Memo to GOP: Morality Trumps Economics

My latest post @ The Objective Standard Blog is entitled Understanding Obama: It's Not the Economy, Stupid.

Related:

Obama's Collectivist Manifesto, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Working "Together": Obama-Style vs. Freedom

My latest post at The Objective Standard Blog zero's in on an aspect of a recent controversial speech by President Obama. Here's an excerpt:

What he means by his slogan, “You’re not on your own, we’re in this together,” is that individuals are not sovereign and that government must dictate the means and terms of their lives. If Americans were to embrace Obama’s vision for America, what would stop us from becoming “in this together” right down to Soviet-style mandatory career placement?

Read Obama's Way vs. the American Way.

Government School Overhead, and Other Matters

A recent letter of mine to the NJ Star-Ledger was published under the heading Voucher Economics. It was a response to an op-ed by former NJ governor Jim Florio in which he took opposition to the proposed Opportunity Scholarship Act, a tax credit-based voucher program for poor children. My letter, which was previously published on this blog, dealt with one of his criticisms. 


A correspondent left the following comment:

Lowie July 07, 2012 at 7:20PMRe: Voucher Economics
   Michael LaFerrara makes the reasonable assumption that when we remove a child from a public school classroom we are also "relieving the government of the expense of educating that child." Makes sense, right? But in reality, the school still has to heat that classroom, pay for the lights in that classroom, pay a teacher to lead that classroom, etc. -- so it doesn't actually result in the 1:1 cost savings one might assume at first glance.
   Mr. LaFerrara also assumes that each voucher "removes one child from the public schools." But upon closer inspection of the bill itself ( http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/S2000/1779_I1.HTM ), one finds that the voucher eligibility requirements also "would include those currently enrolled in a nonpublic school". In other words, certain students who are already attending private or parochial schools would begin receiving vouchers under this program.
   And we haven't even mentioned the "administrative fees" associated with the voucher program. During the first five years of the pilot program alone, the targeted public school districts will be required to pay $9,850,000 (yes, nearly 10 million dollars) in administrative fees to a "scholarship organization" selected by the state to administer the voucher program. Yes, really -- the public school districts will be forced to pay an outside contractor millions of dollars to administer a voucher program for students who are not attending the public schools. Hmmm, perhaps that's where we will find the "windfall" Mr. LaFerrara believes will result from this private school voucher program.

I responded:

zemack July 08, 2012 at 3:24PM 

   The government school’s overhead is irrelevant. If a parent chooses to not send her child to the public system, the government has no more claim on the lost revenue than General Motors has on the wallet of the buyer of a Ford. Should the buyer of the Ford be responsible for GM’s utility and salary costs? The public schools should deal with their excess overhead just as any private business would when faced with a loss of sales to a competitor.
   As to students “currently enrolled in a nonpublic school,” the Scholarship Act would simply correct a grave injustice perpetrated against the parents who are forced to pay for public schools they choose not to avail themselves of. In fact, tax credits should be available to any parent or taxpayer that sponsors any child’s private school education.
   As to the “administrative fees,” I do not approve of this aspect of the program. This is a matter between the donating corporation, the parents, and the private school. There should be no “‘scholarship organization’ selected by the state to administer the voucher program.”
   [As a matter of disclosure, I am the author of the letter and of this article: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-spring/school-vouchers-tax-credits.asp]

Related:

Education Tax Credits Are Not Government Subsidies 

The Problem for Government School Apologists; American Ideals

A battle is taking place within the New Jersey Democratic Party. The battlefield is education. The issue is parental school choice. Previously, we heard from proponents. Then, we heard from the opposite side.

A recent column by former New Jersey Governor James J. Florio highlights the problem defenders of government schools face; American ideals. Their answer? Ignore them, like they never existed.

In this piece, Florio takes aim at school choice and vouchers. Let me state up front that I am not a proponent of vouchers. Though the bill Florio refers to is a hybrid--it is financed by tax credits--it retains some of the dangers of vouchers. For my in-depth analysis of the bill, see The Voucher Trojan Horse.

The voucher issue aside, my issue with Florio is philosophical: He is attacking the whole concept that any individual has any rights in the matter of education and its funding. Here are a few excerpts:

   Our American public school system, open to all of our children, has been responsible for the nation’s formation and development. It is the institution that harmonized our diversity, created a literate citizenry, brought us unparalleled prosperity and is the key to the upward mobility that provides us with social stability.   Voucher proponents, who are willing to jettison this uniquely American institution, justify their position on the basis of some failing schools in urban and remote rural areas.   They would segregate our most motivated students in such schools and transfer them to private and parochial schools. The vast majority of remaining students, 85 to 90 percent, would be intellectual residue.   Voucher supporters, rather than committing to improve educational opportunity for all, run up a white flag of surrender on the hallowed American tradition of universal education...   Vouchers would siphon money and the most motivated students from such schools, and would be a sad commentary on our commitment to “liberty and justice for all.”

