.
My piece calling for increased freedom of commerce in the interstate sale of wine is now available at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. (permalink)

Computers Helps Me Rite Good.
Another sign that the benefits of computers in the classroom are oversold comes from the December 2004 issue of Copy Editor, a newsletter that reports on trends in usage.

In the journal Technology & Learning, Saul Rockman reported that students' attitudes towards writing have improved;

That's a plus. So what's responsible?

76 percent of student say they prefer writing on laptops to writing on paper, 80 percent say that laptops make rewriting and revision easier, and 73 percent say that they earn better grades for laptop work.

If, like me, you are old enough to remember composing letters or reports on typewriters, you will likely agree that writing is more enjoyable now. But does ease of use and increased enjoyment lead to improved writing skills?

meanwhile, Rockman reported, laptops have done nothing to improve performance on standardized achievement tests.

Increasing spending on technology and "the latest thing" is yet another attempt at the old approach to achieving excellent service from our schools. More money, new technology, and the problem is solved.

Rather than continue to go down this road (or take the next popular alternative, which is to bash the standardized test), it's time to make greater use of the elementary principle of economics. When applied to teacher accreditation, teacher pay, the delivery of support services, or enhancing options for parental choice among schools, competition, not computer chips, offers the greater promise. (permalink)

Academic Fraud is a Serious Problem--and Not Just Among Students.
There are two major approaches to improving education. One is to use the same approach we apply to most areas of life: choice and competition. Let parents sort out what's important to them, and competition among service providers will keep costs under control and improve the process and final product.

Another approach is to feed money into the same old system, and try to use carrots and sticks through testing of schools. This particular approach is threatened by academic fraud, especially if that fraud is committed by schools.

School-perpetrated fraud appears to be the case in some schools in Texas, according to this Associated Press story published in Michigan.

Here's a good snapshot paragraph of an analysis of test results conducted by the Dallas Morning News:

It found, for example, that the fourth-graders at Sanderson Elementary School in the Houston Independent School District scored extremely poorly on the math TAKS test this year, rating the school in the bottom 2 percent of the state.

However, the school's fifth-graders ended up with the highest scale scores on the math TAKS of any school in Texas, with more than 90 percent of the students getting perfect or near-perfect scores.

Without the strong discipline of parents being able to take their taxpayer-provided education funds to the school of their choice, school-perpetrated fraud is bound to continue under the current approach of "test and stuff more money" into the current way of funding K-12 education.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Talking About Talking About School Choice
How difficult can it be to engage in a conversation about the merits of competition and choice in K-12 schooling and financing? A controversy between two Twin Cities opinion writers serves as a good illustration. Nick Coleman (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) takes up some of the more outrageous defenses of the status quo. Craig Westover (St. Paul Pioneer-Press) goes on the offensive in arguing for change.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

In Praise of Private Juries.
My latest item for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy discusses the value of private, non-judicial means of resolving disputes. (permalink)

No Surprise: State Lotteries Make for Poor Policy
So how big are state lotteries? Big enough that per-capita spending is $155 per year, with one-third of it going into state treasuries. Talk about confiscatory taxation, as well as a tax on hope over logic.

The Tax Foundation calls lotteries a perfect example of poor public policy, adding that "A mandatory tax on a voluntarily purchased lottery ticket is still a tax, just as any sales tax or excise tax is a mandatory tax on voluntarily purchased goods and services."

The Foundation also says that "Lotteries, like other forms of taxation, should adhere to basic principles of sound tax policy like transparency and neutrality. But ... lotteries violate these principles." (permalink)

Michigan To Redo Indian Gambling Compact?
Add this to the usual bag of tricks for balancing a state budget: redo agreements previously made with Indian tribes, to get more money. That's been one approached suggested (and thus far thwarted) in Minnesota. The same maneuver is being tried in Michigan.

In this case, though, it looks like the state is trying to get more money be letting a tribe expand its operations rather than increase its funds through a take-back. (permalink)

Government as Provider, or Traffic Cop?
Just because something's of public importance, that doesn't mean that government ought to be involved, let alone providing it.

It's that providing part that is the focus of a new book from the Reason Public Policy Institute, called Governing by Network.

