The Geopoliticization of World's Oil & Gas Industry

Irwin Stelzer has written a sobering article in the February 7, 2005 issue of the Weekly Standard on what he calls the "geopoliticization of the world's oil and gas industry."

His key point is:

...it can't be said that the free play of supply and demand ever set prices in the oil market. But we are now seeing an even more profound uncoupling of the oil industry from anything resembling the model characteristics of market economies. Governments rather than traditional commercial enterprises are increasingly taking control. And those governments often have interests quite hostile to ours.

In support of his thesis, Stelzer makes the following points:

...America remains highly dependent on Saudi oil, the production of which is controlled by state-owned Aramco, an instrument of the Saudi government's foreign policy...

[Through] the Iran-China Chamber of Commerce, established in 2000,...state-owned companies in China [are] buying oil from state-owned companies in Iran...

The China Petroleum & Chemical Company (Sinopec) also signed a 30-year natural gas purchase deal to help the mullahs get their gas industry moving and agreed to invest in the development of the Yadavaran oil fields in return for Iran's agreement to sell it 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil...

As Gal Luft and Anne Korin pointed out in the March 2004 issue of Commentary (subscription required), China "has sold ballistic-missile components to Iran as well as air-, land-, and sea-based cruise missiles...Even more significantly, China has provided Iran with key ingredients for the development of nuclear weapons," and China's Fiber-Home Communications Technology is building a broadband network in Iran.

Sinopec agreed to spend $300 million to develop natural gas resources in Saudi Arabia...The Sino-Saudi oil-for-arms trade has included the sale by China of ballistic missiles with a range of 1,800 miles and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead...

China clearly aims to position itself as an alternative to America as an ally and armorer of countries that oppose U.S. foreign policy...China also tends toward countries that are key suppliers of the oil that keeps the wheels of American commerce turning...

We cannot forget that the real price America is likely to pay for the Clinton-Gore years will not be from inappropriate sexual dalliances, but from that administration's peculiar dealings with China, which Bill Gertz outlines in his 2001 book entitled "Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security." Character does matter in the end.

Gertz has also elaborated previously on the growing threat from China in his 2000 book entitled "The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America."

Stelzer continues:

Canadian prime minister Paul Martin just visited Beijing and came away with a broad-ranging deal to cooperate in a wide variety of energy projects, including plans for a pipeline and ports that would allow...oil from Alberta's tar sands to move to Canada's west coast for export to China...According to their joint communique..."Canda and China share the view that the United Nations and other multilateral institutions have an essential role to play in the development of a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable world."

...[Chinese] President Hu Jintao has agreed to invest $100 billion in Latin America in a variety of energy-related an dother partnerships...

Most threatening is the arrangement made with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, a man with close ties to Fidel Castro and who claims his country is under "a new U.S. imperialist attack." China has agreed to invest over $400 million in Venezuela's oil and gas industry, and to buy 120,000 barrels of that country's fuel oil each month. Chavez has made it known that he plans to use the proceeds of his oil industry to fund sales of cheap oil to Castro, and he has not denied rumors that he plans to finance revolutionary groups in other Latin American countries. Moreover, he has announced that he is no longer bound by his exploration and development deals with American companies ConocoPhillips, Harvest Natural Resources, and ChevronTexaco, putting into question the reliability of supplies from Venezuela, which account for 15% of U.S. imports...

We cannot forget that any long-term consequences here were made possible by Jimmy Carter's ignoring of well-documented voting irregularities which allowed Chavez to "win" what most other observers said was a stolen election that he should have lost. (Or, as Power Line subsequently said when talking about Carter and Iraq: "Jimmy Carter isn't just misguided or ill-informed. He's on the other side.")

Stelzer continues with the litany of problematic developments:

CNOOC, China's third largest oil company, is preparing a series of acquisitions in Asia that will allow China to acquire the resources it needs to fuel its growth and extend its influence into countries in which its commercial presence has until now been insignificant...

Putin has been developing what astute observer Roger Boyes calls "a new policy instrument" to reassert Russian power. That instrument is "the Russian gas and oil-exporting companies that already all but dominate Europe's energy supplies...According to the IEA, by 2020, natural gas will account for 62% of Europe's energy consumption, and Russia will supply two-thirds of that gas...

Germany already gets 35% of its oil and 40% of its gas from Russia...

Russia is using its reserves to...make Germany, France and other countries heavily dependent on Putin's goodwill...[Putin can then] rely on German and French self-interest to tip those countries to his side in any dispute with the United States...

Ronald Reagan must be turning over in his grave since he led the effort to stop a Soviet pipeline to Western Europe, thereby denying the Soviets both hard currency and political leverage.

The list of other efforts contrary to American self-interest continues:

Russia also plans to use its ample reserves of oil and gas to extend its influence in Asia. It has already agreed to allow Japan to finance an oil pipeline from eastern Siberia to the Pacific, from where it can be transported to Japan...and allow Russia to export to several Asian nations as well as Japan...

Perhaps most important is Russia's use of oil to cement relations with China...Putin has offered China National Petroleum Corporation a piece of Yukos, the Russian oil giant that produces 1 percent of the world's crude oil, and that Putin effectively renationalized...Putin's siloviki, which includes his old KGB chums, is now firmly in control of Russia's oil industry...

Putin's offer to the Chinese of a branch connection with the pipeline joint-venture with Japan...

At the same time, there is a new report about the growing number of Russian spies in our country.

The core issues raised by Stelzer were also raised in a 2004 book by Bill Gertz called "Treachery: How America's Friends and Foes are Secretly Arming Our Enemies."

Stelzer sets up a potential endgame conflict scenario:

Russia and China are using state-owned companies that are not bound to profit-maximize to achieve their long-term goal of weaving a web of relationships that will stand them in good stead in any diplomatic confrontation with the United States. Whether America can continue to rely on its private sector to provide us with comparable clout is no longer certain. After all, when companies that have to maximize profits compete with companies that seek to maximize national influence and power, the latter will engage in projects that the former simply cannot.

Does anyone doubt that these actions amount to nothing less than economic warfare against the United States?

Will anyone pay attention and act before it is too late?

ADDENDUM:

A recent news article also highlights the strong presence of Chinese spies in America.

RE:WITMO (Where is the Moral Outrage)

To continue in my role as a WITMO amplifier and hope provider, I would like to point to a new book by Larry Schweikart and Michael Patrick Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States : From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror. Schweikart was interviewed at FrontPage about the motivation for writing the book, which boiled down to Schweikart finding "a numbing similarity in all the U.S. history textbooks: they all seemed heavily tilted to the left." He sought out Allen and both agreed that a joint venture to set the record straight was worthwhile. They have hopes that the book will be able to capture some of the market, especially high school, homeschool and a few "conservative" higher education outlets. As for puncturing the "mainstream" academic market, the authors are

. . .less optimistic. The academy is unique in the social and economic culture of the United States, in that it is essentially immune from the market forces that discipline every other activity. I highly recommend a book by my fellow Ohioan, Richard Vedder, Going Broke By Degree, on this topic. But here’s what we have: the faculty (aided and abetted by leftist administrations) sets the intellectual agenda. Trustees cannot control them, parents cannot control them, and even the students---who are less willing to put up with left-wing demagougery---really can’t control them. In the first place, faculty have an iron grip on hiring. No conservative can even get close to a final three cut-down in a search. Mike and I are rare, rare exceptions, and there are a few. But you’ve seen the numbers. In most universities it’s 10:1 liberal to conservative.

Worse, there is no competition, because the mind-set of those at the top convinces them that all of their competitors have the same views they do, so they steadily drift further left. . .

However, I can’t completely lose hope. In my lifetime, I’ve seen something occur that I would have thought impossible---the demise of the MainstreamMedia (MSM) and the rise of “alternative” or “conservative” voices with almost as much power and influence, including the Internet and sites such as Frontpagemagazine.com . Twenty-five years ago, who would have predicted that the “big three” would be in a news ratings free-fall, or that a radio host like Rush Limbaugh would have as much influence over a large part of the country as the New York Times? So given that it happened in the media, anything’s possible. But right now, I don’t see educational reform on the horizon. I hope I’m wrong.

The examples of Bill Felkner and Schweikart and Allen give us hope, tempered by a realistic analysis of the overwhelming ideological hurdles in academia, that it is worth the attempt to equalize the ideological situation within the Ivory Tower. The question remains whether the old Tower can be refurbished or if it will have to be torn down and replaced.

Finishing the Line

In his commentary in the Providence Journal, which Don mentions in the previous post, Rhode Island College student Bill Felkner does the single most important thing for government reform:

Let's draw a straight line: The school teaches the "perspective"; graduates get jobs at the state Department of Human Services and the Poverty Institute; the DHS testifies (using Poverty Institute "research") to the State House on how well programs are doing. How can we blame politicians for developing ineffective programs when they are guided by biased testimony?

He doesn't draw the line far enough, though, to illustrate that it is actually a loop. Note Felkner's explanation of the approach to welfare that his school advocates and that the Rhode Island government follows:

Welfare programs are employment- or education-focused, further defined by "strict" or "lenient" requirements. Rhode Island has a "lenient, education-focused" model, and the proposed legislation advocates greater leniency.

