Instapundit points out this bit of interesting news. Danny Williams is a Canadian Premier (similar to a US Governor). But he's coming to the US for heart surgery...
Hmmmmmmmm.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Budget round up
The Obama Administration released the FY 2011 budget. Reaction from around the tubes:
The President’s bigger budget | KeithHennessey.com
U.S. Deficit to Hit All-Time High - WSJ.com
How does Obama's 2011 projected deficit compare? - latimes.com
What Obama's budget plan may mean for California - latimes.com
Obama budget: Record spending, record deficit - Yahoo! News
Budget Would Raise Tax Rates on Wealthy, Limit Deductions - WSJ.com
The WSJ has an interesting interactive tool that lets you see details for revenue and spending here. That's where I stole the graphic below; hit the link to see more.
The President’s bigger budget | KeithHennessey.com
U.S. Deficit to Hit All-Time High - WSJ.com
How does Obama's 2011 projected deficit compare? - latimes.com
What Obama's budget plan may mean for California - latimes.com
Obama budget: Record spending, record deficit - Yahoo! News
Budget Would Raise Tax Rates on Wealthy, Limit Deductions - WSJ.com
The WSJ has an interesting interactive tool that lets you see details for revenue and spending here. That's where I stole the graphic below; hit the link to see more.
Reason has the footage of the budget actually being delivered on the Hill. It would be interesting to take a survey on how people feel watching this video. What other event does this remind you of? For me, something along the lines of a funeral. -- A famous person died and the reporters are morbidly snapping away as the casket goes by...
The rise of Private Spaceflight
Alan Boyle reports over at Cosmic Log.
Never fear, Senator. I'm sure Washington will ensure the proper regulation and oversight is in place so that private interests are able to compete with... the Russians.
No, the biggest shift had to do with who would be in charge of providing the successors to the space shuttle fleet, which is currently due for retirement by the end of this year. Instead of having its own human spaceflight program to service the space station, NASA said it would buy rides in private-sector space taxis. In Nelson's words, "the commercial boys" would be in the driver's seat.
"If the commercial boys don't work, then we are stuck for upwards of a decade relying on the Russians ... and that is not a good position to be in," the senator said.
Never fear, Senator. I'm sure Washington will ensure the proper regulation and oversight is in place so that private interests are able to compete with... the Russians.
Remember that 'War for Oil'?
How's that turning out anyway? Hitchens writes about a subject somewhat missing from MSM coverage...
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Remarkable Success in Public Education
In the video below John Stossel interviews Inez Tenenbaum when she was the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. This first aired in 2006 and during the interview Stossel asks Tenenbaum about the dismal performance of the South Carolina public schools. I'm snipping the part of the interview out that I want to focus on but the relevant segment starts at 22:40 if you'd like to check my editing.
Ms. Tenenbaum makes some strong comments in this interview. She seems confident and predicts great improvements for South Carolina students. I thought it would be interesting to see how her predictions panned out. If nothing else she deserves to be given credit for progress that has no doubt occurred since this interview took place. And of course that progress took place, right? I mean, just listen to how sure she was: (I've started this video at her segment which starts at 22:40 and it runs through about the 27:00 mark)
Here is her current bio. Ms. Tenenbaum is no longer the State Superintendent of Education, she was appointed by Barack Obama to be the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission in June 2009. Her bio states a couple things that are relevant to the topic at hand:
So, this woman was not an education system passerby, she was the SC Superintendent of Education for about 8 years.
Some time has passed since this interview so maybe we could check on the "remarkable success" South Carolina was anticipating in its K-12 education. The first thing we'll check are the State's SAT scores. Now, the College Board, who administers the SAT, doesn't recommend you compare the various States by SAT scores but this will be a good starting point for our discussion. The SAT scores by State can be found here. Ms. Tenenbaum would be pleased, no doubt, that South Carolina no longer has the worst State scores. They have moved up two slots and now Hawaii and Maine perform worse. And of course Washington DC if we're going to count them. Over on the right we can see the 10 year improvement for the tests that were given in 1999. (The SAT now has a writing component and improvement data is not available for that) We see that SC has improved 7 in Reading and 21 in Math. These are improvements on their old 1999 scores of 1.5% and 4.4% respectively. Keep in mind that is over 10 years. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether that qualifies as a remarkable success.
