COLUMN -- Head-shaking won't do it; engaging in market-principled government might

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

It was a week where the Minnesota DFL taxed even our patience with proposals for tax increases on just about everything else. The time seems right for a good old-fashioned rant on the arrogance, self-serving politics and downright socialist propensity of the DFL (motto: "Willing to force someone else to pay for a better Minnesota").

Although such a rant would be indeed cathartic, it has little value. Two cardinal rules of life: 1) never bluff a dumb poker player and 2) never try to embarrass someone who has no shame.

A shameless DFL has gone wild exposing the nanny-state metaphors. But the blame for that irresponsible behavior, I contend, rests with the GOP. The GOP ran a bluff and lost its stake in the Legislature by playing a DFL-lite hand. Now it's a little late for the governor and the party to go all-in on conservative principles. Nobody's buying that ruse.

The DFL has exposed the GOP "tell" - the GOP shakes its head "no" whenever the DFL ups the ante. The GOP is chasing control of state government like a dog running after a bus; it doesn't know what to do with it when it catches it. Lacking faith that conservative principles can win elections, Republicans mimic the DFL tax and spend dance. Unfortunately, they don't know the steps very well and their metaphors are smaller.

In case the GOP (and my good friend Jason Lewis) missed it, David Brooks' New York Times column published in the Pioneer Press ("The folly of looking backward to Goldwater and Reagan," March 30) implies that while government is not THE solution to problems, by the very nature of its extent, government today must be a PART of the solution.

Brooks' premise is simple: Conservatism rose to prominence in the 1970s when people were right to think their future prospects might be dimmed by a stultifying state. The active paradigm was "liberty vs. power" - the idea that big government meant less liberty.

That was then. Today non-ideological Joe and Jane, facing large amorphous threats like having their jobs outsourced, rising energy prices, loss of health insurance and deteriorating schools for their kids, don't see their own government as the No. 1 threat to their personal freedom.

Brooks writes: "People with secure health care can switch jobs more easily. People who feel free from terror can live their lives more loosely. People who come from stable, secure homes and pass through engaged schools are free to choose from a wider range of opportunities."

The "liberty vs. power" paradigm has been replaced with a "security leads to freedom" model. That switch doesn't end debate between right and left, says Brooks, it just engages it on a different ground.

Unfortunately, the Minnesota GOP doesn't get that, or, if it does, it hasn't figured out how to engage the DFL in the new paradigm. That's why the DFL can run wild with economy-killing tax proposals, stomp on charter schools and vouchers to "save" the status quo education system, and create the illusion that government-provided universal health care coverage is the same as being able to see a doctor when you need to.

But Joe and Jane aren't listening to the conservatives on these issues because their head-shaking "no" strategy offers neither security nor freedom. Joe and Jane aren't responding to GOP moderates because they aren't offering as much as the DFL.
In today's world, the GOP can't portray government as the enemy when its goal is controlling the government. The challenge for the GOP is creating conservative policy that meshes with the "security leads to freedom" paradigm. The GOP needs a Ronald Reagan with a message for this time and this place that resonates with today's voters - someone who understands that even in the guise of a government program, market mechanisms work.

Government is no longer the only problem, or even our biggest problem. Neither is government the only solution or the best solution. But government is definitely part of most approaches to the challenges facing Minnesota.

The GOP must not slight individual and economic liberty (as the DFL and GOP moderates do), but it must stop its whining about DFL policy and lamenting the ignorance of voters (as conservatives do). The GOP needs to put aside its fear of government and consider how to replace the DFL tax-and-spend model with a market-mechanism approach to limited government programs. "Trust but verify" also makes for good domestic policy.

COLUMN -- Adopt a state senator

Thursday, February 22, 2007


Like most Minnesotans, I have lain awake nights tossing and turning over the plight of our state senators who suffer under the burden of an expense allowance of but $66 a day. How would you like to feed yourself on just $66 a day? And now, like Oliver Twist asking for a little more gruel, our senators humbly beg for a 45 percent increase to $96 a day, and some would deny it.