In summary, not only are educators populating the state bureaucracy with ideologues, not only are educators helping to develop policies and put the shine on those already instituted, but the policies that these educators advocate are focused on increasing the customer base for — yup — educators. Consider the emblematic story of Providence's April Brophy, told in the Providence Journal last June. Ms. Brophy and her husband divorced, then he became disabled, so her child support payments were miniscule. State assistance helped, but it wasn't enough, until:

BROPHY'S BOSS wanted her to start working Saturdays. But Brophy had no one to care for her youngest child, Bobby, then in kindergarten. When the situation could not be resolved, Brophy quit, and entered an eight-month case-management program at Rhode Island College.

"It ignited my passion for social justice," Brophy said.

There Brophy learned that as kind as her social worker had been, she had neglected to tell Brophy that there were dozens of training and education programs open to her, part of her welfare benefits. The social worker had mentioned only two: RIC's case-management program and a certified nursing-assistant program. ... Brophy received her certificate in case management in May 2003 and tried to get a job in the field. ...

A few months later, she landed her current job: organizing for Rhode Island Parents for Progress, an advocacy group for low-income working families. ...

She says she has regained her sense of self-confidence. She hopes to go back to school to earn an associate's or bachelor's degree in social work. She now earns $11 an hour -- the highest salary she has ever received.

Described from a business point of view, Ms. Brophy is an ideal customer of the education industry. Not only did she complete the circuit between educators and government funds in her own case, but she is now employed to find other such human conductors. Seen in this light, the "perspective school" that Felkner now attends has a clear conflict of interest in its dealings with state policy, and the corruption is manifest along the entire loop, including the corruption of the ideals of higher education.

As I highlighted in response to the Projo's piece on Brophy, one can in good faith and with charitable intentions put forward solutions that align with one of two worldviews. Corruption aside, Rhode Island's more common worldview believes that people's particular difficulties must be addressed in the most expedient way possible: giving to them what the government has collected from others. The worldview that I favor puts the responsibility for people's lives in their own hands, believing that human nature creates a marketplace that incorporates every aspect of society, from economics to familial culture to religion, and that people ought to be allowed — empowered, in modern Marxist jargon — to seek their own balance.

As a nuclear family, the Brophys were doing just fine on $35,000 per year. According to Rhode Island College's Poverty Institute, a family of four needs $48,000 in combined income and handouts to get by. Unless we break this cycle whereby interest groups set policies that siphon tax dollars in their own direction while creating incentives for people to make unhealthy decisions, our state will eventually find itself attempting to subsidize everybody with revenue from nobody, and our culture will only generate more messes to mop up with public green.

Where is the Moral Outrage?...Again and Again

When I first wrote the "Where is the Moral Outrage?" posting, I did not plan for it to become a series. Soon, another posting followed. There is a growing counter-response, as Marc has noted (here, here, here).

Now we have our own Rhode Island story in today's ProJo.

Talking about the Rhode Island College School of Social Work (SSW), one quote in the editorial by Bill Felkner says it all:

As one faculty member put it, "The SSW is not committed to balanced presentations, nor should we be."

Don't you just love the sound of words dedicated to rigorous intellectual exploration and academic freedom?

The public side of this tale dates back to a ProJo story published last November 14.

If you want further background information, go to Bill's website. It is another sad and sorry tale about the state of the American academy.

ADDENDUM:

Bill has now had an article entitled "Indoctrinated into Inadequacy" published in FrontPage.com magazine. He writes about how the behaviors at the SSW limit academic freedom:

My taxpayer-funded school proclaims it only teaches from a liberal/progressive “perspective.”

My taxpayer-funded school produces research to support this “perspective.”

My taxpayer-funded school demands political activism to advance this “perspective.”

Bill then describes how the system perpetuates itself:

The Rhode Island legislature – which is 85 percent Democrat in the House and 83 percent Democrat in the Senate – pass legislation that requires that administrative positions in the government’s welfare and social work departments be filled by SSW graduates - further perpetuating its leftwing “perspective.”

...Once “social work” meant government workers at the welfare office. Today it encompasses private clinical therapists, government administrators, policy analysts/researchers, and lobbyists...

In every state, social workers are involved with health services, labor services, foster care and welfare services. They design, influence and implement policies in your state. We are even taught how to create policy simply with our actions. Social workers, sent with their marching orders from Rhode Island School of Social Work, carry a single and persistent theme – the prescribed “perspective” is the only solution, regardless of the issues...

Bill then connects these practices to an unsettling conclusion about how costly the loss of academic freedom is - both within the academy and within our society:

How does this loss of academic freedom affect not only me but also Rhode Island? Besides the loss of intellectual diversity that spawns creativity and empirical knowledge, it has a more tangible and costly influence to our economy and more importantly to the poor.

One requirement of graduation is that we lobby the State House on social justice issues. I selected the Education and Training bill, because it is the core of welfare reform, a career interest of mine.

Welfare programs are “work-“ or “education-first,” further defined by “strict-“ or “lenient-requirements.” Rhode Island has a “lenient-education-first” model and the proposed legislation advocates more leniencies. At first glance, statistics provided by the school seemed convincing in supporting this approach. However when I read the entire study I found it inadequate.

The Rhode Island General Assembly receives testimony from the Department of Human Services (DHS) on the effectiveness of Rhode Island’s welfare program. This testimony is driven by research produced within the halls of Rhode Island College, the same research used to solicit support from students. But is it valid?...In layman’s terms - it’s survey material, not experimental data. So I looked for more.

The US Department of Education and US Department of Health and Human Services commissioned random assignment design studies for the explicit purpose of evaluating the impact of welfare programs. The Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation (MRDC) produced these reports.

Results show the model promoted (and imposed) by the Rhode Island School of Social Work is the least effective and most costly.

Virtually all variables studied (earning, poverty-reduction, job-security, self-sufficiency, effects to minorities, etc...) show “lenient-education-first” programs under-performed the other 3 models...

If random sampling studies are preferred - and are available - why doesn’t the school use them? Is this state school in pursuit of knowledge or a political agenda? The answer is obvious.

Correcting for ideological prejudice is relatively simple if the will is there. A simple comparison to other states can identify solutions that work. The US Census supplied demographic data used in a recently released Cato Institute report that ranked states on a variety of issues. With Rhode Island spending so much more proportionately on welfare compared to other states, it is both disconcerting and revealing to see rankings in the bottom 15-20 percent on most performance categories including ‘teen-pregnancy’ and ‘poverty-reduction.'

...The MRDC research makes very clear the comparative disadvantage of using Rhode Island’s education first program, “the (work-first) programs generally produced larger five-year gains in employment and earnings than did most of the (education-first) programs.” (Links for studies at www.collegebias.com)

With Rhode Island ranking 3rd in per-recipient spending, 6th in tax rates, 46th in business tax-climate, and among the lowest in welfare efficacy (36th poverty-rate - 49th caseload-reduction - 46th teen-pregnancy - 41st job-entry - 40th earnings-gain), wouldn’t all of Rhode Island’s citizens benefit from more effective programs? The poor become self-sufficient, funds become available for others, and taxpayers might even get a break.

Our policy class at the School of Social Work “teaches” that a comprehensive welfare state, one devoid of work-requirements, is the optimal form of government. Our professor flatly declared: "Students need to decide whether they agree with (my opinions) and whether they belong in social work."

As has been said elsewhere in past years, the last bastion of Marxist thought is the American university. Their ignorance would be laughable - except that these fools are indoctrinating many young minds with their Liberal Fundamentalism.

Thank goodness for the liberating presence of technology that allows alternative views to be expressed and heard in places like this blog site. There will be a public debate on these issues, regardless of whether certain people at the SSW want it or not. And the rest of us won't run from empirical data.

ADDENDUM II:

A letter to the editor in the February 8, 2005 ProJo responds to Bill Felkner's editorial in a curious way.

What the letter's author completely misses is that this debate has absolutely nothing to do with caring about/for the needy and working to help alleviate their needs. It has everything to do with the lack of intellectual honesty of certain so-called advocates who both willfully choose to ignore empirical data regarding what makes the most effective public policy and then punish those who don't hold firmly to an orthodoxy disconnected from reality. And these people proudly tout their ideologically-driven ignorance!

ADDENDUM III:

Brian Bishop has added his voice to this debate in an editorial published in the ProJo. Marc has covered it well in a separate posting, so this addendum is being added only for the purpose of completeness.

Justin has also offered up some additional thoughts.

ADDENDUM IV:

David French, President of Freedom for Individual Rights in Education, (FIRE) wrote a letter on January 28 to John Nazarian, the President of Rhode Island College. A powerful letter, it can be found about halfway down the first page on this website. FIRE's blog site can be found here.

Separately, I found one statement on the "Expectations of Students" for the Policy Class to be quite interesting:

Maintenance of complete confidentiality regarding issues that may be raised in class. Discussions that occur here stay here and are not meant to be conveyed into public spaces.

This has led Bill to respond:

If two of our assignments are to lobby for social justice issues, and building public support is part of those campaigns, how can we do that without discussing them in "public spaces"?

This "expectation" wouldn't then be a gag order for only politically incorrect opinions, would it? Nah, why would anyone think that?

ADDENDUM V:

John Nazarian, the President of Rhode Island College, responded on February 15 to the FIRE letter mentioned above. His letter can also be found about halfway down the first page on this website.

ADDENDUM VI:

There was a ProJo article about the new Dean of the RIC SSW. Some of her comments raised the issue of "social justice," which led to this separate posting of mine on the question of "What Does Social Justice Mean?"

ADDENDUM VII:

One of the RIC SSW students has published a letter to the editor in the ProJo.