The real test (hah hah) however, is South Carolina's performance on the NAEP exams. NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress and is considered the gold standard by which to judge and compare a State's performance in education. It is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics which is part of the U.S. Department of Education. It is even referred to as "the nation's report card." NAEP does include private schools as well but they account for only 10% of students nationally. Let's see how SC compares:
The scores below are all 8th grade scores. It should be noted that in some of the earlier years some States did not participate. The maximum score is 500.
For Math, in 2000 SC was ranked 31st out of 41 with a score of 266. In 2009 they were 34/52 with a score of 280. A 5.3% score increase in nine years.
For Reading, in 1998 SC was ranked 31/38 with a score of 255. In 2009 they were 42/52 with a score of 257. A .7% score increase in eleven years.
For Science, in 2000 SC was ranked 34/39 with a score of 140. In 2009 they were 30/45 with a score of 145. A 3.6% score increase in nine years.
For Writing, in 1998 SC was ranked 32/37 with a score of 140. In 2009 they were 37/45 with a score of 148. A 5.7% score increase in eleven years.
In no area did South Carolina students do better than an average of about a .6% increase per year.
What does that bio say again?
I see. The fastest in the country, you say? Well, I suppose the other States should be um, concerned, yes?
Here is the National long term NAEP trend assessments for Reading and Math.
Reading (Click to enlarge):
Math (Click to enlarge):
Remarkable success.
This just proves we need more money in the education system right? I mean, if we had been spending more on education over these 30 years we would have a different story!
Well... you're probably a racist.
Ms. Tenenbaum makes some strong comments in this interview. She seems confident and predicts great improvements for South Carolina students. I thought it would be interesting to see how her predictions panned out. If nothing else she deserves to be given credit for progress that has no doubt occurred since this interview took place. And of course that progress took place, right? I mean, just listen to how sure she was: (I've started this video at her segment which starts at 22:40 and it runs through about the 27:00 mark)
Here is her current bio. Ms. Tenenbaum is no longer the State Superintendent of Education, she was appointed by Barack Obama to be the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission in June 2009. Her bio states a couple things that are relevant to the topic at hand:
Ms. Tenenbaum was elected South Carolina's State Superintendent of Education in 1998 and completed her second term in 2007. Throughout her career, Ms. Tenenbaum has been an energetic and determined advocate for children and families and has extensive experience in administrative and regulatory matters.
During her tenure as South Carolina's State Superintendent of Education, student achievement in South Carolina improved at the fastest rate in the nation, with scores increasing on every state, national, and international tests administered. At the end of Ms. Tenenbaum's tenure, the prestigious journal Education Week ranked South Carolina number one in the country for the quality of its academic standards, assessment, and accountability systems.
So, this woman was not an education system passerby, she was the SC Superintendent of Education for about 8 years.
Some time has passed since this interview so maybe we could check on the "remarkable success" South Carolina was anticipating in its K-12 education. The first thing we'll check are the State's SAT scores. Now, the College Board, who administers the SAT, doesn't recommend you compare the various States by SAT scores but this will be a good starting point for our discussion. The SAT scores by State can be found here. Ms. Tenenbaum would be pleased, no doubt, that South Carolina no longer has the worst State scores. They have moved up two slots and now Hawaii and Maine perform worse. And of course Washington DC if we're going to count them. Over on the right we can see the 10 year improvement for the tests that were given in 1999. (The SAT now has a writing component and improvement data is not available for that) We see that SC has improved 7 in Reading and 21 in Math. These are improvements on their old 1999 scores of 1.5% and 4.4% respectively. Keep in mind that is over 10 years. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether that qualifies as a remarkable success.
