RAG Perspective: An American Pro-Liberty Conservative: Miscellany: 4/15/10

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Miscellany: 4/15/10

Quote of the Day
Most men talk too much.
Much of my success has been due to keeping my mouth shut.
J. Ogden Armour

Governor Crist:
Teaching Reform Bill Veto and the Senate Race

I made it very clear where I stood on this issue in a recent post: "GOVERNOR CRIST, READ MY LIPS: SIGN THE BILL." Today Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) vetoed a significant teacher pay/reform bill. There is no doubt that Crist was getting a lot of resistance from teacher unions, concerned parents, local school boards and other groups, with calls or emails running almost 20-1 against the bill. I have experience fighting against the vested status quo (among other things, in 1999, I had to take on risk-averse accountants dead set against necessary ERP software updates at two different companies, and I mentioned in an earlier post the resistance I got from UWM faculty, the administration, and students for introducing a new COBOL language standard with support for structured program constructs).

Governor Crist gave a number of reasons for explaining his reasons for opposing the bill, but it was fairly clear when he put off signing the bill last week that it wasn't a good sign; when Colin Powell, a registered Republican, waited until 2 weeks left in the general election campaign to make an endorsement (not when it might have made a difference, e.g., before McCain clinched the nomination), it was fairly clear he intended to support Obama. Crist mentioned a family friend whom knew a special education teacher whom was reduced to tears over what merit pay for special ed teachers meant, that special ed teachers had no opportunity to get a raise regardless of their best efforts.

This was a totally unacceptable rationalization by Crist. Even those with casual background in statistics factor in contextually-driven factors; for example, you would expect a letter carrier to make more package deliveries during the Christmas season and to drop in subsequent months; the number of deliveries depends on the underlying demand for shipments. A carrier cannot deliver more packages that he has to deliver. I suspect the underlying fear of the special ed teacher was that her performance would be based on the same decision rules as for, say, the relevant scores for gifted or regular students, putting her at a disadvantage assuming the same performance criteria. I am not speaking for the Florida Department of Education, but I expect that special ed teachers would be evaluated on a comparable basis on relevant performance factors for special ed students. There have been also the same tired excuses I've heard for years about performance measures, e.g., extrinsic (home life) factors influence performance, and teachers shouldn't be held responsible for factors beyond their control, teachers will teach to the tests, etc.

Any reasonably competent researcher can easily dispatch with these objections. First of all, most researchers would want multiple observation points and reliable, validated measures of learning performance. Second, any hypothesized external variables can be modeled to see if they significantly contribute to learning performance variance; I suspect the alleged factors are anecdotal in nature and likely will wash out over large enough pools of students and multiple observation points. Even if you find significant differences, say, between charter schools and district schools, with students coming from the same neighborhoods, the district school teachers will argue that the charter schools skim off the best students or that more motivated parents will choose the charter schools and motivated parents are a significant predictive factor in student performance.

What is NOT acceptable is the status quo, which in large part awards teachers the same way, regardless of individual effort and objective measures of student performance. We do not need intrinsically unreliable judgments which lack statistical power or cronyism where peer reviewers engage in a quid pro quo.

Crist's veto message was telling where he paid lip service to the organized efforts in defense of the status quo. Sorry, Governor Crist, I've been one of your fans, but you promised to support the reform, but when the pressure was on, you folded, disappointing your predecessor Jeb Bush and some of your biggest supporters against Marco Rubio, including former Senator Connie Mack.

A new Quinnipiac poll shows that Crist has a viable Lieberman approach to the US Senate as an independent. Whereas Crist seems to be hoping that his veto will improve his numbers against Rubio, his attempt to go negative on Rubio hasn't worked to date, with Rubio now commanding a better than 20% lead. Crist, however, shows a slight lead over Rubio in a 3-way race with Democrat Meek. Rubio has a narrow lead over Meek, but Crist picks up over a quarter of Democrats and nearly 40% of independents. He'll probably strengthen his hold on moderates and independents with today's veto.