"What an ungrateful wretch I am," I think while staring at the ceiling. I shudder at the thought of what a mess I might make of my life were it not for those dedicated souls in the state Senate looking out for my welfare. And what, pray tell, have I done to thank them? Not a damn thing other than to have packed my lunch and provided my labor to help create the wealth necessary to support their good works. That is not enough.

Therefore, I am initiating an "Adopt a State Senator" campaign. What greater satisfaction could one have than sharing a little more of what you've earned with an overworked and underpaid public servant — someone like little Larry.

Little Larry lives in Minneapolis and drives all the way to the state Capitol in St. Paul every day the Legislature is in session. There is nothing worse for a legislator than to be sitting in his car on a congested freeway hungry and thirsty. Imagine pulling into a Starbucks and having to choose between a grande cafe mocha and a ham and Swiss bagel. On a meager $66 per diem there may not be enough money for both. Our state senators face tough choices like that every day.

But you can help our senators with your contribution of just $30 per day, or about $4,000 per legislative session. That's right! For just the cost of a 50-inch flat-panel plasma HDTV and premium HDTV service, you can ensure they never again have to choose between city tap water and Evian. You can ensure a senator never has to press his nose against the window of the pie display at Bakers Square or ponder the purchase of a chocolate chip cookie. No senator will ever again have to darken the door of a fast-food, trans-fat haven of health hazard temptations; senators can do lunch at the finest nonsmoking eating establishments in the cities.

And you'll sleep well at night, knowing that our senators are not only well fed, but fed well.

I know. You're thinking, "Craig, I have a family. Shouldn't I take care of them before I reach out to help needy senators?"

Of course you should, but just how much do you really need? Do you aspire to be one of those evil rich people who isn't paying his fair share in taxes? Do you want that indictment, the unbearable shame and guilt of accomplishment hanging over your head?

What would you do with an extra $4,000? Send your child to a school of your choice? Take a family vacation? Set up a bank account to cover the deductible on a

reasonably priced health insurance policy? Take care of an aging parent or send money to an adorable grandkid? Maybe even send $21 a month to Feed the Children so it can send 50 pounds of food to three cold and hungry American kids? Probably you'd just blow it on things you enjoy.

Do those individual pursuits of happiness justify denying our senators their cafe mochas AND their bagels? After all they've done to you?

Unlike state government, I can't coerce you with the threat of criminal penalties to send your hard-earned money to support our state senators. I can only ask you to consider what benefit these tireless souls bring to your life and then ask you to open your hearts and open your wallets that they might reap the rewards they justly deserve. Experience the joy that comes from adopting a state senator.

Thank you, and God bless.

COLUMN -- Embarrassed by Bachmann's votes for conservative values? Hardly

Friday, February 17, 2007


Choosing a topic for a weekly column is sometimes like picking a puppy in a pet store. Ideas are constantly barking for attention, but you've got to choose just one. Do you go with the playful idea and have fun with it? Or do you play to the loyal reader base? Or do you go the attack dog route? It can be a tough call.

Two ideas gnawed at me this week. Fortunately, Tuesday's Pioneer Press Viewpoints page provided the opportunity to pick a couple of puppies.

Side-by-side sat a biting column by 100.3 KTLK-FM talk show host Jason Lewis reminding the tax-and-spend apologists in the Legislature that "It's not your money" and a column by Stillwater resident Karl Bremer yapping about Rep. Michele Bachmann's "embarrassing" negative and losing-side votes on the Democrats' first-100-hours initiatives. The columns sprang from the same litter.

I had a late breakfast with Lewis last week. Although I kept my hands to myself, it was somewhat of a Bachmannesque thrill noshing with "Minnesota's Mr. Right." I am an unembarrassed big Jason Lewis fan. That's good news and bad. I used to be a huge Jason Lewis fan. Lately, his on-air persona frequently crosses the line between rant and rationality.