The real test (hah hah) however, is South Carolina's performance on the NAEP exams. NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress and is considered the gold standard by which to judge and compare a State's performance in education. It is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics which is part of the U.S. Department of Education. It is even referred to as "the nation's report card." NAEP does include private schools as well but they account for only 10% of students nationally. Let's see how SC compares:
The scores below are all 8th grade scores. It should be noted that in some of the earlier years some States did not participate. The maximum score is 500.
For Math, in 2000 SC was ranked 31st out of 41 with a score of 266. In 2009 they were 34/52 with a score of 280. A 5.3% score increase in nine years.
For Reading, in 1998 SC was ranked 31/38 with a score of 255. In 2009 they were 42/52 with a score of 257. A .7% score increase in eleven years.
For Science, in 2000 SC was ranked 34/39 with a score of 140. In 2009 they were 30/45 with a score of 145. A 3.6% score increase in nine years.
For Writing, in 1998 SC was ranked 32/37 with a score of 140. In 2009 they were 37/45 with a score of 148. A 5.7% score increase in eleven years.
In no area did South Carolina students do better than an average of about a .6% increase per year.
What does that bio say again?
During her tenure as South Carolina's State Superintendent of Education, student achievement in South Carolina improved at the fastest rate in the nation, with scores increasing on every state, national, and international tests administered.
I see. The fastest in the country, you say? Well, I suppose the other States should be um, concerned, yes?
Here is the National long term NAEP trend assessments for Reading and Math.
Reading (Click to enlarge):
Math (Click to enlarge):
Remarkable success.
This just proves we need more money in the education system right? I mean, if we had been spending more on education over these 30 years we would have a different story!
Well... you're probably a racist.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Disgusting moral populism
Jim Wallis on The Daily Show:
There are few things worse than self righteous, sophomoric thinking pushed through a populist message. It has a way of catching fire and even sloppy reasoning when it is put in a way that sounds good can become part of the every-day consciousness. Downstream this can lead to poor decisions and bad policy. During this interview Jim is metaphorically wagging his judgmental finger in your face and talking down to you about your moral failings like a disappointed father... while pimping his book on TV for profit. Look Jim, either you get to preach to people about "values" and castigate them for their worship of money or you get to write a book and make money off of it. You can't do both.
I looked to see if Jim was donating the profits from his book to this-or-that charity and I wasn't able to find anything. And I don't mean just some of the profits, I mean all of them. Why, you ask? Well, if he can draw an arbitrary line in the sand for what constitutes a morally approved charity donation - well then so can I.
Look, if you want to give to the relief effort in Haiti, by all means, give. And don't think that I necessarily approve of all bonuses either. Graft is graft and waste is waste but... and this may come as a shock to people like Jim, bonuses serve a purpose in the workplace - even in banking. How much does Jim know about running a bank? Not much I'd guess. Not that that keeps him from running his yap about it. Worse, he dresses his pronouncements in a sort of quasi-religious, motherly-pat-on-the-knee folks-ism. I know what's best for your soul, Dear. Oh, and I wrote a book about it. Only $19.95!
While the interview is chock full of populist cliches I want to talk about a few specifics here. At a certain point in the interview, he says that the bonus money should be appropriated in some manner other than to give it to the people who... what's the word... oh, worked for it. His first idea is Haiti. As I explained above, first - we don't need people like you lecturing us like children, and second - you first. Third, Jim has no idea what percentage of their income these bonuses constitute. In a sales position it is entirely possible to have a very significant portion of your income - that you rely on to, you know, feed your family - come in the form of "bonuses". Jim has no idea what these people do for a living, how specialized their particular skills are, how hard or long or smart they work, in what manner banks structure their pay to increase productivity, or how much they might (or might not) deserve to be compensated. He knows absolutely nothing about them. Except that they should give their money away. And Jim will be right there to morally bully them into doing the right thing. It's for the common good, you know. Fourth, a considerable percentage of this money will actually go back to one level of government or another. Before you blow that off, consider that both the Mayor of NYC and the Governor of New York have made comments opposing any sort of retro-active penalty, tax, or fee against these banks or persons. Why? Because NYC and the great state of New York tax the crap out of their citizens, especially high income ones, and they stand to collect a great deal from these bonuses. Mayor Bloomberg had this to say after the idea of keeping the bonuses in escrow was bandied about:
Food for thought, that.