Justin has done a great job of challenging the comments in this letter. Since the letter clearly sums up the radical world view of these left-wing zealots, I would encourage you to read Justin's excellent posting.

ADDENDUM VIII:

From the April 24 edition of Rhode Island Policy Analysis' On the Radar comes this news:

Finally, we can't talk about the sorry state of Rhode Island's social safety net without this Bill Felkner update. Bill is a mid-career masters student at the taxpayer financed Rhode Island College School of Social Work. Bill has greatly offended the liberal ideologues who run the school (along with the affliated Hypocrisy, oops, I mean Poverty Institute) by pointing out that the data used by the school to lobby the General Assembly is far from evenhanded. He has even, heaven forbid, pointed out that Rhode Island's dismal performance record in getting people off welfare suggests that we might want to change our approach to that used by better performing states. This questioning of ideolgical idols has led to Bill's tires being slashed, and repeated references to various committees in an attempt to get him tossed out of the SSW. The latest chapter in this sad saga involves a masters program requirement that a student serve an internship with a policy advocacy organization. Bill has obtained one in Governor Carcieri's office, to advocate for the Governor's welfar reform proposals. Sounds great, right? Not if you are the faculty at the (taxpayer financed) RIC SSW. They have pointed out to Bill that one of the requirements is that the internship be with organizations that advocated "progressive" change. Bill naively thought this meant changes that achieved progress, as in better results. The faculty explained that it meant policies that passed a liberal ideological litums test. The net result is that as of last week, Bill's faculty adviser at RIC SSW had yet to contact the Governor's Office to discuss Bill's proposed internship. Let's be clear: at a taxpayer financed institution, this is outrageous! If you think so too, why not call RIC President John Nazarian on (401) 456-8101, or email him at jnazarian@ric.edu.

The Driving Forces in Iraq

PROEM:
To mark the historic elections today in Iraq, I republish, here, a column from December 10, 2001, that has been available in full only in my book, Just Thinking: Volume I. A view that was then extreme has proven predictive, and I, for one, do not question that the world is better for it.

Congratulations to the people of Iraq for having come to a point that was all but unimaginable only three years ago. How fortunate the world is that so many Americans are brave enough to do the hard work necessary, that our leaders are willing to move doggedly ahead with necessary action, and that the people of Iraq have stood with us by standing up for themselves.

---

"No leader of any country, no matter how cruel, inhumane or stupid he might be, would purposely deny his own people the necessities of life," wrote Al Taylor in an October 23 letter to the editor of The Providence Journal.

Upon digging up the edition of that paper with "Saddam Wouldn't Be That Bad to His People" for this column, I was surprised to discover that it had the same author as an email that I recently received attacking my essay, "Who Are These People?" I say "surprised," not "shocked." But maligning Mr. Taylor is not my intention. He has just provided such a concise — albeit extreme — example of a way of thinking that I quote him directly to avoid accusations that I am creatively rebuffing arguments that nobody is making.

The letter then states that "the people of his country [are] the only reason any leader exists." This is a noble, demand-side view of leadership. Antithetically, through my wife's experience as a bar tender for an exclusive beach club, I've observed that certain members of the modern aristocracy still feel that the average citizen is alive expressly for the purpose of serving them. Although other views exist, the prevailing political philosophy in most of the Western world today places leaders, as does Mr. Taylor, in the role of the chauffeurs of their people.

However, maintaining the good graces of their passengers is a particularly modern prerequisite for governments. That Al could so dogmatically state his assumptions is a testament to how much good our culture and our country have done in this area over the past few centuries. Assuming that today's truth has been held as true always and by all is a natural inclination. Nevertheless, it is a distinct privilege of the long-removed descendants of revolutionaries to be able to forget the reality that spurred the movement toward representative government and to believe that the entire world has been won over by what is so obviously the proper relationship of government to people.

Our fortunate problem in America is that we have difficulty comprehending that a leader would decimate his people to pursue unattainable ends. To the extent that U.S. (or U.N.) sanctions are to blame for suffering in Iraq, our nation can be forgiven by the fact that we couldn't have anticipated that they would be allowed to go this far by that nation's leadership. It took a long time for the situation to degrade to its current state, and the shifty, watchful eyes of every despot and potential despot in the world oblige the United States to avoid the appearance of rewarding Saddam's willingness to play chicken with his own people in the back seat.

If the Iraqis were empowered to research a balanced explanation of the causes of their predicament, it is likely that their distress would eventually become sufficiently intense to spark a revolution. To avoid an overthrow, Saddam uses the pervasive strategy of dictators everywhere: deflecting blame toward the United States. Outside the stadium where the dictator's is the only voice, foreign spectators, right down to lowly letter writers, act as spokespeople for his propaganda if they do not place him at the hub of their analyses.

As our fight against terrorism intersects with our desire to stop the needless languishing of the people of Iraq, we cannot allow our resolve to be curbed by beliefs about how leaders should act in an ideal world, or even how they do act in the Western world. With so many people's lives at stake in both initiatives, our actions cannot be indecisive or delayed.

So-called "smart" sanctions that would more efficiently target Saddam and not his people should, perhaps, have been instituted several years ago, but now they merely represent an attempt to salvage a wreck of a strategy. They may serve to duct tape the steering column in place, but on the unpredictable path of post–September 11 international affairs, they will not hold. Further sanctions would only prolong the unnatural circumstances of the Iraqi people and extend Saddam Hussein's reign. His rhetoric and his oppressive might would come to outweigh, even more, the drive of his people to be free of him. Yet, for the same reasons, we cannot simply cease the sanctions.

To give the children of Iraq a deservedly promising future, we must ensure that the nation's tyrannical leader is replaced by a government that agrees with Al Taylor... at least about a driver's responsibility to his passengers.

RE: Lincoln's Nixing of the Spelling Bee

As Justin said, leave it to Rhode Island . . . An additional excerpt

The administrators agreed, Newman said, that a spelling bee doesn’t meet the criteria of all children reaching high standards -- because there can only be one winner, leaving all other students behind.

"It’s about one kid winning, several making it to the top and leaving all others behind. That’s contrary to No Child Left Behind," Newman said.

A spelling bee, she continued, is about "some kids being winners, some kids being losers."

As a result, the spelling bee "sends a message that this isn’t an all-kids movement," Newman said.

Furthermore, professional organizations now frown on competition at the elementary school level and are urging participation in activities that avoid winners, Newman said. That’s why there are no sports teams at the elementary level, she said as an example.

The emphasis today, she said, is on building self-esteem in all students.

"You have to build positive self-esteem for all kids, so they believe they’re all winners," she said. "You want to build positive self-esteem so that all kids can get to where they want to go."

A spelling bee only benefits a few, not all, students, the elementary principals and Newman agreed, so it was canceled.

What's next? If we take their logic to its, um, "logical" conclusion, the following will also have to end:

1) The most obvious is that there should be no more grading system. An "A" only benefits a few students, giving them an advantage in the competition for college slots. Besides, it hurts the self-esteem of those not receiving "A"s
2) No more school-related athletics. What would be the point. There can be no more State Champions as the other competitors would be "left behind" and, again, would have their self-esteem challenged.
3) No more lines, such as in the cafeteria or in fire drill musters. Being first in line would imply preferential treatment for the first student in line. The situation could damage the self esteem of those not in front of the line, particularly the last child in line. In effect, other than the first child, all others would be "behind."
4) All state and federal mandated testing should end as it is inevitable that some students/schools/districts will not perform as well as others and it could damage their respective self esteems. This is simply not fair. Er, wait a second.....

Could that be their point, after all?

Hmmmm. D'ya think they could be making some sort of political statement at the expense of the kids?

Naw......not in Rhode Island.

Easier to Slow the Front than Vivificate the Back

Leave it to Rhode Island school administrators to prove that our educational system is run by people for whom "no child left behind" translates into action as "no child gets ahead":

The Lincoln district has decided to eliminate this year's spelling bee -- a competition involving pupils in grades 4 through 8, with each school district winner advancing to the state competition and a chance to proceed to the national spelling bee in Washington, D.C. ...

Assistant Superintendent of Schools Linda Newman said the decision to scuttle the event was reached shortly after the January 2004 bee in a unanimous decision by herself and the district's elementary school principals.

The administrators decided to eliminate the spelling bee, because they feel it runs afoul of the mandates of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. ...

The administrators agreed, Newman said, that a spelling bee doesn’t meet the criteria of all children reaching high standards -- because there can only be one winner, leaving all other students behind. ...

"There was no debate at all. It was one of the easiest decisions," the assistant superintendent said because "there was no question among the administrators" that a spelling bee was "contrary to the expectations" of No Child Left Behind.

Note, particularly, that this decision now closes the children's route to state and national competitions. That doing so was "one of the easiest decisions" indicates that perhaps the district ought to leave the superintendent and principals behind.

(via the Corner)

Finding the Balance in President Bush's Inaugural Address

At the risk of trying the patience, or interest, of some, I offer one last (I promise) analysis on President Bush's Inaugural Address. Today, the Providence Journal's Philip Terzian succinctly encapsulated what Bush's speech was all about. :

George W. Bush declared that "the great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations." To some, he seemed to be conjuring up the Kennedy ghosts in a quest to liberate a fractious world. To others, he was parroting the boilerplate rhetoric of American idealism.