Florio is specifically taking aim at the Opportunity Scholarship Act, supported by many Democrats, which is a very limited tax credit-based voucher plan. Florio calls it a "Dracula of an educational idea." Perhaps his vehement opposition--he seems to think the country is doomed if it passes--is because Governor Christie has called it a "down payment" on his ultimate goal of choice "for every parent everywhere." Grant freedom to one parent, and you open the door to the argument for choice for all--which was exactly the point of my question to pro-choice Democrats: On what basis is it fair to deny any parent or child the choice?" Perhaps Florio read it.

In any event, his use of the term "Dracula" is apt: His ultimate motivation is a real blood-sucker of an idea, egalitarianism. "Equality for all is apparently too much of an effort," he says. I left the following comments:

The “hallowed American tradition of universal education” predated tax-funded, government-run schools. In fact, by the mid-19th century, just as the government takeover of education was getting started, literacy rates were already near 100%.

The hallowed American principles that were actually “responsible for the nation’s formation and development; …that harmonized our diversity, created a literate citizenry, brought us unparalleled prosperity and is the key to the upward mobility that provides us with social stability”—are the principles of inalienable individual rights and a limited rights-protecting government.

Gov. Florio ignores another hallowed American principle—the principle of equality before the law—the only sense of equality that is true to our Founding, the nature of man as a metaphysically autonomous being, the principles of “liberty and justice for all,” and morality. It is an equality that leaves every individual free to pursue his own goals and happiness by his own effort and voluntary trade and association, while forbidding coercive interference by others, including others in their capacity as government officials. Any other kind of “equality” can only be accomplished by massive rights violations—i.e., the looting and gradual enslavement of productive individuals—and by destroying the best and brightest. Notice his fear of “segregate[ing] our most motivated students”—i.e. of any concern for the best and brightest, whose parents might want to pursue better opportunities for their children. (Notice also his utter lack of confidence in the public schools, which would turn the “remaining … 85 to 90 percent [into] intellectual residue.” Egalitarian ideologists are not happy until every student is residue.)

Florio inverts another hallowed American principle—that government is the servant, not the master, of the people. This means that individuals, not government, have first claim on their own earnings, and have an inalienable right to spend it as they judge best.

Regarding the subject at hand, the principles noted above—which, sadly, had to be reiterated—means that tax credit-based school choice—not just for the few, but for everyone—should be the direction we move in [http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-spring/school-vouchers-tax-credits.asp]. The government-run schools violate those principles on a massive scale, through force of taxes and compulsory education laws. And to all reactionary defenders of the status quo, I ask: If the government-run public schools are so great, why do you need force to hold it in place? Don’t you think that parents and taxpayers would voluntarily send their kids to your schools, and voluntarily pay for them? Don’t you think you can compete in a free market? 

I wasn't the only one who zeroed in on Florio's egalitarian vampire.

mpcarrollr25 writes: "Under the guise of advocating for equality, former Governor Florio would happily consign talented students – indeed, every student – to a second class education..." 

Sir Galahad writes: "Citing egalitarianism the writer goes on to rationalize sacrifices parents and children must make to the state for the sake of the state budget.

Governor the term equality is a political term meaning equal before the law. Students regulated to an obvious inferior school system by law could hardly be construed as 'liberty and justice for all'".

And Mtown_Quaker writes: "When the FORMER Governor states, 'They would segregate our most motivated students in such schools and transfer them to private and parochial schools. - can somebody tell me why that is wrong, if it is done by their own free will and parental consent? Quite frankly, I want to cherry pick the 'best and brightest' out of terrible schools and help place them elsewhere with private means where they can actually get a decent shot at an education. I don't see a moral issue with doing that at all.

To the contrary: Where is the morality in forcing these children to attend wretched schools?

Of course, the proper answer to the likes of Florio is to ask; Why not parental choice for everyone, rather than forbid it to the few? Like all statists, Florio's worldview holds that the "masses" are too stupid and irresponsible to care about their own children, and are perfectly willing to neglect their children's education. Therefor, the state must take control, because then the superior intellectual elite will do what's best for them.

As to my challenge presented in the form of the questions that close out my comments, I would also ask: What good is education, without the freedom to act on it?

Terrorist Aggression vs. National Self-Defense

My latest post at The Objective Standard Blog asks:

Is there a moral difference between a terrorist attack on a tourist bus and a nation acting in self defense?