"I may rant a little more," Lewis admitted, "but it's out of frustration." And not just with liberal Democrats. Some of Lewis' most vitriolic rhetoric has targeted a Republican Party that he sees as unilaterally abandoning conservative principles. In a pre-election interview, Lewis flustered the usually unflappable Gov. Tim Pawlenty on issues from education funding to ethanol subsidies. It did not make Lewis popular with the GOP powers that be, nor did it silence him.

"There's no one up at the Capitol standing up for conservative principles," Lewis declares. "Republicans like Pawlenty have simply thrown in the towel. It's much easier to say, 'You can't say no to everything' than it is to push a conservative agenda — including tax cuts."

(More than 11,000 Minnesotans have gone to the KTLK Web site (www.ktlkfm.com) to sign the Minnesota Tax Cut Coalition petition, a number that surprised even Lewis. He was hoping for 10,000 signers by a scheduled April 14 tax rally at the Capitol. He reached that number in just two months — with no serious party or media call for tax reform.)

All it really takes for the left to win is for the GOP to place party over principle, Lewis says. Then conservative ideas aren't sold to the public. If you let the left educate the public, it should be no surprise the polls show the public leans left.

That brings us to Bremer.

Bremer has long since jumped the fence between supporting a cause and pursuing a vendetta. A frequent author of posts on anti-Bachmann Internet sites, Bremer is more obsessed with Michele Bachmann than Ken Starr ever was with Monica Lewinsky. His column betrays that irrationality.

Instead of objectively discussing the Democrats' first-100-hours initiatives, or even attempting to discredit conservative objections to the mostly symbolic gestures, Bremer simply charges that Bachmann "embarrassed" Minnesota by voting "nay" on all the Democrats' bills.

Why "embarrassed"? Because Bachmann's views differ from Bremer's?

There is nothing embarrassing about Bachmann's votes. She voted conservative values, nothing more, nothing less. That's what her supporters elected her to do. What would have been embarrassing, and disappointing, would have been Bachmann backing off of conservative values to accommodate popular opinion. Going along to get along is exactly what Lewis laments that most Republicans are doing.

I think Lewis is right. When Republicans can be intimidated off their core values by Bremer-like labels, "political debate" becomes oxymoronic. Republicans lose elections. Minnesotans simply lose.

That brings us full circle back to Lewis. He cites Ronald Reagan's conviction that if the polls are against you, you don't change your position; you stand strong and do a better job explaining why you believe what you believe.

"Frankly, it's my view that it's those in the political class, divorced from principle but not ambition, who are selling this notion that Reaganism is dead. Sorry, I don't buy it," Lewis said. Neither does Bachmann, and that's a source of pride.

As for Bremer's contention that Minnesota conservatives should be embarrassed by what they believe and embarrassed because their congresswoman stood up for her values? Well, that dog don't hunt.

COLUMN -- State of the State fell short on real education reform

Monday, January 22, 2007

Better government, better energy, better health care and better education are part of Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s vision of a better Minnesota, but in the governor’s state-of-the-state address, the greatest of these is education. The governor spent almost half his speech on education, detailing very specific proposals, which will be debated, modified, rejected or implemented by the 2007 legislature.

The proposals themselves were the focus of post-speech punditry. Legislators liked some, disliked others and were ready with proposals of their own. That’s a good thing in the sense that the more discussion of more ideas the better. But at the end of the day, parents that have packed their kids off to public school for any length of time recognize the pattern – jump on the latest education fad, run with it for a while until something shinier comes along, then lunge at it.

Never mentioned in the analysis of the governor’s education proposals is the far more fundamental question, why does Minnesota’s education system look the way it does? If we don’t someday tackle the “why” question, we’re doomed to that never-ending cycle of fad-to-fancy education policy. Education “reform,” which is what the governor is shooting for, is less about what we do and more about how decide to do what we do.

The beginning is a very good place to start, so let’s start with “dough.” The governor was absolutely correct when he said that debating the level of funding consumes most of the oxygen in the room, and very little time gets spent on reforms. But his solution – “let me address funding up-front” – is exactly the wrong approach. It puts the proverbial cart before the horse.