The overall idea is that we need government to be less of a provider and more of a traffic cop. (Think of "traffic" in the sense of workflow rather than law enforcement, and the idea makes even more sense.) As the promotional page for the book says, "government executives are redefining their core responsibilities away from managing government workers and programs to orchestrating both independent and public organizations to deliver services."

A perfect example that comes to mind is the delivery of educational services. At the level of higher education, we rely on both the private and public sectors. But at the K-12 level, public policy (at least the funding part of it) relies almost exclusively on government bought and delivered services. That, in large measure, is the problem with K-12 education: the government-run part helps ensure that there is no competition, leading to high costs and low performance. It's past time to rely more on the private sector, by channeling $9,000-10,000 per pupil (or more) spending away from government monopolies to a variety of private vendors.

Governing magazine reviews the book here. "It's not about whether privatization or outsourcing is good or bad anymore," says the magazine. "Private contractors are already embedded in everything the government does. In fact, the government has come to rely far more on networks of public, private and non-profit organizations, but has yet to figure out how to manage them."

But what government needs is a cultural change--one that may, in my view, be beyond the grasp of an organization which, by definition of any normal society, cannot go out of existence.

Here's what government managers will need to master in the future: "contract negotiations, contract management and risk analysis and ... the ability to tackle unconventional problems."

The Governing review offers some interesting glimpses from the book, including this: the federal government spends $100 million more per year on contracted services than it pays in salaries for its own employees. While that's a positive thing in itself, it also means that discussions about the size and scope of government must go beyond head counts.

Certainly, smart contracting is, well, smart. Beyond that, though, is the question of whether public involvement in a given area (military defense versus municipal golf courses, for example) is required, in any form.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Corporate Evil, or Regulatory Stupidity?
Consider the motto of the group blog, Galens Log: "Never attribute to corporate malice what can be explained by poorly thought out regulation."

Since the authors of the blog are medical professionals, I imagine that they've had a lot of experience from which to speak.

(Hat tip--but who wears hats anymore?--goes to Craig Westover.) (permalink)

Insider Online Links to PolicyGuy
The Insider Online, a publication of The Heritage Foundation, now links to the PolicyGuy blog. Inasmuch as Heritage is a force for creating and distributing policy ideas, I am honored. They're on the PolicyGuy blogroll, below. (permalink)

Intellectual Property and the Joy of I-Tunes.
Some years ago, I once edited a magazine article condemning Napster as an assault on intellectual property rights. In return, I got a letter from a (different) contributor editor, suggesting I had it all wrong.

While not approving of theft of IP (the man who wrote the letter made his living by writing), the editor suggested that the widespread ripping and burning of music files represented a business opportunity for artists and record labels. You know the story: when a person has to buy a $16 CD to get the 2 songs he really likes, and the means are available to get it free of charge, an argument in favor of abstract principles won't hold much power. The emphasis, for those who appreciate the power of markets, then, should be not on law enforcement, though on innovation in the business model.

And at least in this case, innovation was possible, and attractive.

A few weeks ago, well into the development of services that allow consumers to purchase music by the track at a nominal price, I started looking into I-Tunes. It's not the world's greatest thing since stolen music, but is a marvel. Sort by artist, or song, or album, quickly find recommendations from other fans of the same artist or genre, and buy each track for a buck.

And it's not even necessary to buy anything to benefit. I spent an evening with the family just using the preview function. One person would bring up a list of the I-tunes inventory of every cover of, say, "Have yourself a Merry Little Christmas," and then click through to each excerpt in turn. The rest of us made a game of "Name that artist" that was both entertaining and at times difficult.

It turns out, of course, that my correspondent was right: the advent of technology that let consumers rip, burn, and pass along music was not only a cause of alarm, but a business opportunity. Aren't markets grand? (permalink)

Off-Topic: Give Instructions First, Ask Questions Later.
I needed to ship a package (an eBay sale) to Canada. So I went to FedEx/Kinkos, and said "This needs to go to Canada, in the cheapest way possible."

The clerk gives me several forms to fill out. Shipping to Canada is more complicated than shipping to the U.S., so it takes me a while.

