From the category archives:

Entitlements

The Insanity of Federalized Teacher Evaluations

Last Sunday’s New York Times had an article highlighting the implementation of the new teacher evaluation system being put in place in Tennessee. The system is part of the Race-to-the-Top attempt to drive education reform in the states by dangling federal cash for reforms.

As you read the article, you should begin to realize why “reform” fails and why many people in both the Government Education Complex and Education Transformation* movement find these rules so absurd.

There simply is no way that a federal bureaucracy (or any bureaucracy, for that matter) can devise a unified system of teacher evaluation. There are too many variables, and teachers are correct to be skeptical of this top-down approach to their craft.

For example, the first few paragraphs of the article expose the unworkable nature of the evaluation process.

Steve Ball, executive principal at the East Literature Magnet School in Nashville, arrived at an English class unannounced one day this month and spent 60 minutes taking copious notes as he watched the teacher introduce and explain the concept of irony. “It was a good lesson,” Mr. Ball said.

But under Tennessee’s new teacher-evaluation system, which is similar to systems being adopted around the country, Mr. Ball said he had to give the teacher a one — the lowest rating on a five-point scale — in one of 12 categories: breaking students into groups.** Even though Mr. Ball had seen the same teacher, a successful veteran he declined to identify, group students effectively on other occasions, he felt that he had no choice but to follow the strict guidelines of the state’s complicated rubric.

“It’s not an accurate reflection of her as a teacher,” Mr. Ball said.

What a shock. A principal knows his teachers better than the federalized check list. Wonders never cease.
[click to continue…]

{ 2 comments }

Pennsylvania’s Medicaid Debacle

As the gradual implementation of Obamacare continues and debate over the intelligence of socialized medicine mounts, the budgetary malaise of the current Medicaid system should be a red flag to supporters of the President’s health care plan. The current degree of governmental control over healthcare is proving calamitous for states with financial troubles, and the expanded bureaucracy that is Obamacare will only make matters worse.

The contradictions and logistical maladies manifest in government-controlled healthcare have never been more evident than in the recent series of cuts in the Pennsylvania Medicaid apparatus. Over the next nine years, $1.2 trillion in reductions will mean the elimination of care for 150,000 people (43,000 of which are children) and more than 80,000 in job losses.

The uncertain economy has meant a surge in those receiving Medicaid across the nation, but since the summer of 2011, Pennsylvania has seen a steady decline because of the Department of Public Welfare’s (DPW) efforts to cut those no longer living in state and those who are dead or otherwise ineligible for aid. Patient advocates are saying otherwise, calling the cuts “disastrous.”

The bureaucratic nightmare that the cuts have unleashed on eligible patient care could be called Orwellian, as Pennsylvania’s push to close the backlog of cases has resulted in an overload for an already understaffed DPW. Hundreds of thousands of pending cases were “reviewed” in a matter of weeks, and technical omissions that would regularly necessitate simple clarification from the patient, such as lack of information, resulted in the cancellation of thousands of cases.

But the bureaucratic incompetence doesn’t end there.

[click to continue…]

{ 2 comments }

Biofuels and the U.S. Navy’s ‘Great Green Fleet’

On the orders of President Theodore Roosevelt, from December 16, 1907, to February 2, 1909, two squadrons of naval vessels circumnavigated the globe in a display of the United States’ growing naval power, and consequential increased global influence. This action, taken by what was known as the “Great White Fleet” would serve as a precursor to decades of political and military dominance by the United States on the world stage.

Today, the need for a powerful naval force has never been greater, and with constant innovation, the United States Navy continues to be a world leader in the pursuit of freedom and all those who threaten it. This continued dominance is achieved through perpetual increases in technology, not only in weaponry, but in the means of powering our fleet — from coal, to steam, to nuclear power, the development and advancement of fuels has been closely tied to the larger abilities of the U.S. naval force.

A recent undertaking by the Department of Defense, however, raises questions as to whether the military’s commitment to innovation may be endangered by political pandering — especially in the face of the announcements earlier this year that 3,000 sailors nationwide, approximately one out of every one hundred people in the force overall, will be forced to leave the Navy. The creation of a so-called “Great Green Fleet,” a series of improvements designed to make the military more “eco-friendly,” seems a contradiction in the face of increased Department of Defense cuts (a possible trillion dollars over the next ten years).

[click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

How Freedom Solves What Government Cannot: Milton Friedman’s Government

On February 10th, 1999, world famous economist — and good friend of The Heartland Institute — Milton Friedman spoke on then-television show (now Web series), Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson.

In this episode, which you can view at the bottom of this post, Friedman underscores the importance of freedom and liberty to be the foundation of a prosperous society. Moreover, Friedman states how individuals should be free to live their lives so long as they do not infringe upon the freedom of others.

So, to what does this criteria translate? To find out, Robinson cites the federal executive departments of the United States government and asks the Nobel Laureate which departments should be kept and which should be abolished. The results are recorded below.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Dr. Seuss Conveys Importance of Individual Liberty

The story of “Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose” by Dr. Seuss takes place near the fictional Lake Winna-Bango, where a herd of moose line up to graze the moss along the northern shore. Along the way, a “Bingle Bug” notices the large antlers of Thidwick (the last moose in line) and asks if he can live in them since Thidwick is not using them. Thidwick accepts and word is immediately spread.