The biggest criticism of the state’s approach to education is that all it does is throw money at problems. Starting by throwing money is a bad start. Everyone seems to agree that education needs reform, so doesn’t it make more sense to look first at reform in terms of what it is we are trying to achieve? Then we can determine how to measure what we’re trying to achieve, determine what it takes to get to our goals, and finally determine what that will cost and how we will pay for it.

If education is as important as we make it out to be then we should spend no less and no more than is necessary. Education policy should neither contract nor expand to accommodate an arbitrary budget number.

“American high schools are obsolete,” said the governor. That’s not a policy problem – it’s a process problem. Before we can talk about fixing the current education system, we need to ask how did we get to a point where we’re mandating that our kids attend an obsolete system? How did we let our system become obsolete?

The problem is most certainly an obsolete way of viewing public education.

As long as we view public education as a top-down, expert-driven, one-size-fits-all system that delivers knowledge and skills, we have little hope of any real reform. We’re destined to live with a system that is 75 percent of what anyone wants and half of what anyone needs. Instead of top-down proposals, however well intentioned, we need a bottom-up focus that starts with students.

The governor can tell us, “too many of our high school students are engaged in academic loitering for much of their high school career. In too many cases, our high school students are bored, check-out, coasting and not even vaguely aware of their post-high school plans or opportunities, and they are just marking time.” But only those students can tell us why they are loitering, why they are bored and what would motivate them to check in and make the most of their educational opportunity.

Only teachers, through their local school administrators, can tell the state what each individual school needs to respond to what students want and need. And that will be different for every school district and every school within every district. You want reform education? Turn over responsibility for setting educational objectives and determining and managing budgets to the local school administrator. Make school administrators responsible for justifying their budgets.

You want accountability? Encourage parental school choice so the impact of failing to educate kids is felt immediately at the local level.

Without passing judgment on the worth of the governor’s individual education proposals, what he presented in his state-of-the-state address was an education policy Mulligan, not real reform. Real reform is doing things differently, not simply doing different things.

UPDATE: What Kind of Education Reform Do We Need ? By Tom Neuville, State Senator, District 25.

Jeffer's over/under number looks pretty good

Back in November, the Pioneer Press ran this little blurb --

Fantasy Budgeting

Maybe it’s her experience with poker-night promotions at her bar, Stub and Herb’s, or it could be her experience running against Gov. Tim Pawlenty in the Republican primary. Whatever her inspiration, the ever-feisty Sue (I’m not done with politics just yet) Jeffers has set the inside betting line on the “over/under” for 2007 biennial budget – $34.5 billion.

Today Gov. Pawlenty issued his budget number -- $34.4 billion. With Democrats in the legislature, the "over" looks pretty good. If the smoking ban kills Stubb & Herb's, Jeffers has a future in the bookie business -- if not state government.

Democrats being Democrats on oil subsidies issue

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute provide what is the best take on the Democratic action to over 10 years cut $14 billion in subsidies headed for the petroleum industry. Their contention is, we free market advocates really have little to get excited about on one hand, but on the other hand, yup, the cuts are just more of Democrats being Democrats.

There is no identifiable market failure that might cause private actors to significantly under-invest in domestic oil production. In practice, however, the Democrats are simply transferring subsidies from one energy sector to another with no net reduction of taxpayer funds going to corporate in-boxes.

Taylor and Doren argue that the argument that the more you subsidize oil production the more you get isn’t very strong. There is just not enough unexploited oil in the United States to greatly affect world crude oil prices. They do the math and come to the conclusion that that eliminating or cutting back on federal subsidies to the oil and gas business is a fine idea. But that's not exactly what the Democrats have in mind.

The most significant part of the bill — from both a budget and political standpoint — is the call for about 40 companies producing oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico to voluntarily pay a "conservation resource fee" to the federal Treasury. Back in 1998 and 1999, those companies signed leases to drill in certain federally-owned deepwater reserves without any requirement that royalties be paid. If the oil companies in question don't voluntarily agree to pay the proposed "conservation resource fee," the bill would prohibit them from getting leases to drill on federal land in the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that almost a third of the bill's savings - $4.35 billion over ten years — would come from those fee payments alone. A similar tightening of the royalty payment rules from other federal lands will bring in an additional $210 million over ten years.