Which was it? It was both. It can hardly be news to say that the American republic regards itself as a beacon, a "shining city on a hill," to inspire daughters and sons of liberty around the world. That has been our civic religion, with minor variations, from the time of John Winthrop to Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt and onward. Kennedy, after all, said that the "long twilight struggle" would "not be finished in the first hundred days . . . nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

The difference between 1961 and 2005, however, is experience. Bush's objective in Afghanistan was to show that when tyranny takes the form of terrorism, it must be punished. In Iraq his intention, as I take it, is to demonstrate that freedom is naturally intrinsic, that tyranny can be attacked, and will be assaulted if it stands in the way of a larger objective -- in this instance, a just settlement of the Arab-Israeli struggle.

In that sense, Bush is an advocate, not an evangelist, of freedom. He recognizes that the "long twilight struggle" against terrorism demands the toleration of imperfect regimes -- Pakistan, Russia, China -- and that exhorting the world to embrace freedom involves risk (Taiwan), as well as reward (Ukraine). The point is not that the United States can make impossible things happen, or will lead the charge in a dozen different places, but that American power means certain principles, as well as prosperity and military strength.

Marketing a Better World

Apart from catharsis, the griping of the previous post raises a point worth considering. It's important that individuals and groups are stepping forward across Rhode Island to spur the state in a better direction, and it's great that we're beginning (slowly) to find and work with each other. It's also important for everybody from unknown bloggers to Edward Achorn of the Providence Journal to shine lights into the messy corners of the society in which we live. And it's great that we've got at least one prominent figure, Mayor Laffey, stepping forward to prove that change is possible. Still, amid all these good trends, we have to make one task a priority.

We have to construct a positive vision of what Rhode Island will be like if others join us to effect change. Decreasing corruption is an appealing goal of itself, but we need a clear and easily accessible picture of what it will mean for the experience of the average citizen.

Even writing and thinking about culture and politics as often as I do, I've found that the vision of the future that inspires me comes in flashes of limited scenes. We're early on in the process of change, of course, still assessing the damage and its proximate causes. Nonetheless, it behooves us to form a reasonably thorough concept — with time lines and milestones — of the future toward which we hope the painful steps ahead will lead.

Grab for the Goods, or Stand for the Good?

Heading back from the post office, where I'd hoped to find waiting any of a handful of checks that I desperately need, I heard a caller to the Dan Yorke show who's in a position with which I've some personal experience. The guy had just incurred $25,000 of debt so that his wife could acquire her teaching certification, and now she's "paying her dues" as a substitute, waiting to get fully into the system. His emotional dilemma (although he sounded as if he'd made up his mind) was between his understanding that Rhode Island needs deep reform and his personal proximity to one of the state's gushing arteries of wealth. Take the reasonable side... or get his wife "in there" first?

Well, odds are he's going to have a long time to think about it, and I'm not referring to the slow rate of reform. The deal that teachers have in Rhode Island is so good and, frankly, the job can (as opposed to should) be done with such ease, when it's become habitual, that job seekers far outnumber open positions. Oh, one hears predictions — and has for years — of a mass retirement/teacher shortage, but one also observes those many teachers hanging in there years beyond expectations.

During my wife's experience subbing in Rhode Island, there were some among her peers who'd been waiting for nearly a decade for their "dues" to be paid. I suppose after that amount of time one becomes used to the telephone calls before dawn dictating the location of the day, and certainly by that time, the family has had to find a way to make up for the pitiful pay and cover the further costs in time and money to maintain the certification over the years. What's awfully difficult to get used to, however, is the lottery of politics and nepotism, whereby one never knows whether a school system will fill openings from the sub pool, from the teachers' and/or principal's buddy lists, or from out of state.

The more time I spend scrambling to stay above water at the submerging end of Rhode Island — and I've been getting my shoulders wet for six years now — the more I appreciate how thorough of a governmental and cultural change is necessary. Look around, and you'll discover deep problems that leave very little reason for optimism just about everywhere.

Take the trades. Noticing how much better my brothers-in-law have done with trades than I have with my degree, finding the opportunities for which my education prepares me to be scarce, and thinking it a healthy day-job balance to my various opinion and artistic endeavors, I've been looking to get into the apprentice process as either an electrician or a plumber. Financial circumstances, however, preclude my taking classes beforehand, so the only viable option is to take a job completely green.

In the past couple of weeks, I've called over a hundred companies, and meeting with some of each trade, I've found one response to be overwhelmingly common: Demand is so great that a journeyman will have absolutely no trouble finding work, and "experienced" apprentices will have little. But for the same reason, tradesmen are loath to slow themselves down training somebody new, and those willing to make the investment quickly reach their maximum. By Rhode Island law, you see, they can only have one apprentice per licensed tradesman.

Suppose I'm an entrepreneurial type who notices that nobody seems to be able to find a plumber for anything short of an emergency. To respond to that opportunity, I'd have to be an apprentice for at least four years, working an average of 2,000 hours per year and taking relevant classes for 144 hours per year before I could take the test to become a journeyman, paying various fees along the way. Then I'd have to work for a master plumber for another year before I could take the test to become a master myself. Finally able to start my own business, I could then hire one single apprentice to begin the process over again.

That may or may not seem reasonable; a bachelor's degree generally takes four years, after all, and that may qualify the graduate for nothing more than an entry-level job. But two factors must be taken into account. The first is that the starting point and necessary education for the work that most college grads do are largely determined by the market. If a region has an extremely high demand for a particular service, college mightn't even be necessary.

The second is more relevant to Rhode Island's comparative environment. In Massachusetts, the apprentice requirement for plumbers is three years and only 100 hours of schooling during each one, with one more year and another 100 hours of classes before taking the master's examination. From the individual's perspective, that's not a huge difference. But from the marketplace's perspective, it is.

Starting everybody green, and assuming everybody passes the tests immediately, after 12 years, Rhode Island's system will have turned one master plumber into four masters and four journeymen, able to take eight apprentices. The Massachusetts system? Double in every category. Not only will twice the customers receive service, but twice the unemployed people can step onto the career path. Moreover, the gap ripples outward into the economy in innumerable forms — from the cost of home renovations to the rates of pay for less-skilled jobs.

If you're still reading this lengthy venting session, you're probably wondering... well, you're probably wondering why. What are the takeaway points? The first is that these little instances of additional security for people who are already established permeate Rhode Island society, and they represent a tremendous drag on the state as it moves toward the future; this is unjust to those starting out in the state, and it doesn't bode well for quality of life trends for anybody. The second is that the willingness — the drive — to change must be so thorough as to encompass areas that most people not vested in the status quo don't give any thought.

As I said, there is not much room for optimism.

Thwarting Ideological Compromise in Connecticut

The Family Institute of Connecticut notes an interesting development on the same-sex marriage front in that state:

Even Rep. Staples and the Courant are beginning to realize that Love Makes a Family is an extremist organization. But they should not be surprised by LMF's position. It follows naturally from the group's misreading of Connecticut public opinion on same-sex "marriage." Pro same-sex "marriage" legislators and the Courant are aghast at LMF's "all or nothing" push for same-sex "marriage" because they are slightly more tethered to reality. LMF, on the other hand, may really believe its own spin about the fictional "Planet Connecticut," a land where an "enlightened" majority favors same-sex "marriage."

If so, Connecticut's pro same-sex "marriage" media establishment bears some of the blame. Today's Courant piece, for instance, uncritically touts a UConn poll purporting to show that a majority of state residents favor civil unions and a plurality favors same-sex "marriage."

LMF's ardent persistence continues the lesson that the various rebel civil servants around the country imparted when they shrugged at the law and began handing out marriage licenses: the prudent and practical among same-sex marriage's supporters aren't really spokesmen for their cause. This applies to their ability to fairly negotiate (for lack of a more appropriate term) at each stage of the society-wide debate, and it applies to the amount that the other side ought to take them as representative.

(Reluctantly) Deconstructing Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan has responded to those critical of her Inaugural critique. In short, she stands by her original thoughts and essentially believes that we Americans have enough on our plate now and don't need to worry about larger goals at this time. This seems to contradict some of her earlier writings, though.

We cannot leave Iraq and should not leave Iraq. . . We have to stay, and we have to win. I define winning as the yielding up of, at the least, a relatively stable society unafflicted by governmental sadism and dictatorship, and, at the most, a stable society in a fledgling democracy that demonstrates, with time, that the forces of Arab moderation, tolerance and peacefulness can triumph. Such an outcome would give so much good to the world. What a brilliant beacon this Iraq could be, and what a setback to terrorists, who thrive in darkness.

I do not feel America is right to attempt to help spread democracy in the world because it is our way and therefore the right way. Nor do I think America should attempt to encourage it because we are Western and feel everyone should be Western. Not everyone should be Western, and not everything we do as a culture, a people or an international force is right.

Rather, we have a national-security obligation to foster democracy in the world because democracy tends to be the most peaceful form of government. Democracies tend to be slower than dictatorships to take up arms, to cross borders and attempt to subdue neighbors, to fight wars. They are on balance less likely to wreak violence upon the world because democracies are composed of voters many of whom are parents, especially mothers, who do not wish to see their sons go to war. Democracy is not only idealistic, it is practical.[emphasis mine]

In another piece, a eulogy to President Reagan, Ms. Noonan wrote of the ideals that guided the President as he guided America.

In his presidency he did this: He out-argued communism and refused to accept its claim of moral superiority; he rallied the West, rallied America and continued to make big gambles, including a defense-spending increase in a recession. He promised he'd place Pershings in Europe if the Soviets would not agree to arms reductions, and told Soviet leaders that they'd never be able to beat us in defense, that we'd spend them into the ground. They were suddenly reasonable.

Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union "evil," because it was, and an "empire," because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course it didn't fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know Nothing Cowboy Gunslinger Dimwit. All presidents should be so stupid.

Given her criticism of President Bush, one wonders if Ms. Noonan has forgotten the many "experts" who said that President Reagan was being unrealistic. In her aforementioned rebuttal, she attempted to reconcile her present view with the "overreaching" that was done by President Reagan. Her reasoning falls short as it seems to me to be an excercise in contradiction.

For a half century our country faced a terrible foe. Some feared conflagration. Many of us who did not were convinced it would not happen because the United States was not evil, and the Soviet Union was not crazy. The Soviets didn't want war to achieve their ends, they wanted to achieve those ends without the expense and gamble of war. We rolled them back, bankrupted them, forced their collapse. And we did it in part through a change of policy in which Ronald Reagan declared: From here on in we tell the truth. He called the Soviet Union an evil empire because it was a) evil and b) an empire, and c) he judged a new and stark candor the way to begin progress. We'd already kissed Brezhnev; it didn't work. And it wasn't Reagan's way in any case.

Today is quite different. The context is different. Now we are up against not an organized state monolith but dozens, hundreds and thousands of state and nonstate actors--nuts with nukes, freelance bioterrorists, Islamofascists, independent but allied terror groups. The temperature of our world is very high. We face trouble that is already here. We don't have to summon more.

Healthy alliances are a coolant in this world. What this era demands is steely resolve, and actions that remove those who want things at a full boil. In this world we must speak, yes, but softly, and carry many sticks, using them, when we must, terribly and swiftly. We must gather around us as many friends, allies and well-wishers as possible. And we must do nothing that provides our foes with ammunition with which they can accuse us of conceit, immaturity or impetuousness.

In short, while she praised Reagan for telling the truth, she believes that now, given the changed "context," we can only tell the truth so long as it doesn't make anyone "accuse us of conceit, immaturity or impetuousness"? Given the persistently negative reaction to the President seen in Europe, I think this wish is one doomed to be unfulfilled. Ms. Noonan must accept that some countries continue to cling to the belief that the world is politically multi-polar. With this mindset, they view the U.S. as the biggest pole that needs to be balanced and will take steps, such as in the UN Security Council, to limit our actions in the hope of balancing our power. Platitudes would only quell the criticism temporarily.

As Ms. Noonan's own writings, and history, have shown, the ideals expressed so effectively, and frequently, by President Reagan were key to ending communism. She is afraid that President Bush's speech calling for the extension of freedom could call more trouble down upon us. Could it call any more than Reagan did? This comes close to blaming us for the (predicted) actions of others. Additionally, she clearly exhibits an old-school, "realist" school of foreign policy stance.

Here is an unhappy fact: Certain authoritarians and tyrants whose leadership is illegitimate and unjust have functioned in history as--ugly imagery coming--garbage-can lids on their societies. They keep freedom from entering, it is true. But when they are removed, the garbage--the freelance terrorists, the grievance merchants, the ethnic nationalists--pops out all over. Yes, freedom is good and to be strived for. But cleaning up the garbage is not pretty. And it sometimes leaves the neighborhood in an even bigger mess than it had been.

Yes, just as President Reagan's actions did in Nicaragua, Grenada and El Salvador and his words inspired in the old Eastern Bloc. Regardless, Noonan forgets that the President spoke of how it would take generations of Americans to spread the freedom of which he spoke.

The comparisons between President Bush and President Reagan have been made before. One can't help but think that Ms. Noonan recognized the similarities when she wrote of our current "gunslinger":

George W. Bush has given our soldiers something to be proud of, something they can understand and respect. He is, now, after all he's been through the past two years, Mr. Backbone. He has demonstrated to a seething and skeptical world that America can and will stand and fight for a cause, see it through, help the tormented and emerge victorious.

It is important who he is. George W. Bush is an American of the big and real America. He believes in it all--in the vision of the founders, in the meaning of freedom, in the founding and enduring ideas of our country. He believes in America's historic insistence on humanity and not inhumanity in war, and he appears to have internalized the old saying that "one man with courage is a majority."

I used to wonder if George W. Bush's biography didn't suggest a kind of reverse Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was born in low circumstances and rose with superior gifts. Mr. Bush was born in superior circumstances and rose with average gifts. And yet when you look at Mr. Bush now I think you have to admit--I think even clever people who talk loudly in restaurants have to admit--that he has shown himself not to be a man of average gifts. Backbone is not an average gift. Guts are not an average gift. The willingness to take pain and give pain to make progress in human life is not an average gift.

All in all these are amazing qualities in a political figure, and in a president. There's a headline for you: America appears to have a president worthy of its people.

Cobble these excerpts together and I think we can see that, in the past, Ms. Noonan appreciated it when ideals were voiced. I don't think that she has stopped believing in them, which is why I don't understand why she was so critical of the President. Is is a case of "wrong place, wrong time"? Could she believe that the Inaugural Address was the wrong forum for the President to speak of higher ideals? Should Reagan have called to tear down the wall in Berlin when he did? Wasn't that a case of asking for much more than was possible while risking the anger of both foes and allies as we took on more than the U.S. could "handle" at the time?

One thing about these excerpts does strike me, though: they were all contained within pieces written by Ms. Noonan prior to her taking a leave of absence to be a political consultant on the President's campaign. Could it be that Ms. Noonan's time in the belly of the political beast, where so much focus is put on practical and pragmatic political solutions, has inured her against the purpose of voicing the ideals of a nation? I don't know. I do know that I appreciate Ms. Noonan's political acumen and writing. I will continue to read her with pleasure, even though I think she has gotten carried away with literary deconstructionism. Remember, Ms. Noonan, most Americans aren't literary critics. Instead, they want to believe that their country is a force for good in the world. The President reminded us that it is by using soaring rhetoric that spoke to the higher ideals of a nation. To paraphrase something that I previously wrote: The President made this speech to present the case for a cause, extending freedom, that is greater than the protection of our own nation's self-interest. At the same time, he showed that our nation's self-interest depended on pursuing that higher cause.

Technology: Vehicle of Liberty

Austin Bay has offered perhaps the most pragmatic reason for heeding the President's call to spread freedom. Bay writes :

Idealism, however, isn't the sole spine of "the democracy strategy." The strategy seeks to address a very concrete issue: technological compression. Technological compression is a fact of 21st century existence -- and it is the superglue now bonding American foreign policy idealism (promoting democracy) and foreign policy pragmatism (survival via realpolitik).

An article of mine in The Weekly Standard's Jan. 3, 2005, issue frames it this way: "Technology has compressed the planet, with positive effects in communication, trade and transportation; with horrifyingly negative effects in weaponry. Decades ago, radio, phone cables on the seabed, long-range aircraft and then nuclear weapons shrunk the oceans. Sept. 11 demonstrated that religious killers could turn domestic jumbo jets into strategic bombers -- and the oceans were no obstacles. 'Technological compression' is a fact; it cannot be reversed. To deny it or ignore it has deadly consequences."

Translation: There is no "over there." Everybody lives next door. All local gossip can become international rumor in an instant. With weapons of mass destruction in the mix -- particularly if biological or nuclear weapons are employed -- a tribal war in Saudi Arabia or a border firefight in Asia can rapidly escalate to global disaster. . .

Sept. 11 demonstrated that we cannot tolerate the wicked linkage of terrorists, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. Terrorists plus rogue states plus weapons of mass destruction: That's the formula for hell in the 21st century. Rogue states are inevitably undemocratic, authoritarian states -- typically secular or religious tyrannies.

Given modern technology and the role tyrannical states play in facilitating or exporting terror, a democratic offensive against tyranny is realpolitik. The explicit American goal is to advance free states where the consent of the governed creates legitimacy and where terrorists are prosecuted, not promoted. (via Instapundit)

Senator Reed, Iraq and Troop Strength

In an interview yesterday, Senator Jack Reed managed to offer a backhanded compliment to the Bush Administration while setting up and knocking down a straw man.

Reed called a recent Pentagon pledge of a long-term military presence in Iraq "helpful prudence." And he deemed it a welcome change from Bush administration skimping on Army troop strength in Iraq and its "disingenuousness" about the cost of the war.

Reed warned against any steps to withdraw or "phase out" the U.S. military force in Iraq and pledged legislative efforts this year to increase the size of the Army by at least 30,000 troops. He spoke in a telephone conference with reporters.

The first paragraph holds the "compliment," the last is the straw man. In emulation of Senator Reed, let me be the first to warn against legalizing the killing of civilians in Iraq, OK? The point is, I don't believe that the Bush Administration has signaled that they plan on "phasing out" of Iraq any time soon. This was essentially confirmed by Reed himself.

Reed specifically applauded this week's renewed expression of the U.S. commitment by Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace. Lovelace, the director of Army operations, said leaders assume that troop strength in Iraq will hold at the current level of 120,000 for at least two more years.

Thus, Reed has clearly warned against something that he knows isn't going to happen.

Given that, I do agree with Reed that more troops are needed. As one who believes in the President's call for the global spread of freedom, I also believe that more ground combat troops will be needed to help secure that freedom. We need more boots added to the pool of troops that can be rotated in and out of Iraq and other hot spots.

He also said the United States expects to continue to rotate active-duty soldiers through yearlong stints in Iraq and to try to tap reserve forces more.