Jim's second idea is that we use that $150 billion dollars to pay the deficit of the various States in the Union. Let it be known: we already do this. The federal government subsidizes the state budgets in all manner of ways. Name most any service that a State provides and you'll find a Federal dollar somewhere on the balance sheet for that service. Texas, for example, gets about 31% of it's revenue from the Federal Government. Wisconsin famously halted its plans to lower the drinking age to 19 - only for military service members - because the Feds would pull about $30 million in highway funds. The States already receive too much money from the Federal Government and are restricted and regulated correspondingly. There is no free lunch - and no Federal dollars without strings. Even if Jim means we should give to the States above and beyond what we already do, we wouldn't exactly be encouraging future fiscal responsibility by our State Governments if we bail them out after their spending bonanzas. Kinda like the banks...
What's that you say, this is exactly what we already did with the stimulus bill? Oh, that $787 billion monstrosity? Here's the full title:
Jim, your indignance was only about a year late. The States already got their billions.
His next idea is to use this money to "prevent mortgage foreclosures all the way through 2012". For the sake of discussion, I will assume that Jim has not developed the ability to see into the future and he is just speculating and using some formulation of projected mortgage foreclosure rates over the next two years. The reader that hasn't been in a coma for the past couple years will note the considerable lack of success recently in the arena of projecting said mortgage failure rates by people way more experienced and much smarter than Jim - but hey, we'll just let it slide and assume it to be true. No opportunity for graft or waste in a program like that, I daresay. And certainly pushing billions into the housing market in such a manner won't alter people's behavior in any way. Nah. I'm sure people, being the noble and altruistic beings that they are, will continue doing the right thing and go on paying that mortgage even though there's billions of dollars sitting around to "prevent" them from foreclosing on their house.
Mmm, what's that you say? There already is a $75 billion mortgage foreclosure prevention program? What the deuce!?
He does say one thing that I agree with him on. He derides the "too big to fail" line by banks and other financial organizations and says we should make them smaller. I agree completely; if your organization is so big that its failure will cause country sized collapses in the financial markets - then you need to be cut down.
Jim gives "greed" a good solid B+, populist bashing in the interview. In the interest of fairness I offer a counterpoint, Stossel: Greed is good. And more here on greed by Stossel, in video! (An excellent 6 part ABC special - watch this)
There are few things worse than self righteous, sophomoric thinking pushed through a populist message. It has a way of catching fire and even sloppy reasoning when it is put in a way that sounds good can become part of the every-day consciousness. Downstream this can lead to poor decisions and bad policy. During this interview Jim is metaphorically wagging his judgmental finger in your face and talking down to you about your moral failings like a disappointed father... while pimping his book on TV for profit. Look Jim, either you get to preach to people about "values" and castigate them for their worship of money or you get to write a book and make money off of it. You can't do both.
I looked to see if Jim was donating the profits from his book to this-or-that charity and I wasn't able to find anything. And I don't mean just some of the profits, I mean all of them. Why, you ask? Well, if he can draw an arbitrary line in the sand for what constitutes a morally approved charity donation - well then so can I.
Look, if you want to give to the relief effort in Haiti, by all means, give. And don't think that I necessarily approve of all bonuses either. Graft is graft and waste is waste but... and this may come as a shock to people like Jim, bonuses serve a purpose in the workplace - even in banking. How much does Jim know about running a bank? Not much I'd guess. Not that that keeps him from running his yap about it. Worse, he dresses his pronouncements in a sort of quasi-religious, motherly-pat-on-the-knee folks-ism. I know what's best for your soul, Dear. Oh, and I wrote a book about it. Only $19.95!