In principle, there's nothing wrong with renegotiating leases. Contracts, after all, are renegotiated in private markets all the time. If Party A refuses to renegotiate with Party B, there is no reason why Party B must commit to doing future business with Party A. If the taxpayer is being unfairly taken advantage of, there's nothing wrong a call for renegotiation.

One might argue, however, that the economy would be ill-served by imposing ever-steeper royalties (taxes) on oil and gas extraction from federal lands, particularly when Exxon Mobil, for example already pays more taxes to government at all levels than they do profits to private stockholders.

The suspicion that the Democrats are primarily interested in taking even more money out of the oil companies' hide and not with any existential concern for tax justice is reinforced by a provision of the bill that would impose a similar "conservation of resources fee" on all non-producing oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico as well. This is a naked tax hike of $1.75 billion over a ten-year period unadulterated by any cover story about equity or tax fairness.

Taylor and Doren conclude:

Surprisingly enough, the Democrats' oil-subsidy search-and-destroy operation is far less brutal than advertised. An ambitious and intellectually rigorous bill would have also targeted the accelerated depletion allowance provided to small oil producers (about another $7.6 billion over ten years), preferential expensing for equipment used to refine liquid fuels ($830 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for natural-gas distribution pipelines ($560 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for expenditures on dry holes (with unclear budgetary implications), and the exemption from passive loss limitation for owners of working interests in oil and gas properties ($200 million over five years).

(Note: Accelerated depletion allowance provided to small oil producers is a pet bill of Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose family trust, held in an offshore bank, just happens to include stock in an oil company that qualifies for the allowance.)

The Democrats' somewhat dodgy anti-subsidy crusade, however, collapses into ashes with the proposed "Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve" tacked on to the bill. In short, all fiscal gains to the Treasury associated with the above will be handed back out again to corporations like GE, British Petroleum, and you-name-the-industrial-conglomerate engaged in energy efficiency and renewable energy businesses. But the same arguments against handouts to "Big Oil" can be as easily marshaled against handouts to Big or Little Fill-In-the-Blank. And with energy prices this high, there are ample incentives for investors to spend money on oil and gas production, renewable energy, energy conservation, or other energy exotica.

After all the math is done – here’s the money quote:

The Republican abandonment of economic principle and subsequent love affair with K Street lobbyists gave the Democrats a wonderful opportunity to launch a politically winning total war on corporate welfare. Pity that they don't seem interested in taking advantage of it.

In oither words, it's same-old, same-old: corporate welfare isn't necessarily bad; it's only bad when your pet corporations aren't getting the welfare.

COLUMN -- Liberty is at risk: Blame the right — and the left

Wednesday, January 17, 2007


I make no bones about writing from a libertarian-conservative point of view. My conservative side bristles and finds an awful lot to disagree with in Stillwater author Anthony Signorelli's book, 'Call to Liberty: Bridging the Divide Between Liberals and Conservatives.' But the libertarian in me finds much to agree with. In a bridging-the-divide spirit, agreement is the place to begin discussing what is an interesting if ultimately unsatisfactory read for the left, right and moderate middle.

A citizen-pundit, Signorelli is a consultant and an entrepreneur who has marched to his own drummer and achieved success. He does not shun the notion of an American dream or that America was founded on enduring principles. Unlike so many authors on the left, Signorelli starts from principles political conservatives heartily endorse (or should).

His argument is straightforward: Private property, the rule of law and individual sovereignty are principles that hold us together as Americans. Considered in historical context, they are "liberal" principles, and the United States is a "liberal democracy."

Principles differ from values; principles are enduring, while values are individualized, changing and the basis of differences. Within the context of "liberalism," progressives, moderates and ("true") conservatives place emphasis on different values, which might lead to different policy choices, but their legitimate efforts are guided by the shared American narrative, the principles that bind us together.