A quick look at the FedEx web site had home told me that the total cost would be around $15. So it was quite a shock when the clerk told me the cost would be $80 or so.

What?

Here's where the clueless factor comes in. Only at this point was I told that only people with an established account could send packages by ground to Canada. Everyone else had to use airmail. I don't have an account.

Wouldn't a simple "Do you have an account with us? It will make it much cheaper to ship this, since you can use the ground service" would have saved a lot of time.

So I took my package and left for the post office. En route, another question came to me: the clerk said I could set up an account on line. They sell internet access at the FedEx/Kinkos stores. Why didn't I think of going on line? More importantly, from a business standpoint, why didn't the clerk offer me a free session to set up an account? (permalink)

Off-topic: Texas in Rose Bowl is a Shame.
The Rose Bowl used to be one of those classic football games, pitting the champion of the Big 10 versus its Pac 8 (and then Pac 10) equivalent. Now it's just another game.

The University of California was set to send its football team to the Rose Bowl for the first time since 1959. What a great opportunity for the Golden Bears. And what a good thing for the Rose Bowl, which has been "invaded" by non-traditional participants in recent years. It would have been a great match-up against Big 10 perennial power Michigan. New school, meet old school.

So who gets into the Rose Bowl to play against Michigan? Texas. Sigh. Burnt orange will never look so ugly as it will in Pasadena. (permalink)

Are Blogs Like Newspapers?
Are blogs like newspapers? Yes and no, but the question has taken on more urgency with calls for the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to regulate the content of politically-charged blogs.

Call this a case where "The Empire Strikes Back." During the last year, several bloggers, including Daschle v. Thune and South Dakota Politics roundly criticized the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, South Dakota's leading newspaper, of being in the pocket of Senator Tom Daschle. Meanwhile, the guys at Powerlineblog were crucial in exposing what might charitably be called the negligent practices of CBS in dealing with allegations made against candidate and president, George W. Bush.

Many keycaps were struck in the aftermath, as bloggers considered the place of blogging in public life. The mainstream media, meanwhile, alternated between attacking blogs and engaging in omphaloskepsis.

Now it turns out that the Argus Leader poked around in campaign finance documents provided to the FEC, and found that the authors/publishers of Daschle v. Thune and South Dakota Politics were paid by the campaign of challenger (and victor) John Thune. Did simple curiosity drive the Argus Leader to the investigation, or was it some tit-for-tat action? A similar question may be posed to CBS, which is the first big media outlet to bring the story to light.

CBS is lamenting that "where journalists' careers may be broken on ethics violations, bloggers are writing in the Wild West of cyberspace. There remains no code of ethics, or even an employer, to enforce any standard."

I'll leave it to others to fully respond to this cry, but this does seem like a curious statement coming from CBS, given its defensive and plodding response to the summertime complaints.

What I find the most laughable is the rationale that CBS story offers for why the employer of Dan Rather should not be subject to regulation (that's a good thing, by the way) while blogs perhaps should be (that's a bad thing, as is regulation of CBS).

"Generally, the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on political advocacy by corporations and unions does not apply to media or individuals. The reasoning has been that media competition insures legitimacy. This has historically been the argument against monopolies in media ownership."

Here's what's wrong with the statement: It's hard to think of an "industry" that has more competition, and less monopoly, than blogs. Suspicious of Instapundit? Try someone else. Don't like what you see? Start your own blog. Further, prior to the rise of cable TV outlets and blogs--in the "golden age" of journalism, there were few industries as more concentrated as national TV news operations.

There are two reasonable responses to this whole controversy. One is to require full disclosure of campaign contributions and payments, but otherwise repeal the suppression of political free speech that is "campaign finance reform." The second is to recognize--as more and more people are doing every day--that everyone's got opinions and biases, and that nobody should be trusted as the straight-from-Mount-Sinai source of news.

It's not even a question of whether this or that source is on the payroll of a candidate on in the bag for a party. It's simply hard, some would say impossible, to be completely objective, given the fact that we need values and belief systems to make sense of the world as we encounter it.