"You're going to need more soldiers" to maintain that pace, Reed said, particularly since the strain of the Iraq deployment is beginning to show in weaker recruitment and retention rates in the National Guard and Army reserves.

Reed noted that the Army's wartime "operational tempo" depends on keeping large numbers of Guard and reserve troops on active duty. Because those soldiers tend to be older and more committed to family and career than active-duty Army, they have become the first to decide in significant numbers against reenlisting, he said.

"The heart and the core" of the Guard and reserves -- young captains and senior enlisted personnel -- are beginning to say, "I can't be called back again in six months or a year" because of the wear and tear on jobs and families, Reed said.

Largely to relieve the strain on these reserves, Reed and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., sponsored legislation last year that expanded the Army by 50,000 troops. Reed said they will try this year to add another 30,000 troops to the currently authorized active-duty force of 502,000.

This last is a good move as I believe we need more active duty soldiers to carry the load. The Guard and Reserves have gone above and beyond anything we could have imagined. There is a history of using the National Guard in foreign wars.

In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.

Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National Guard, the nation's newest Reserve component. The Guard stood on the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War, sending soldiers and airmen to fight in Korea and to reinforce NATO during the Berlin crisis of 1961-1962. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.

What is different now, to my knowledge, is the nature and duration of deployment that the members of the Guard and Reserves are experiencing.

A recent memorandum from Lt. General James Helmy to the US Army Chief of Staff, written on December 20th 2004, regarding US Army Reserve troop readiness has revealed the depths of the problems experienced by the Reserves and National Guard. (PDF) I urge all to read it. It is a sobering assessment, but hopefully it will provide an impetus for reform. Some of the burden of the Reserves and Guard will be alleviated by the expansion of the regular Army by adding 30,000 more troops.

In war, there are always mistakes. The important thing is to learn from them and make the appropriate adjustments in strategy, tactics and policy. Hopefully, the experiences of how the Guard and Reserves have been handled thus far in the Iraq War and the broader War on Terror will lead to a better understanding of what we can expect from, and what we owe to, our citizen soldiers. Yes, these people "signed up" for this and they are obligated to serve. But their superiors, both in the military and in the Administration and Congress, are obligated see to it that our soldiers, marines, and sailors are treated fairly.

In these times of heated partisanship that bleeds over into nearly all policy debates, it is difficult to remove our ideological blinders and try to look objectively at an issue. This is especially true if we may find ourselves agreeing with those with whom we usually disagree. At times, it has appeared to me as if Senator Reed has used problems in the War in Iraq for partisan gain, especially during the recent Presidential campaign. In contrast, General Helmy has consistently exhibited a genuine concern for those under his command and has been championing reform. However, regardless of past perceptions I may have had, in this specific case, I believe both General Helmy and Senator Reed are doing their part to look out for the men and women in our military. For that I commend them.

Rhode Island Politics & Taxation, Part VII

This posting continues a periodic series on Rhode Island politics and taxation (I, II, III, IV, V, VI).

The January 17-23, 2005 issue of the Providence Business News had an article which discloses that Providence has the fifth highest tax burden among the largest U.S. cities. The article begins:

In a new study that's sending shock waves through local business and political circles, the commercial property tax burden in Providence ranks fifth highest among the nation's 55 biggest cities, behind Chicago, Detroit, New York City and Des Moines. Boston ranks sixth.

To put the picture into even starker context, Providence's commercial tax burden is 70 percent higher than the average of the 55 surveyed cities...

Providence's commercial property tax burden is 17 percent higher than Boston's...

Comments from Peter Marino, director of policy at the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC), explain why the tax burden is so high:

A lot of it depends on what's growing. Residential properties are growing in value, whereas commercial values are growing less strongly. If the city did nothing to alter the equation, that additional tax burden would shift to residential properties. But the city has made a conscious choice to maintain the same level of taxation on business and residential properties, despite the difference in valuation, which means percentage-wise the burden falls harder on commercial.

In other words, instead of dealing with the real problem of governmental overspending and the resulting high taxes, Providence politicians and bureaucrats have made a conscious choice to shift a portion of the tax burden from Providence residents to the Providence commercial sector.

The political and economic consequences of these actions can be easily deduced:

Undercharging Providence residents will be popular in the short-term and provide the opportunity for current politicians to increase their odds for re-election. However, businesses will have an economic incentive to leave Providence due to this tax burden - and they will act on the problem at some point in the future. When they do leave, that will reduce tax revenue without reducing government expenses. Somebody will have to pay the difference. But, since that has not happened yet, current politicians incur no personal political or economic price for failing to tackle today's structural problems. They gladly push the problems off to others in the future knowing that, by the time the true price has to be paid, it will likely be someone else's political problem.

However, even that analysis ignores the opportunity cost that is the unspoken and unquantifiable loss. Providence is a beautiful city with a lot of potential to be a great place to do business. But businesses are economically rational actors and one quick look at the tax burden will ensure they don't seriously consider locating in Providence. Nobody can ever know how many "could have moved my business to Providence but didn't" stories exist. That will mean less job growth around Providence, which increases the probability that state residents will have to look outside Rhode Island for jobs. That increases the potential for all of us to lose the company of both good friends and family. Quite a price to pay, isn't it?

Even if the politicians choose to ignore reality, the business world cannot. As James G. Hagan, president of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, said:

"When you're one of the highest-taxed cities in one of the highest-taxed regions in the country, it's pretty difficult to attract investment and to even keep the investment you have."

Hagan pointed out businesses are the engine of economic growth and consequently require a less punitive tax environment...Hagan asserted that the city must cut spending and negotiate better labor contracts...

This leads back to the need to address the problem of government spending - which consists of both high current spending and the continuous growth in spending at a rate in excess of both inflation and the growth in taxpayers' incomes. The article continues:

...to begin dealing with the high property tax burdens faced by Providence and other Rhode Island communities, it will be necessary to take steps to further control costs, particularly in public educational systems. On average, school spending is growing 2.5 times the rate of inflation and is projected to continue this rate of growth through the rest of the decade.

In other words, under the status quo, the problem of an excessive tax burden is projected to worsen over time. I have written about the additional consequences of this trend:

Even so, this debate is about more than current taxation levels and today's family budgets. It is about freedom and opportunity for all – and family budgets in the future. The greatness of our country is that people can live the American dream through the power of education and hard work.

High taxation and mediocre public education create a disincentive for new-business formation in Rhode Island. That means fewer new jobs, and less of a chance for working people to realize the American dream. It also means people have an economic incentive to leave the state – and the ones who can afford to do so will continue to leave.

Unfortunately, the ones who cannot afford to leave are the people who can least afford the crushing blow of high taxation and mediocre education. The status quo dooms these families to an ongoing decline in their standard of living. That is unjust.

This should not be our vision for Rhode Island. Nonetheless, it is our current trajectory unless enough people stand up and challenge the status quo.

RE: Why Teachers' Unions (Not Teachers!) Are Bad For Education

Marc's posting highlights another outstanding piece by Terry Moe. I would encourage you to read both Marc's fine posting and the entire editorial by Moe, which you can access in Marc's posting.

As a former East Greenwich School Committee member, I would like to expand on several of Marc's points:

First, I agree that parents need to make their voices heard about educational issues in their town, including the impact of "work-to-rule" actions on their children. Marc is right that silence equals consent to the status quo - and the union will not stop pushing to maximize its self-interest during that silence. However, I would add this cautionary note. The most frequent comment I received from parents - by far - while serving on the committee was: "I agree with you, I want to openly support you but I am afraid to speak out because I do not want my children to suffer as a result." What a sad commentary on the politics of public education. The impact of this potential threat should not be underestimated and dictates that others of us who don't face the same threats must lead the change efforts.

Second, people should not underestimate the long-term impact on teachers from working in a union environment that blocks change, punishes excellence and protects mediocrity. Public school teachers desperately want to be considered "white collar professionals." Yet, many of them buy into a work environment that provides lifetime tenure, outrageously rich benefits and pensions, equal pay simultaneously to the best and worst teachers while resisting accountability and making the removal of bad teachers nearly impossible. In the end, public school teachers cannot have it both ways - they are either professionals or they are unionists. Right now, some of them hide happily behind the union label and that makes those teachers part of the problem.

Third, the public education bureaucracy is also a significant part of the problem because they have no incentive to challenge the mediocrity of the status quo. They should not be expected to support meaningful change since their economic (including healthcare and pension benefits) and professional self-interests are largely aligned with the unions. As a result, the bureaucracy can easily outlast parents who raise concerns, wearing them down until the parents simply give up and go away.

Fourth, a quick perusal of Linda Chavez' book entitled "Betrayal : How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics" drives home the point that this is all about money and power politics. The lack of competition and proper incentives in the public sector creates a fundamental impediment to change, a point I have made in a previous posting.

Fifth, the power politics angle is only reinforced when you look at the balance of power in union contract negotiations. On one side of the table, you have a part-time volunteer school committee aided by an educational bureaucracy with the wrong incentives and who will be dealing with the union long after the committee members move onto other activities in their lives. On the other side of the table, you have the national teachers' unions with essentially unlimited money and political muscle. In Rhode Island, that structural problem is compounded by having nearly 40 tiny school districts individually going up against national unions. All the unions have to do is find a weak spot in one of the tiny districts and then they use that concession as a negotiating hammer with all the other districts.