The parenthetical "true" is there because Signorelli extends his argument to define a radical right wing composed of the Christian right, neoconservatives and the corrupt right-wing corporate elites and personified by a Bush administration that has co-opted the label "conservative" and demonized the label "liberal." The right wing covertly espouses a philosophy and policies that are anathema to American tradition.

"The alternatives to liberal democracy are not legitimate to an America committed to emancipation, freedom and liberty," Signorelli writes. "True conservatism cannot be such an alternative because it is itself a creation of liberal democracy. Radical right-wing extremism ultimately becomes fascism or totalitarianism." There is a corresponding radical left (communism and anarchy), but it is the radical right wing that is in power and that we ought to worry about.

America is not yet a fascist country, Signorelli says, but he cites the work of Friedrich Hayek, "a darling of the modern American right-wing movement," to illustrate that the conditions for fascism are present in America today, and their source is the right wing.

Signorelli's book has three main purposes:

• Identify America's liberal heritage and principles.

• Clarify challenges to those principles and identify their source.

• Make suggestions for reclaiming American liberal democracy.

To a large degree, he succeeds, but the success is tempered by the very partisanship that Signorelli seeks to avoid.

The promise of his premise goes unfulfilled. In what might have been an insightful book — a progressive's understanding of how progressive values mesh with a liberalism based on the principles of private property, the rule of law, and individual sovereignty — we get another dose of Bush bashing. Granted, Signorelli bashes more responsibly than most, and some of his observations will sting an honest conservative, but it's not the insight one would hope for, nor insight that Signorelli is in the best position to provide.

A major difference between the left and the right today is that the right of the political spectrum is influenced by limited-government libertarians, who reflect and are actually more aligned with Signorelli's "American Liberalism" than are post-New Deal "liberals."

Libertarians stood against invading Iraq, in opposition to neoconservative principle, not on the basis of whether there were weapons of mass destruction. They argue against wiretaps and infringement of civil rights. They also oppose massive federal interventions in education, health care and crime-fighting legislation — signature legislation in the Clinton and both Bush administrations.

The point is, the right is open to and does engage in internal debate, and the issues raised by Signorelli are not new to the right. There is no equivalent to the libertarian influence on the left. No group on the left questions the legitimacy of the progressive notion of social reform, which John Stuart Mill, part of the liberal heritage Signorelli cites, described as "liberticide."

"Call to Liberty" will no doubt throw many conservatives into denial about the extent to which liberty has been eroded in their name. Unfortunately, many on the political left will seize on the same points to camouflage their own tendencies to elevate progressive values above the principles of private property, rule of law and individual sovereignty.

Neither side deserves a pass on confronting its own reflection in the corruption of power — not the party that is struggling to hold power, nor the party that sees itself with an electoral mandate. "Liberty" means more than the freedom to choose one's master.

Update: Here is the link to a Google Video of Tony Signorelli's appearance at the Stillwater Critical Thinking Club.

The new mainstream?

According to an Associated Press story, the young adults ages 18-24 of Generation Next are more likely to be Democratic voters than their predecessors, Generation X. That according to the Pew Research Center, which also found that group is less inclined to vote than older generations. Among the other characteristics of the generation that leans toward the Democratic Party:

-- Believes casual sex, binge drinking, illegal drug use and violence are more prevalent among young people today.

-- Says getting rich and being famous are top goals

-- Reads the newspaper and follows the news on television and radio less than those in older generations

-- Keeps close touch with their parents for financial help

-- Is twice as likely to admire entertainers as political leaders

-- Has often gotten a tattoo, dyed their hair an untraditional color or had a body piercing

Oh well, these kids are only 24, mere puppies by today’s standards, which just happens to remind me of a story.

Back in the era of the first President Clinton, Bill was out jogging when he came upon a small boy outside the White House gate with a box of new born puppies so cuddly and cute, President Bill couldn’t help stroking them.