In a perfect world, it may be possible for the Objective Journalistic Truth to be found every time we turn on the radio or tv, or go online. But we don't live there, and the sooner we recognize that, the better off we will be. (permalink)

A New Test for Michigan.
Michigan plans to ax the use of its standardized test, the MEAP, and replace it with another test that resembles the ACT.

At least one parent his happy: "I find it hypocritical that my child has to practice and study for things they're supposed to have known already."

High-achieving students don't like it either; they would rather spend their time getting ready for the ACT.

A couple of years ago, the Mackinac Center called for replacing the MEAP with a nationally recognized test. Looks like that isn't going to happen.

One disadvantage of the change: incomparability of data. Then again, it would be just like the education policy, to reinvent the wheel one more time. (permalink)

Get Minnesota Government out of the Publishing Business.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is looking for a new managing editor for its magazine Minnesota Conservation Volunteer.

Though the DNR assures us that "Readers' donations pay the entire cost of producing the bimonthly magazine," there's something odd about a magazine with the word volunteer in its name being produced through the facilities of state government. Last time I checked, interaction with the state was a mandatory activity. (Paying taxes is just the most obvious example.)

Minnesota has a great history of concern for the natural environment, and appreciation of it. It's close to the top of the states (if not number one) in the number of golfers per capita, for example. Opening day of deer season is practically a holiday in some communities, and Minnesota is probably the leading state (again, in per-capita terms) for people who actually go fishing while sitting atop a block of ice. Now that's dedication to the outdoors.

So does the state government really need to be involved in producing a magazine extolling the great outdoors? (permalink)

U.S. Schools Lag in International Comparisons.
Once again, schools in the U.S. lag those of other countries, with significant implications. Numbers from the OECD (the club of wealthy countries) show the top-performing country was Finland. Perhaps this is another validation of the quip attributed to U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, which was along the lines that the largest predictor of academic achievement of a U.S. states was how far north it was.

Showing that money is important, but not everything, Korea has a national income 30 percent lower than the OECD average, yet it produces superior academic results. The U .S., one of the bigger spenders? It ranks 24th out of 29th in math.

John Hood offers some thoughts, including a response to the inevitable "apples-to-oranges" criticism.

The bottom line, he says: "many nations outperforming the U.S. have 1) more competitive testing and accountability programs, 2) much stricter discipline policies, and 3) a larger role for private and religious schools in the K-12 market."

All three factors are constrained in the U.S. Though No Child Left Behind has provoked much gnashing of teach, it actually rewards poor performing schools with more money. Private schooling is constrained through our system of financing and delivery, which largely relies on government-granted and run monopolies within a specified geographic area. One result is that government-run schools must adapt to growing concerns of the legal rights of students, which (combined with educational fads and a litigious climate) leads to weak discipline. (permalink)

Schools Fail to Cultivate Intelligence
For all the emphasis in educational fads about emphasizing "critical thinking skills" rather than "rote learning," such as "maps and chaps" (geography and history, respectively), they aren't doing a very good job of turning out people who can think.

Such is the conclusion of businesses, the people who have to deal with the production line of government-run education. Says an executive at Meijers (a large Michigan-based retailer), "They [public school graduates who work at the stores] lack the ability to process information."

As a result, a diploma is only "a fallible guide to any particular individual?s literacy level because education through high school represents only years of exposure to learning, not actual accomplishment."

Now, you may say "We're talking about clerks here, not rocket scientists." True. But then, if the status quo is unable to prepare people for even such relatively simple {and therefore, low-paying) jobs, how are individuals (and the country) going to prosper in a global economy?

Labels: Education

(permalink)

How Trustworthy is Journalism?
Much of the public's understanding of which public policies work and which ones don't is filtered through news media sources.

The recent edition of an annual Gallop Poll of public attitudes towards various occupations put journalists above car salesmen and member of Congress, and below state-level politicians in a ranking by "honesty and ethical standards." Both print (Jason Blair plagiarism) and television (Rathergate) news have taken a hit lately, but TV journos rated higher in the public's eye than their counterparts in print.

Aside from the question of bias or ethics, there's a more fundamental problem with journalism. It's easier to give credence to what we "see" than what we don't (perhaps one reason for the higher esteem given to TV people).