There are all sorts of contract "tricks." Here is one of the more current ones: The union agrees to have teachers pay a percentage co-payment on health insurance premiums but... most deals have either dollar caps which make the percentage irrelevant or the teachers receive other new cash payments (for things like professional development) which just happen to offset the amount of the co-payment. And the unions and teachers really believe that they have made a concession in such a deal! The taxpayers - whose hard-earned monies fund these contracts - are often the last to know that a bait-and-switch was pulled on them.

Why are all of the above points important? Education is the gateway to the American Dream for all citizens. Yet, we are failing to provide a quality gateway for our children. The performance of public education in America is absymal as we have one of the weakest performing educational systems in the industrial world. It is not for lack of spending money: We have tripled our per-pupil spending in real terms over the last 40 years, a period of time which coincides directly with the growth in power of the teachers' unions. More money won't fix the structural problems highlighted above. Only competition from true educational choice will solve the problems.

As an aside, I find it particularly ironic that certain liberal U.S. senators (who often have sent their own children to the most elite private schools) consistently do the bidding of the unions to block the inner city black children of Washington, D.C. - who are stuck in the worst public education system in our country - from receiving the educational vouchers which would give them educational freedom and a fair shot at living the American Dream. The unions and their cronies are willing to risk creating a permanent underclass so they can maintain their chokehold on public education in America. That is morally offensive.

Competition from true educational choice is the only thing that can bust this underperforming and overcharging monopoly. With choice, comes accountability for performance results. I would gladly support merit pay and no cap on the maximum salaries for great teachers in exchange for having true educational choice and accountability, including the ability to fire poor teachers. That will never happen as long as we have a union-dominated public education system. Years of experience have led me to conclude there is no viable middle ground.

ADDENDUM:

Well, silliness from the opposition continues unabated, as shown in this ProJo letter to the editor. Part of the letter states:

Of course unions must take a hard line in order to secure certain rights for their members, but, as Ms. Ohanian says, "positing teachers' need for a living wage and adequate working conditions as proof of their disinterest in what's good for children is one more page in the corporate-politico agenda of deprofessionalizing teaching and gutting public education."

Time and time again, we hear about how important it is to educate our children, yet any time a financial dispute arises, the teachers are the ones who bear the brunt of the public disdain...

For a contrasting viewpoint that is fact-based instead of opinion-based, see this earlier posting.

ADDENDUM II:

Sometimes, there are simply no words available to respond adequately to sheer, utter nonsense. Today's ProJo contains one such ridiculous letter to the editor. Here are two choice quotes:

Merit-pay plans are contentious and divisive. They rarely have objective criteria. Merit pay is nothing more than a means of cloaking management favoritism in meritocratic mumbo-jumbo. The results are that a healthy group dynamic is undermined, morale is lowered, and higher-level employees receive the bulk of the money available...

Institute merit pay and those who compromise the integrity of their teaching to curry favor with administrators and parents will be rewarded. Taskmaster "unpopular teachers" who maintain the integrity of their classrooms (and whose students can demonstrate achieved goals of learning and attainment of critical skills) will be punished...

Those of us that live and work in the real world know that merit-pay plans work well because competitive pressures of the marketplace allow the natural alignment of good individual performance and good system-wide outcomes. By contrast and without realizing it, the author of the letter has just presented the core reason why the existing union-dominated government monopoly of public education is structurally incapable of working effectively and efficiently. Only true competition will get us the results our children deserve.

ADDENDUM III:

Justin has added some valuable, additional perspective on the letter referenced in Addendum II.

ADDENDUM IV:

To further clarify my final point in the original posting, I don't believe charter schools - as currently defined - can be the answer. Marc has already shown (here, here, here) how the teachers' unions and public education bureaucracy will play power politics and/or will selectively twist data to knock performance by today's charter schools. All in all, there are too many ways for them to manipulate the status quo, thereby ensuring the existence of an uneven playing field. Even though there may be well-performing individual charter schools, these postings and the Washington, D.C. experience reinforce how the educational establishment will make every effort to sabotage any broad-based implementation of a truly competitive alternative.

Therefore, for all the reasons noted above, charter schools today represent only incremental changes that leave the status quo in place and will not be able to deliver a broad-based, high-quality public education. We must seek more significant structural changes to the status quo. Our children, particularly the most disadvantaged, need and deserve nothing less.

ADDENDUM V:

Another nonsensical letter has now appeared in the ProJo. Here is the first sentence:

Only the naive can truly believe that merit pay will reward superior teachers and shun incompetent ones.

Sometimes foolish people make your case for you. It's almost enough to make you feel embarrassed for them.

Why Teacher's Unions (Not Teachers!) Are Bad for Education

Terry Moe of the Hoover Institution and a Stanford University political-science professor (and winner of the Thomas B. Fordham prize for distinguished scholarship in education) has written an important piece explaining the motivation of Teachers' Unions. The most important point is that the unions aren't inherently "bad," but that they are merely looking out for the interests of their members.

Their behavior is driven by fundamental interests . . . jobs, working conditions, and the material well-being of teachers. When unions negotiate with school boards, these are the interests they pursue, not those of the children who are supposed to be getting educated. . .

When the teachers' unions want government to act, the reforms they demand are invariably in their own interests: more spending, higher salaries, smaller classes, more professional development, and so on. There is no evidence that any of these is an important determinant of student learning. What the unions want above all else, however, is to block reforms that seriously threaten their interests -- and these reforms, not coincidentally, are attempts to bring about fundamental changes in the system that would significantly improve student learning.

The unions are opposed to No Child Left Behind, for example, and indeed to all serious forms of school accountability, because they do not want teachers' jobs or pay to depend on their performance. They are opposed to school choice -- charter schools and vouchers -- because they don't want students or money to leave any of the schools where their members work. They are opposed to the systematic testing of veteran teachers for competence in their subjects, because they know that some portion would fail and lose their jobs. And so it goes. If the unions can't kill these threatening reforms outright, they work behind the scenes to make them as ineffective as possible -- resulting in accountability systems with no teeth, choice systems with little choice, and tests that anyone can pass.

Yes, and so it goes in Rhode Island, too. I appreciate the wonderful job that teachers do and I don't begrudge them fair compensation. Yet, as Don has recently shown, Rhode Island teachers are well-compensated. They must remember that they are paid by the taxpayers and the taxpayers can't continue to give-give-give without seeing some results. In fairness, at least in my town, it looks like the teachers are doing a great job bringing the schools up to the standards outlined in No Child Left Behind. I hope all Rhode Island school districts follow suit.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of teachers and school committee members genuinely care about the welfare and best interests of students. However, as Moe points out, Teacher's Unions are advocates for the teachers interests, not for those of the students. The School Committee, while it does set standards and seeks to look out for the students education, is also occupied with budgetary constraints and must be cognizant of its responsibility to the taxpayers. Thus, there is one group that should have the interests of the students as their primary concern: Parents.

In the end, it is the parents who have to make their voices heard. It is parents who have to watch as their kids are used as pawns, such as when "non-union-mandated" work-to-rule "policies" are in effect and after-school programs and educational field trips are suspended pending resolution of contract disputes. It is the parents who are taxpayers and must let the school committee know when an idea is good or bad. Unfortunately, as in so many other political issues, there is a silent majority. In this case, it is the parents. They are to be reminded that, in the realm of politics, silence equates to consent.

Rhode Island Politics & Taxation, Part VI

This posting continues a periodic series on Rhode Island politics and taxation (I, II, III, IV, V).

If you want to read another sordid tale about Rhode Island politics, check out Ed Achorn's latest editorial in the ProJo.

Here are a few excerpts:

The people who led the fight against a constitutional convention in Rhode Island - members of an organization called Citizens for Representative Government - went to great lengths to cover their tracks. But all roads seem to lead to Guy Dufault, the labor and gambling lobbyist.

The public-employee unions put up the money to run phone banks, air TV and radio ads, and print posters in narrowly defeating a constitutional convention, 52 to 48 percent, on November 2. Mr. Dufault acknowledged on Friday that he filled out most of the group's campaign-finance report now on file with the Rhode Island Board of Elections.

But you wouldn't know of Mr. Dufault's role by reading that public document. He kept that carefully hidden from the public...

What's the upshot of this?

I don't know if any of this constitutes filing and signing a false report...But it does seem puzzling that Mr. Dufault and Citizens for Representative Government chose to make it so difficult for the public to find out who was running the show. Why bother?...

Maybe Citizens for Representative Government did not want citizens to find out easily that it was a prominent State House lobbyist for the public-employee unions and gambling interests who fought to deny people the chance to shake up Rhode Island government with a constitutional convention. (Now, citizens will have to wait until at least 2016.)

That seems to be the way the game is played.

After reading the entire editorial, I would encourage you to pause and think about whether this deceitful political behavior is consistent with the values of the American Founding and the principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence.

Would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson have endorsed such behavior? Of course not.

Does this kind of political behavior reflect the values of our own Roger Williams? Not a chance.

And we should not tolerate it either.

To put it in perspective, I would direct you to a previously mentioned quote from Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute:

In the end, however, no constitution can be self-enforcing. Government officials must respect their oaths to uphold the Constitution; and we the people must be vigilant in seeing that they do.

The Founders drafted an extraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, but it is up to us, to each generation, to preserve and protect it for ourselves and for future generations.

For the Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the American people. That, perhaps, is the most enduring lesson of our experiment in ordered liberty.

We have a long way to go in Rhode Island. Our moral obligation as American citizens calls us to nothing less than a passion for protecting our God-given liberty. Only when that passion stirs deeply in the hearts and minds of enough Rhode Island citizens will we shorten the distance we must travel to see a better day.

Rhode Island Politics & Taxation, Part V

This posting continues a periodic series on Rhode Island politics and taxation, building on four previous postings (I, II, III, IV).

Governor Carcieri issued his State of the State Address on January 18. The following excerpts from that speech highlight the structural problems we face in this state:

A good government lives within its means and does not overly burden its taxpayers...by any measure Rhode Island's taxes are among the highest...in the country...Taxes in Massachusetts - once known as Taxachusetts - are now among the lowest, 40th.

To keep this economy growing, we must lower taxes so Rhode Islanders keep more of what they earn. To do that, I am developing a five-year tax reduction plan. This plan will be broad-based, benefiting as many Rhode Islanders as possible. I will also propose that new lottery revenues be dedicated to direct property relief. We must work together to make tax relief a priority.

But tax relief is impossible unless we get serious about controlling spending. Two of the spending issues we must address this year are: state employee health care and pensions.

We are currently negotiating with all the major state employee unions for co-sharing of their health care premiums. Rhode Island is one of only five states in the country where employees do not co-share. 45 states do. Massachusetts employees pay 20% of their premiums. Since the vast majority of taxpayers co-share their premiums, it is only fair that those of us who work for them do as well...

Without any reforms, the taxpayer bill for pensions will rise from $188 million in the current year, to $283 million next year, a $95 million increase in one year! This is an urgent problem and we must work together on a reform plan...

We now have eleven public charter schools serving 2,200 students, 90% of them from urban districts. These schools are thriving. They thrive because they are innovative, challenging, and family-friendly. Every one of them met its performance targets this year. But we don't have enough of them, particularly in urban communities. Over 500 students are currently on the waiting list to enroll in a charter school. I will submit legislation removing the moratorium on charter schools passed last year. This moratorium is not fair to our children and we need to end it now.

Getting better education results means implementing these reforms, not spending a lot of money. Our spending per pupil is already seventh highest in the nation. The increase in state support for education over the last five years has averaged 6% a year, over twice the rate of inflation. And, by the way, the level of state support for urban schools is one of the highest in the nation. The 5 urban core cities got almost $80 million, 63% of the increase in those 5 years. So, let's find new ways to be more effective.

Reforming the state pension system will save school districts nearly $18.5 million next year. Providence alone will save over $3.0 million. My new state health care contract will allow school districts to piggy-back on the state's low cost. Combining such purchasing will save municipalities additional millions.

In summary, among the 50 states, Rhode Island (i) has the 5th highest overall state and local tax burden, per the Tax Foundation; (ii) is one of only 5 states where state employees have a zero co-pay on their health insurance premiums; (iii) has one of the richest state pension programs; (iv) spending per pupil is the 7th highest; and (v) limits educational choice. This is not a formula for success.

Take a minute and ask yourself the following questions:

Who opposes health insurance premium co-payments for state employees?

Who opposes changes to a grossly underfunded state pension program?

Who demands school contract terms that result in overpaying for underperformance?

Who blocks educational choice for those who need it most?

In other words, who is not a friend of Rhode Island working families, retirees and children?

Um. Huh.

Right.

Andrew's Latest up at TCS

Andrew has a new piece up at TCS, "Tipping the Foreign Policy Balance," in which he outlines the difference between geopolitical "realism" and "liberalism." The President clearly favored a "liberal" strategy in his Inaugural Address.

Legislative Union Leaders "Show [Us] the Money!"

According to a story in Sunday's ProJo by Katherine Gregg

Out of last year's political scandals came a law that is shedding new light on the financial ties between some of the state's part-time, $12,285-a-year lawmakers and major corporate and union players at the State House.

In the first batch of filings made last week, it was reported to the public . . . [s]everal high-ranking Democrats in the House and Senate are not only pro-labor boosters on Smith Hill but also full-time union employees.

Among them were the following:

Senate Whip Dominick J. Ruggerio - $163,717 in salary and benefits as the administrator of one arm of the Laborers' International Union of North America. (Ruggerio estimated his salary alone was $122,000).

Deputy Senate majority leader John J. Tassoni Jr. of Smithfield - $79,060 in salary alone as business agent of Council 94 of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employeesa deputy Senate majority leader.

Sen. Frank A. Ciccone III - $135,177 for various positions. As an elected officer of the Laborers' union affiliate known as Local 808, Rhode Island Judicial, Professional & Technical Employees, Ciccone made $15,600 as the business manager for the local that represents about 17 bargaining units within state government, including RIPTA, E-911 and court employees, plus a number of Johnston school employees. He is also a field representative for the Rhode Island Laborers' District Council headed by Ronald Coia. (Ciccone estimated he made ($80, 000 in salary alone).

Deputy House Whip Paul Moura - $91,663 as health and safety field specialist for the New England Laborers' Health & Safety Fund. (Moura estimated he made $55,000 in salary alone).

According to Gregg:

The three are among the most prolific sponsors of legislation dealing in one way or another with labor issues, employee legal rights and, in Ciccone's case, a bill to eliminate lifelong tenure for judges.

Further, Gregg's story details the following illuminating conversation between Moura, Ciccone and Ruggerio:

"This is new. I don't think they are aware of it," Ciccone said in a brief exchange with Moura at the State House before the reports were filed.

"But I don't have a problem telling people what I make," Ciccone said.

Moura's reply: "Maybe they should file out of an abundance of caution."

Ciccone: "No big deal."

Moura: "That's fine with me, too. When they see how little I make, they'll realize its no big deal anyway."

Added Ruggerio a short time later: "I didn't think we were obligated to file that, but we're going to file anyway because obviously we have nothing to hide."

While it is indeed encouraging to see that Ruggerio feels he has nothing to hide, the degree these gentlemen are insulated from the average taxpayer is evident in Moura's statement regarding how little he makes. There really is nothing else to say.

Clamming Up the Terrorists

They may have invested millions in acquisition and sacrificed hundreds of lives, but there's one thing that the terrorists haven't counted on:

... the latest example of the sea's, or at least the coast's, medical potential comes from researchers at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. There, scientists, working under a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, dosed quahogs with the botulism toxin. They discovered that something from the shellfish neutralized the poisonous enzyme, a potential bio-terrorism agent.

Bal Ram Singh, a chemist, and his colleagues increased the dose until it was enough to paralyze and kill the population of a town of 1,000 people. But the botulism has little effect on the clams, except to cause them to secrete a mucous that turned the water they were in cloudy.

I don't imagine many men and women of our armed services would mind a steady supply of my mother-in-law's stuffies. And I can only hope that initial plans are underway to equip each EMT vehicle with a pot of chowder.

Commentary as Job Interview

Related to Marc's posts (here and here) on Peggy Noonan's reaction to President Bush's inaugural speech, Patrick Sweeney of Extreme Catholic delves into some of the relevant theological considerations. He also makes this story-behind-the-story suggestion:

Perhaps Peggy Noonan thinks she's in the running for William Safire's job.

This is ankle-biting envy. This is offering a "Good, but I could have done better" criticism.

Too much cynicism paints the world in nasty tones, but positioning is inevitably a part of decisions, particularly among writers and particularly among opinion writers. Noonan's credibility is such that readers should doubt neither her sincerity nor perspicacity in picking up on something significant in the President's speech. Still, it must be difficult, at her level of success, to close one's mind to the benefits of dissent from the conservative Republican line.

Rhode Island Politics & Taxation, Part IV

This posting continues a periodic series on Rhode Island politics and taxation, building on three previous postings (I, II, III).

My town of East Greenwich has an increasingly ugly dispute between School Committee officials and teachers' union officials. The dispute has been highlighted in local newspaper articles (here, here, here, here, here).

Comments by National Education Association (NEA) teachers' union officials remind me of words spoken years ago by Soviet officials, whose views of the world were subsequently shown to have no connection to any form of reality.

As the union cranks up its disinformation campaign to intimidate East Greenwich residents, let's contrast their Orwellian comments in recent newspaper articles with the facts:

Comment #1: The School Committee needs to get serious. Taxes in East Greenwich aren't that high compared to other communities.

Data from the Tax Foundation notes Rhode Island has the 5th highest overall tax burden and the 4th highest property taxes. Minor town-to-town variations are irrelevant. As you read on, remember that the NEA doesn't think you are paying enough in taxes.

Comment #2: The School Committee offer was completely unacceptable. It must make a financially reasonable offer.

The offer included a 3.5% annual salary increase for each of the 10 job steps over 3 years.

We frequently hear of 3-4% annual salary increases for teachers. But that is very misleading. That's because most school districts have 10 job steps, and teachers move up the ladder. Every continuing teacher, up to step 10, automatically moves up one step per year, yielding huge salary increases written into contracts and all but hidden from the public.

Based on 2003-2004 data, here is what the committee offer means: 97 teachers are in job steps 1-9 and each of them will get 9.5-12.5% annual salary increases. The remaining 132 job step 10 teachers will get 3.5% increases each year.

Does any rational person think that a salary increase as high as 12.5%/year is financially unreasonable to the person receiving the increase? Or that a minimum salary increase of 3.5%/year is financially unreasonable?

The offer also included a 10% co-payment on health insurance premiums, up from a zero co-payment. With healthcare insurance costing about $13,600/year, that equals a payment of roughly $1,360/year.

The average state employee across America pays about a 15% co-pay. It is much higher in the private sector. E.g., employees at my company pay 24% co-pay on health insurance and 30% co-pay on d