While the interview is chock full of populist cliches I want to talk about a few specifics here. At a certain point in the interview, he says that the bonus money should be appropriated in some manner other than to give it to the people who... what's the word... oh, worked for it. His first idea is Haiti. As I explained above, first - we don't need people like you lecturing us like children, and second - you first. Third, Jim has no idea what percentage of their income these bonuses constitute. In a sales position it is entirely possible to have a very significant portion of your income - that you rely on to, you know, feed your family - come in the form of "bonuses". Jim has no idea what these people do for a living, how specialized their particular skills are, how hard or long or smart they work, in what manner banks structure their pay to increase productivity, or how much they might (or might not) deserve to be compensated. He knows absolutely nothing about them. Except that they should give their money away. And Jim will be right there to morally bully them into doing the right thing. It's for the common good, you know. Fourth, a considerable percentage of this money will actually go back to one level of government or another. Before you blow that off, consider that both the Mayor of NYC and the Governor of New York have made comments opposing any sort of retro-active penalty, tax, or fee against these banks or persons. Why? Because NYC and the great state of New York tax the crap out of their citizens, especially high income ones, and they stand to collect a great deal from these bonuses. Mayor Bloomberg had this to say after the idea of keeping the bonuses in escrow was bandied about:
The mayor was so upset about the move -- and a suggestion that Wall Street bonuses be put in escrow, which means the money wouldn't be spent here, wouldn't help the city economy -- he responded with a proposal of his own for members of Congress.
"Maybe we should hold back their salaries for a decade or so and see whether the laws they pass work out," Bloomberg said.
Food for thought, that.
Jim's second idea is that we use that $150 billion dollars to pay the deficit of the various States in the Union. Let it be known: we already do this. The federal government subsidizes the state budgets in all manner of ways. Name most any service that a State provides and you'll find a Federal dollar somewhere on the balance sheet for that service. Texas, for example, gets about 31% of it's revenue from the Federal Government. Wisconsin famously halted its plans to lower the drinking age to 19 - only for military service members - because the Feds would pull about $30 million in highway funds. The States already receive too much money from the Federal Government and are restricted and regulated correspondingly. There is no free lunch - and no Federal dollars without strings. Even if Jim means we should give to the States above and beyond what we already do, we wouldn't exactly be encouraging future fiscal responsibility by our State Governments if we bail them out after their spending bonanzas. Kinda like the banks...
What's that you say, this is exactly what we already did with the stimulus bill? Oh, that $787 billion monstrosity? Here's the full title:
An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
Jim, your indignance was only about a year late. The States already got their billions.
His next idea is to use this money to "prevent mortgage foreclosures all the way through 2012". For the sake of discussion, I will assume that Jim has not developed the ability to see into the future and he is just speculating and using some formulation of projected mortgage foreclosure rates over the next two years. The reader that hasn't been in a coma for the past couple years will note the considerable lack of success recently in the arena of projecting said mortgage failure rates by people way more experienced and much smarter than Jim - but hey, we'll just let it slide and assume it to be true. No opportunity for graft or waste in a program like that, I daresay. And certainly pushing billions into the housing market in such a manner won't alter people's behavior in any way. Nah. I'm sure people, being the noble and altruistic beings that they are, will continue doing the right thing and go on paying that mortgage even though there's billions of dollars sitting around to "prevent" them from foreclosing on their house.
Mmm, what's that you say? There already is a $75 billion mortgage foreclosure prevention program? What the deuce!?
He does say one thing that I agree with him on. He derides the "too big to fail" line by banks and other financial organizations and says we should make them smaller. I agree completely; if your organization is so big that its failure will cause country sized collapses in the financial markets - then you need to be cut down.
Jim gives "greed" a good solid B+, populist bashing in the interview. In the interest of fairness I offer a counterpoint, Stossel: Greed is good. And more here on greed by Stossel, in video! (An excellent 6 part ABC special - watch this)
MSNBC reaction to Scott Brown victory
Instapunk (NSFW) links this piece from Glenn Garvin on the difference between the coverage of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC of the special election in Massachusetts. A snippet:
As they say, read the whole thing(SFW link).
