Obama & The Competitive Principle

THX1138

Alex

"Obama's reluctance to embrace the cause of educational reform is one of the more disappointing aspects of his Presidency so far"

I wouldn't be so sure about that!

Read this great piece from the New Yorker on the LA Charter Schools project Green Dot.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/instigator_13230

I found it very inspiring.

David Lindsay

There are many things we may not know about Barack Obama. One of them now appears to be that, far from having somehow risen without trace, he is in fact a real old pro.

He stumbled with his lines a couple of times. But what the hell, he got them all out: the restrictions on the public option (boo), the legal requirement to insure your health as you insure your car (hooray), the tactical masterstroke of co-opting John McCain's scheme from last year, the dismissal of the death panels nonsense, no coverage for illegal immigrants (never going to happen, anyway - his own black base was the safeguard against that), no federal funding of abortion (never going to happen, anyway), no repeal of the federal conscience clauses on abortion (never going to happen, anyway).

Whoever heckled him on illegal immigrants was presumably out there this time last year, campaigning to give the Presidency to John McCain. McCain was seen last night sitting, as ever, next to his consligliere, Lindsey Grahamnesty. The man whom the paleocons kept in the Senate by failing to get behind his Ron Paul-supporting, traditional Catholic Democratic opponent as they would have done any Ron Paul-supporting, traditional Catholic Republican. Except that no Ron Paul-supporting, traditional Catholic Republican was seeking election to the United States Senate last year. Or any year.

And while it makes no moral sense that so many people draw the line at federal funding of abortion in America (all three conditions must be met), nevertheless that is what and where they do. No Congress or President was ever going to commit electoral suicide by legalising such funding, banned by a Republican amendment, but a Republican amendment passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by Jimmy Carter. The same sheer electoral calculation also applies to the federal conscience clauses.

So there we have it. Since there was never any proposal from any quarter for death panels, Obama is going to get his way simply by promising not to sign any Bill that contained certain provisions that no Bill submitted for his signature ever would have contained.

A real old pro.

With the added advantage of not looking like one.

Richard

If Obama really wanted competition in healthcare he would simply have to open up the state markets. Unlike the current bill at least that would be within the powers of the Federal Government granted by the constitution.

Mr Lindsay

Since the Democrats rejected a Republican amendment to actually enforce the restriction that illegal immigrants would not be covered the heckler (Joe Wilson) was quite right. Illegal immigrants will in fact be covered, even if it is not allowed in the bill.

Power Line has an excellent analysis.

ndm

True! But if this true of healthcare why isn't it also true when it comes to education? Obama's reluctance to embrace the cause of educational reform is one of the more disappointing aspects of his Presidency so far.

The American public already has a far greater choice with education than it has with healthcare. There is, for example, no universal public healthcare system as their is with education. Furthermore, regardless of what libertarians believe, the public provision of education is (largely) successful in a way that the private provision of healthcare is not - universal access.

I presume what Alex Massie refers to is that Democrats are unwilling to countenance the favoured tool of Libertarians - school vouchers - or as they euphemistically express it"school choice." The fact that the right disembles on so many of its desired policies through euphemisms like "death taxes" and "school choice" shows that it recognizes these policies are not particularly popular in America. The reality is that school vouchers have nothing to do with extending educational choice but are all about extending yet another tax break to upper middle class Americans.

I don't think there are many Americans willing to publicly fund education to the point where vouchers would allow any American student to attend Dalton School in Manhattan where tuition is currently $34,100. And you know what, I don't think many parents at Dalton want these poor and huddled masses to come to their school anyway. I suspect the initial response to the provision of school vouchers would be horror over the level of state control that must inevitably come with them. And Dalton would no doubt respond by increasing tuition by the value of the voucher. I don't mean to rib on Dalton because it is just a proxy for any private school.

David Lindsay

Congressman Joe “Liar” Wilson of South Carolina is obviously right in his objection to illegal immigration.

So we can only assume that he was not out there this time last year, campaigning to give the Presidency to John McCain. Never mind to secure the re-election of McCain’s consligliere, Lindsey Grahamnesty.

Rather, Wilson must surely have given his all in the cause of that Ron Paul supporter and traditional Catholic, Bob Conley.

Surely?

porkbelly

Good heavens - critical words from Mr. Massie about Obama? Is nothing sacred? Courage, man, courage!

ndm, on the other hand, is still one of the true believers...alas, he ought to familiarize himself with the American public education system before he holds it up as an example of government-run goodness. The main beneficiaries of the voucher system are not middle-class families - they typically live in areas with good public schools (and pay dearly the inflated housing costs to do so). It is the poor, stuck with failing, dirty, violent schools who are desperate for an alternative. Many times they find it in Catholic schools which remain their only hope to provide their children with an education, and they only way they can afford the tuition is with a voucher (which by the way are always limited monetarily and thus cannot be used, for instance, at Dalton - or even Sidwell Friends in Washington where Dear Leader sends his offspring).

Alas, the teachers' unions are very powerful, especially within the Democratic Party, and fight tooth-and-nail to ensure that they are guaranteed a steady stream of unfortunate students by opposing vouchers everywhere they can (such as recently in D.C., so the Obamas need not worry about rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi at school functions).

THX would also do well to look at the contentious progress of Green Dot in L.A., where the local teachers' union fought them bitterly (abetted by their stooges in the City Council). Again, it is only through the efforts of the parents at charter schools - overwhelmingly from poor, minority areas - who have fought to keep them open.

And now, unless I misunderstand, the idea is to turn the American health system over to the same brilliant bureaucrats who have so mismanaged the education system? It will make the Black Death look like an outbreak of the sniffles!

ndm

Porkbelly writes with ineffable ignorance:

-- ndm, on the other hand, is still one of the true believers...alas, he ought to familiarize himself with the American public education system before he holds it up as an example of government-run goodness.

My children are collectively in their 21st year of the American public education system. I am consequently reasonably familiar with its merits and demerits. Even tonight, in a hostelry of my acquaintance, I had a reasonably long conversation about the public university system. I have very little doubt that I am more intimately acquainted with both the American education and healthcare systems than the vast majority of readers and writers of The Spectator.

So, Porkbelly, "you and me babe how about it" as Dire Straits used to put it.

callingallcomets

Mr Massie critical of Obama...mmm...but of course he still cant quite get his head around a recent op ed in the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
suggesting some alternative ways of reforming US healthcare....I wonder why??

Richard

ndm

"The American public already has a far greater choice with education than it has with healthcare. There is, for example, no universal public healthcare system as their is with education. Furthermore, regardless of what libertarians believe, the public provision of education is (largely) successful in a way that the private provision of healthcare is not - universal access"

That is argument does not follow at all. It is a classic non sequitur. The conclusion that there is more choice does not follow from the premise of universal access - in fact the opposite is often true and universal access immediately removes one choice, not to pay for any service. In general universal access restricts choice.

Richard

Mr Lindsay

Why? McCain did not express a strong view on government healthcare for illegal immigrants specifically.

I suspect you are doing as the press and socialists tend to do. I think you assume if Rep Wilson holds what you think is a right-wing opinion on matter A then he must hold what you think is a right-wing opinion on related but separate issue B. Opinions are far more nuanced than that.

Politics is also far more complicated than that you credit. Why would you immediately assume that Wilson opposed McCain's election even if they do disagree on a single issue? He might agree on far more issues, and on issues he felt were more important or more likely to arise as being controversial.

Tabloid and BBC politics, New Labour even (and on-message). Not relevant to reality except for political creeps and yes-men, looking out for number 1.

ndm

Most laughable phrase in the English language:

-- recent op ed in the WSJ