I now think an independent run by Crist is inevitable. The reasons are clear: he has no chance of beating Rubio in the primary now, the primary is closed to independents, and his best path to the Senate is as an independent. To be sure, he'll have Republicans turn on him, just like Democrats turned against Lieberman after Lamont squeaked by in the 2006 primary, and he'll lose some face over his multiple denials to running as an independent. But I don't see how he wins back the supporters pushing Rubio, and I think Rubio whipping the sitting governor by 20 or more points in a primary, if anything, ends Crist's political career. I think at minimum he has to concede the GOP bid to Rubio.

I would support Crist if he decides to go independent, despite my disappointment over what he's done in terms of supporting the Democratic Party Stimulus Bill and in vetoing the teaching reform bill. I don't think Florida needs another polarizing ideologue in the Senate; Crist is the most credible fiscal conservative, most experienced, most flexible and has the broadest support in a key purple state.

Obama Decides to Use Medicare and Medicaid Dollars
To Mandate Social Policy

I have a nuanced position on what Obama has done tonight: He has set a policy ensuring gay Americans (among other groups) have visiting rights to their partners (and to have a voice in their care) in any hospital accepting Medicare/Medicaid funding (which is essentially most hospitals). (Traditionally family members, in particular estranged family members, have been given control by hospitals to control whom has access to the patient.) Specifically, I think it is Congress' decision to enact any such policies for essentially the same reason as I considered Obama's executive order quid pro quo with Stupak to be unenforceable. But I also don't like in principle the federal government adding incidental strings to federal funding. I do think that the government, which provides financing for college students, has an implicit right to recruit graduating students for public service. It's bad enough that providers are forced to subsidize treatment for Medicare and Medicaid, but now the federal government thinks it has a right to dictate visitation policy for other patients?

That being said, I would hope that hospitals would base visitation policies in accordance with individual rights and common sense compassion. If I lived with a woman and my parents disapproved of the relationship, they should not have the right to trump my own preferences. I accept the rights of people in adult, consensual relationships to visit their partners and to have an input in treatment decisions; I do think that family or the hospital has a right to require the partner to establish current status evidence of the relationship, e.g., both names on a lease or the title of a home, payment of related expenses (e.g., mortgage or utility payments), etc. I would hope that the provider doesn't need President Obama to create a policy by administrative fiat in order to do the right thing.

A National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional?
Another Democratic-Nominated Federal Judge

Let me make myself clear: Barbara Crabb is not one of my favorite federal district judges. Last year she decided that ethics restrictions denying Wisconsin judges to participate in the political process. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge John Siefert wanted to join the Democratic Party, and endorse and solicit campaign contributions on behalf of Barack Obama. Crabb ruled that Siefert's First Amendment rights were being violated. I strongly disagree with this, and my position would be the same if Siefert had intended to do the same on behalf of John McCain instead. I think that judges should be independent of politics both in fact and in appearance.

But Carter-nominated Judge Crabb outdid herself today in ruling the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional by arguing that it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Let me get this straight: A President can be sworn in with his hand on the Bible, we could have religious services in the Capitol or prayers at the inauguration celebration--but a National Day of Prayer, which underscores a key individual right to worship, is unconstitutional? Patently absurd. (The judge also annoys me with her presumptuous and condescending language in saying her ruling wasn't anti-prayer and didn't apply in other contexts; in fact, she is attempting to rationalize a double-standard ban of religious speech in a public sector setting, which is in and of itself unconstitutional.) There is an obvious presentist bias to Crabb's intellectually indefensible decision; what the country's founders meant by the "establishment of religion" was the state or nation creating and operating an official state church, like the Church of England. There is no state religion, and in fact prayers at public events tend to be general in nature; we often include religious figures representing different religious traditions, including Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and/or Muslim clerics. I call on the Justice Department to appeal this unjust opinion.

By the way, I do think the government has more pressing issues on its plate than a National Day of Prayer, but every time I think of the damage the progressives are doing to the economic future of this country with their fiscally irresponsible federal spending and debt, we may, in fact, have need of more than one National Day of Prayer each year...

Political Cartoon

Walt Handelsman notes the futility of rhetoric to deal with the facts of rogue nations like North Korea and Iran; it's very difficult for Obama to make any headway given Russia and/or China's vested interests (including lucrative contracts). I do not like the blunt talk of potential military strikes by Israel or the US (e.g., McCain's talk about "pulling the trigger").