Yes, there is. Read Obama's Hideous Moral Equivalence Toward Israel.

A Brief Comment on "Income Inequality"

The NJ Star-Ledger ran an article entitled "Study: N.J. wealthy flourishing, gap between rich and poor is largest since Great Depression."

You could imagine the kinds of correspondence such as article would generate. I was reluctant to jump in. But alas, I couldn't help myself. You never know when you might reach a rational mind that's "on the fence."

So, I left these quickly cobbled-together comments:

Posted by

zemack July 29, 2012 at 5:00PM

The bigotry against the productive and successful is a symptom of pure envy. The real problem is not income inequality as such which—in the context of a free society—is a natural and morally virtuous result of human nature; i.e., individual differences in ability, intelligence, interests, ambition, values, goals, etc.

The real issue is the growing burden on upward economic mobility. The question we should be asking is: Why is the number of economically successful people falling (or at least stagnating)? A good clue; look at the past decade that is the focus of the study.

Since 2001, we have seen a massive expansion of entitlements (e.g. Bush’s prescription drug benefit), a massive expansion of economic regulation (e.g., Bush’s Sarbanes-Oxley and the EPA’s regulation of CO2; Obama’s  ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank), a colossal drain on private wealth ($10 trillion in federal deficit spending), the collapse of the politically engineered “affordable housing crusade” (housing boom and bust, and related recession), massive inflation (the fed’s easy money policies), and so on.

It takes a massive act of mental evasion to avoid the fact that the economic troubles of the past decade coincides perfectly with the massive growth of the regulatory welfare state to unprecedented proportions. If government coercion and intervention is the answer, we should have economic nirvana. Instead, we have perpetual economic struggles. This is no coincidence.

The Marxist obsession with “income inequality” and the cowardly scapegoating of “the rich” will not hide this fact. Nor will it hide the fact that the answer is to reverse course; regain our reverence for economic success, and institute massive cuts in taxes, spending, redistributive theft, and regulations. Otherwise, the course we are on will lead to continuing shrinkage in individual productiveness—the only source of economic vitality—and the growing entrenchment of the entitlement mentality—the source of economic sloth. 

How the Right is Defining the Terms of Debate on Education

In How Democrats are Changing Course on School Choice, Tom Byrne, a former New Jersey Democratic State Committee Chairman, had this to say:

It used to be that school choice was taboo among Democrats. But many key party members have come to see school choice as a civil rights issue. If rich white kids can go to the school that best fits them, why can’t we provide the same opportunity to poor minority kids?

This is progress in the sense that the abstract concept "school choice" continues to gain traction in the culture.  Of course, freedom is not merely about government-approved choice. And now that the concept of school choice accepted, the door is open to moving the ball forward toward more and more freedom in education. I left the following comments:

zemack June 15, 2012 at 11:02AM

What about the vast majority of children between “rich white kids” and “poor minority kids?” No school—even the “best” of the public schools—is good for every child or satisfy every parent. So, how about tax credit-based school choice for everyone? Christie is already on record supporting the concept.

Give every taxpayer—corporations and individuals, with or without school-age children—optional education tax exemptions, so anyone can sponsor the education of any child anywhere in NJ, limited to the per-child cost of public schools. This would make private alternatives to government schools much more affordable for most families, and open the door to a flood of philanthropic money for the rest—including the “poor minority children” left waiting in the public system for improvements that never come. Then, let educators innovate and compete and parents decide. I proposed one such plan here [http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-spring/school-vouchers-tax-credits.asp] and a bill along these lines was once introduced into the NY State legislature [http://woodburygazette.com/freedom-of-education-act-p652-133.htm].

So long as the private schools can keep their autonomy by keeping them free from regulation, leaving private schools truly private, it would be the moral thing to do. Not only is this a civil rights issue, but more importantly, it is a matter of inalienable individual rights. On what basis is it fair to deny any parent or child the choice?

We arrived at the degree of statism we currently have in America by allowing the Left to define the terms of debate. The rest was a logical step-by-step regression to more and more government control. Reversing that process is the path to a fully free market. School Choice is a good concrete example of how that can happen. It is we who are defining the terms.

Not so long ago, school choice was ridiculed. Now, it's "mainstream." But it's important to understand that school choice is a start--a tactical battlefield win--not victory. To capitalize on our momentum, we must define school choice not as an end in itself, as conservatives do, but as a means to a fully free market in education. Just as the Left always wraps its politics in altruist/collectivist clothing, we on the Right must always connect our politics to our egoist/individualist fundamentals. That is how to pave the way toward the next progressive step toward full freedom.