But appearances do deceive. The results of some policies are much easier to see than others. What we "see" is not necessary the whole "picture" meaning that reliance on images distorts the affects of policy changes. It's easy to write a story, for example, about someone who loses a taxpayer-supplied benefit during a time of budget-cutting. Most such individuals know who they are, and the bureaucracy is in many instances quite capable (and self-interested) in identifying current or former clients for the convenience of the press.

On the other hand, a freeing of regulatory burdens that makes it easier for a business to expand is invisible. It's not news. Neither is the case of a business owner who is able, thanks to tax cuts, able to purchase a piece of equipment that makes his employees more productive (and hence, command higher wages.) Add in the adage that "bad news" makes news while "good news" doesn't, and you have a tendency to favor the expansion of the political, bureaucratic world, regardless of individual qualities of journalists. (permalink)

Gambling Agreement Deals Minnesota a Bad Hand.
A few years ago, the State of Minnesota pretty much gave some Indian tribes in the state a monopoly on casino gambling. Now the governor wants to draw some more cards.

Minnesota Public Radio has the latest on the political gamesmanship, with Governor Tim Pawlenty (a Republican) seeking to extract some more tax revenue from gambling. The Indians have so far resisted calls to renegotiate their profitable agreement.

While Pawlenty is to be commended for holding fast to his no-new-taxes pledge last year, the search for new gambling revenue is problematic. This holds true even if the state (actually, the attorney general) negotiated a lousy deal for itself. It's one thing for government to allow an activity that will allow some people to plunge themselves into disaster. It's another entirely to look to profiting from that activity as a way to plug budget holes. To make put the governor's position in perspective, though, the Democratic-controlled Senate isn't making the budget situation any easier by its preference for higher tax rates over budget cuts, load-shedding, and government restructuring.

It's really a bad situation all around, though if the Indians can reinvest their winnings not simply in casinos but in education and entrepreneurial activities that benefit their community, at least some good will have been achieved. (permalink)

Veterans’ Woes Illustrate Problem With Government Health Care
If you think nationalized health care is a good thing, look at the sorry state of Medicaid. Or the VA health care system, which I discuss in my latest essay for the Mackinac Center.

Labels: Medicaid

(permalink)

Why Government Golf?
Next time you hear of a need for higher tax rates to support "important public services," you might want to ask whether those "important" services are justified. Sometimes, the answer is "no."

Take the municipal golf course, please. Though Michigan already has more than 700 privately owned courses, government officials have seen fit to introduce another 81 courses of their own. This is not only unfair competition with private owners of courses, it is also an unfair burden on the non-golfing public. A government-owned golf courses is, as one magazine for public officials put it, the least necessary of unnecessary public services.

My friends at the Mackinac Center offer a review of the problems of government-owned courses in this essay. Its lessons extend beyond "the greens" (golf) to "the green" (government programs and their purposes.)

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Good Intentions, Bad Results
That's the conclusion of the Employment Policy Institute, which is criticizing a proposal in New Jersey to raise the minimum wage.

In addition to addressing the standard objections--raising the wage rate decreases employment prospects of those people it allegedly is meant to help, the commentary raises some interesting other notes. "[O]nce low-wage earners lose their jobs, they become ineligible for one of the federal government's most effective anti-poverty tools, the earned income tax credit. The program provides up to $4,000 in tax-free income, but only for those who have a job." (permalink)

If You Want Health Insurance for the Poor, Don't Expand Medicaid as We Know It
One fourth of the Texas population is without health insurance. The status-quo solution is to pour more money into Medicaid, and shuffle the uninsured (some poor, some not poor) into that program.

But that's an unsustainable and inferior path, says Chris Patterson. As structured, Medicaid threatens the budget of Texas, and every other state. Currently it is the #1 or #2 spending category for each state, consuming 26 percent of the state budget in the case of Texas.

A better path than putting more people into an unreformed Medicaid program would involve seeking federal permission to expand the use of vouchers within Medicaid, so that people can set up Health Savings Accounts and purchase insurance in the private market.

Labels: Health care, Medicaid

(permalink)