If you watched CNN or Fox News last night, you got a balanced analysis of how Republican Scott Brown pulled off the political upset of the century (or, if you prefer, how Democrat Martha Coakley blew a dead solid electoral lock). Yes, I said Fox News, without irony. To be sure, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made it clear they were rooting for Brown. But their shows also included a steady parade of liberal-leaning guests -- former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, Democratic party strategist Mary Anne Marsh, NPR commentator Juan Williams and radio host Alan Colmes. And pollster Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of two dozen or so Massachusetts voters, most of them Democrats, about how they voted and why. Practically every conceivable perspective on the election was represented.
And on MSNBC, you got practically every conceivable expression of venom against Brown and anybody who voted him. From Maddow's dark suspicions that the election was rigged -- she cited complaints about a grand total of six ballots out of about 2.25 million cast -- to Olbermann's suggestion in the video up above that the same Massachusets voters who went for Barack Obama by a 62-28 percent margin had suddenly realized they helped elect a black guy and went Republican in repentance, the network's coverage was idiotic, one-sided and downright ugly.
As they say, read the whole thing(SFW link).
Memo to Olbermann: You work for a corporation
Related: Jon Stewart mocks Olbermann over Scott Brown comments.
Update: Olbermann responds and reminds everyone of Affleck spoofing him on SNL:
From the Hot Air Headlines
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Pelosi says they don't have the votes
At WaPo.
What to watch out for next? The Republicans selling out of course. Don't forget that many (most) of these guys are big government types that have been on watch over the past couple decades as the size and scope of the federal government has expanded as never before. It would be easy for the Democrats to "cut a deal" by scaling back on some of the health insurance bill to get something passed which they can expand on at a later, less controversial time.
Hit Cato up for some actual reform ideas.
What to watch out for next? The Republicans selling out of course. Don't forget that many (most) of these guys are big government types that have been on watch over the past couple decades as the size and scope of the federal government has expanded as never before. It would be easy for the Democrats to "cut a deal" by scaling back on some of the health insurance bill to get something passed which they can expand on at a later, less controversial time.
Hit Cato up for some actual reform ideas.
Happy Birthday Major Winters
Richard Winters, Commander of Easy Company during World War II, turns 92 today.
Band of Brothers is an amazing mini-series by the way. I highly recommend it.
Band of Brothers is an amazing mini-series by the way. I highly recommend it.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Some post Brown victory wrap up
Brown on his election:
Ooooh, that's gonna leave a mark.
NYT: A Year Later, Voters Send a Different Message
Rasmussen: Brown Wins Stunning Victory in Massachusetts
WSJ: The Boston Tea Party.
Massachusetts voters tell Democrats to shelve ObamaCare.
New York Post: Heck of a Job, Brownie!
IBD: This is big for Romney too.
Wishful thinking by Fred Barnes? Healthcare is dead.
The Boston Globe says:
Here's Scott Brown's victory speech if you missed it.
Asked on NBC's "Today" show if the election was a referendum on Obama, he replied, "No, it's bigger than that."
Ooooh, that's gonna leave a mark.
NYT: A Year Later, Voters Send a Different Message
Rasmussen: Brown Wins Stunning Victory in Massachusetts
In the end, Brown pulled off the upset in large part because he won unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. The senator-elect also picked up 23% of the vote from Democrats. [Our polling shows that 53% of voters in Massachusetts are Democrats, 21% Republican and 26% not affiliated with either party.]
WSJ: The Boston Tea Party.
Massachusetts voters tell Democrats to shelve ObamaCare.
New York Post: Heck of a Job, Brownie!
IBD: This is big for Romney too.
Wishful thinking by Fred Barnes? Healthcare is dead.
The Boston Globe says:
Brown’s strong win does not negate the resounding mandate that President Obama and Democrats in Congress received in 2008 to address escalating health costs, which are strangling businesses while pricing coverage beyond the reach of tens of millions of Americans. Both houses of Congress have already passed credible reform bills. At this point, President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should bring the legislative process to a close by pushing House members to pass the Senate version. Any necessary amendments can be addressed in the budget bill, which isn’t subject to the filibuster.
Here's Scott Brown's victory speech if you missed it.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