“And they are Democratic puppies,” the boy told the President, which made him beam even more.

That evening he told Hilary about the cute and cuddly puppies.

“And the boy said they were Democratic puppies,” the President declared.

A few days later, Hillary ventured outside the White House and saw the boy with the box of puppies. Just as Bill had told her, the puppies were adorable.

“They are Republican puppies,” said the boy. Hillary was taken aback.

“But you told my husband they were Democratic puppies,” she said.

“They were,” said the boy. “But now they have their eyes open.”

We can only hope.

Camp Baldwin

I'm sure Alec Baldwin's comments about Joe Lieberman will come off better in the major motion picture version when he can run slow motion of the “longhoped-for bullet” entering Lieberman's brain.

A lot of talk about what the Dems should do now that they are at the wheel. Two people this Congress should not let up on. Cheney, obviously. Can't let the opportunity slip away to prosecute Pinochet-ney for all of his crimes. The other is Lieberman. This party needs to send a strong signal, and that is that loyalty matters in partisan politics. (Did Lieberman really think that his colleagues would chuck the entire Connecticut state apparatus just to soothe his ego?) Lieberman needs to go to the shed. For a very long time. Gotta get his mind, right. And when he comes out, ask him, "Are you a Democrat, Joe? Or aren't you?" (Emphasis added)

Dark passage into the liberal mind

Like an overly ambitious pup taking a run at the alpha male, Spotty sends me an email whenever he mentions my name in a post, which does remind of his existence. Like this post on Education Week’s “Chance for Success Index” (which ranks Minnesota third in the nation), Spotty’s posts are more bash than bite and not worth more than quick skim. What inspires my post is not Spot’s rant, but his email, which provides a teachable moment in understanding the activist liberal mind.

The subject of the email Spotty sent me was “More bad news for education!” The first paragraph of his post is --

The bad news keeps rolling in for the governor, Captain Fishsticks, and of course, our dear Katie. They so love to bash public education. It must be dismaying to have public school excellence, especially in Minnesota, continually rubbed in their pinched, sour faces.

Spotty assumes that because I argue that parental school choice would improve overall public education, I must regard any achievement of public schools as necessarily a bad thing. I must hope that public education fails, and consequently I‘m willing to sacrifice a child‘s education for the sake of political points. He assumes that the argument for school choice rests solely on public school failure. Nonsense!

Like most liberals and many conservatives, Spotty is locked into the notion that government-run schools and private schools are not both part of a larger system of “public education.” The more choice a system provides, the more opportunity for positive innovation. Conversely, the more monopolistic a system is, the less innovative it becomes and the higher the eggs-in-one-basket risk -- a single bad government innovation affects every student, unlike the failure of a single charter or private school.

I haven’t read the Education Week study, so I can’t comment on what the aggregate numbers really mean, but one doesn’t need to be a statistician to figure out that Spotty is using the same statistical rationale as Education Commissioner Alice Seagren, whom he deplores.

Seagren rationalizes Minnesota’s low proficiency in math and reading scores by pointing out that this year harder tests applied to more rigid standards and given to more students accounted for lower proficiency scores. Well, that may be true, but those scores still indicate that by the standards we’re using today, students are not proficient. Spot on the other hand, says education in Minnesota is great because we are ranked third in the nation in an index that uses the very same proficiency scores to make its ranking.

In other words, an initial skim of the analysis shows that Minnesota is the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. Hardly cause for celebration. The point is “public education,” in it’s broadest sense of government-run schools and private schools among other choices, needs to improve. The more choice, the more people innovating, the better the odds of that happening.

And now for the teachable moment -- given Spotty’s projection -- that because I support school choice I must hope for public school failures -- what does that say about how Spotty views the economy? The war in Iraq? Does Spotty hope for a higher unemployment rate to prove the Bush tax cuts are bad? Does he desire more body bags to discredit the war effort? Is it any wonder that we would think that is so? That we might question his compassion? Activist liberals, like prostitutes, generally charge (tax) more to display sincerity.