Consequently, many more animals move into Thidwick’s antlers without his notice, seeking to take advantage of his free resource. Thidwick first becomes bothered when a “Zinn-a-zu bird” painfully yanks Thidwick’s hair right off his head to use to build a nest. The bird is unfazed by Thidwick’s concern, reassuring “You can always grow more!”

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Penis Pumps, Medicare, Austin Powers and Other Absurdities

On Wednesday, the Drudge Report linked to a story at our digital magazine, the Heartlander, by Benjamin Domenech on how the Medicare system has spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on penis pumps in the last decade.

(NOTE: The traffic was so … well … inflated from normal, that it crashed our servers for a while. For that we are grateful, but also apologize. We’ve taken the necessary steps to ensure that doesn’t happen next time.)

The story got picked up by talk radio hosts across the country, including Sean Hannity, and spread all across the Web. One of the many blogs that linked over to that story was National Review Online’s The Corner. NRO’s Andrew Stiles, like most, had some fun with the story, titling his blog post “Federal ‘Stimulus’.” (Hee, hee. The jokes are, indeed, nearly endless.)

But the core of the story is a worthy examination of government spending priorities, especially with entitlements such as Medicare. And spending nearly $250 million of Medicare funds on penis pumps over a decade is as good an example as you can find of mission enlargement. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist. Let’s go with “mission creep” … though that has some trouble, too.)

Anyway, I read a thoughtful comment beneath that Corner post by CharlesWayne defending the spending, and I thought it warranted a thoughtful response. Here’s what he wrote:

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

A Response to Steven F. Hayward Essay: ‘Modernizing Conservatism’

(NOTE: I submitted this reply to Steve Hayward’s recent piece for Breakthrough Magazine on “Modernizing Conservatism.” I did not hear back from the publication, so I publish it here, instead.)

While I agree with Steve Hayward that means-testing of entitlement programs is going to be an important bargaining position to bring liberals and conservatives together to cut spending, I found the rest of the article to be inaccurate, superficial, and just plain wrong (“Modernizing Conservatism,” Breakthrough Journal, No. 2, Fall 2011). Hayward is pretty good when he writes about climate change and Ronald Reagan, but on the “state of the conservative movement,” he’s a bonehead.

Near the end of this essay, Hayward writes:

I have written this paper in the hopes that my fellow conservatives will recognize the need for a conservative reformation.

Nice that he didn’t capitalize “conservative reformation,” but actually, his purpose is much more modest than he claims. It is to argue for higher taxes and (something he dare not say in so many words) ending the tax deduction for mortgage interest, which he calls a “middle-class entitlement, which represent[s] the lion’s share of federal spending.” (Just connecting the dots here, since nothing else constitutes a “middle-class entitlement” worth going after.)

Everything else in this essay is just puffing and jazz. Like most neocons, Hayward is comfortable with the welfare state, income redistribution, and public investment in “public goods,” and even advocates for more of all of these. United Republican opposition to higher taxes, something conservatives and libertarians have worked to achieve for 40 years, is the main obstacle to this agenda, and he knows it.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Me in the Washington Examiner: Nobody’s tax scheme will fix Feds’ spending problems

Thanks to the Washington Examiner for publishing this piece by me in yesterday’s paper. You can read it below:

Trying to fill the federal government’s gigantic budget hole with a 5.6 percent surtax on the tiny number of people with incomes greater than $1 million, as President Barack Obama proposes, is like trying to fill the Grand Canyon with a spoonful of dirt. It’s a gesture, a charade, a joke. It’s just not serious.

Spending, not revenue, is the problem. Did you believe the federal government was too small 10 years ago? I’ll bet not.

Today the federal government is twice as large, in spending terms, as it was then: $1.8 trillion budget in 2001 and approximately $3.7 trillion this year. The national debt–the total amount of federal government debt outstanding — has grown from $5.7 trillion 10 years ago to $14.8 trillion (and growing) now.

[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }

Heartland Institute Responds to Obama’s Student Loan Executive Order

President Obama today announced a plan to provide relief of student-loan debt via executive order. His order would allow borrowers to pay no more than 10 percent of their “discretionary income” against the loan, and forgive the debt entirely after 20 years. The president’s executive order also makes it easier for borrowers to consolidate their student loans, and reduces the interest by a half-percent.

The following press release featuring comments from fellows at The Heartland Institute was sent out this afternoon.
[click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

CDC’s dirty business featured at Forbes.com

Yesterday, Heartland’s Dr. Richard Dolinar and Kendall Antekeier were featured in a Forbes.com article by Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and Jeff Stier, a senior fellow and director for the Risk Analysis Division at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Miller and Stier give a thorough account of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new egalitarian and costly decision making process to determine additions to the childhood immunization schedule, including a new meningitis vaccine for infants.

“What has changed since the CDC made elimination of the meningococcal disease a priority in 1999? For one thing, the federal government’s increasing involvement in health care. Every decision made about which vaccine is recommended has a financial component that concerns government officials. According to CDC officials and experts working with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the CDC group that will make a recommendation on the meningitis vaccine, “cost-effectiveness, not just science” will be considered in the decision making process.”

The more government annexes health care policy decisions, the more it dissociates taxpayers from their health care choices. Using cost-effectiveness instead of science to determine health policies is bad for taxpayers and is bad health policy. (Click here to read the full article.)

For more information on this topic, click here to view a recent Policy Tip Sheet from The Heartland Institute. Additional information on consumer health care choices, visit http://heartland.org/issues/health-care.

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries