"For the Children" Is Not an Impenetrable Shield Anymore

I'm kinda confused why those on the right find it so hard that those on the left are dumbfounded by the reporting on the Frosts since Graeme's radio response to President Bush. This is, after all, an issue about the principle of personal responsibility, something the left has a hard time grappling with (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/
2007/10/why_did_they_attack_graeme_fro.html). It seems kinda simple to me.

First of all, I know that's Maryland and this is Texas, so I'm sure there's a bit of a difference in the cost of living. But more than $400,000 worth of property and 3 nice/new cars is "modest"?? I don't think so. We have 2 cars, one of which is paid off and one which is brand new, but only ~40% financed thanks to having it's trade-in paid off. We have a 1/4 of the property. I think we're living a bit more modestly. "...the Frosts...are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?" Because those assets are the very means with which they should!! If we were in their predicament, what would we do? Liquidate, as much as necessary to pay the bills. What are assets there for if not to be used, especially in an emergency situation?

And did I read that the Frosts' parents were OK financially? If that's the case, you also go to your family for help. Isn't a major system of support supposed to be the family? This is why some say big government contributes to the erosion of the family.

It's kinda sad that someone as seasoned (don't wanna say old, since I'm getting up there) and experienced as Mr. Dionne still refers to government as just some entity that has money (if you think about it, that's kinda how the left views the affluent; they just have money so higher taxes should result in higher revenue, never mind that that wealth actually has to be created). I say this in reference to his mention of "government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school...(f)ederal money for private schools but not for health insurance?" First of all, the federal government should not be involved in public education. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution quite clearly implies this. But that's another subject. It is completely legitimate for parents to petition their state governments to be able to use the taxes THEY PAY to fund government schools, to pay for the school of their choice for their children. This is one kinda of choice that the left, ironically, does not favor. The opposition to it is sheer insanity. All schools would become private schools, in a way, but it would still be public education. Liberals continue to miss the boat when it comes to how much better the private sector provides goods than does the public sector.

Finally, I'd love to see where this "average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually" figure comes from. My family of 5 pays about a 1/3 of that. It's hard for me to believe that we pay that much less than average.

My Lone Divergence with Kudlow

Ironic, indeed, says Larry Kudlow today (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/anatomy_of_a_fabulous_fed_flip.html).

I’m just not sold that cutting the interest rate a couple weeks ago was the best thing. Do we really need more dollars in the system right now? Isn’t the dollar already weak enough (benefits to exports notwithstanding), and inflation a real enough threat? Most importantly, wouldn’t it be a good thing to steer Americans a little more away from charging on the credit card and more toward saving? For the record, I think the so-called trade deficit (since writing a paper on it in grad school, I refer to it as the ‘foreign direct investment surplus’) garners a much worse reputation than it deserves. It’s not nearly as much of a principled concern as the federal budget deficit, and national debt. It just seems a poor personality trait to me to charge something right now as opposed to saving for the purchase.

A step in this direction would have been supported by the Fed staying at 5.25%. I can only hope that this was a temporary, symbolic cut that allowed the markets to feel like the Fed was there at the ready, and that there will be no more cuts for a while. I actually wouldn’t lose any sleep if some inflation indicators perked up a little, compelling the Fed to pull rates back up. People have not incentive to stick some money in their savings accounts. We just do it because it’s a good idea to have some there. I’m sure we’re not the only ones who, at one point or another, had (much) more in credit card balances than in savings, or even assets such as automobiles.
For all the unwarranted worrying about the foreign direct investment surplus, it’d be hard not to see how the trade deficit wouldn’t come down if more domestic investment derived from Americans’ savings and investments, in something other than retirement accounts and homes. And really, how much of a negative effect would there be on the economy if Americans changed their habits in such a way? Even though some of the slowdown in consumer spending would be made up by the investment e made with their savings (via bank loans, stock investments, etc.), it could amount to just one quarter’s worth of GDP slowing. Once the adjustment is made, consumer spending could resume, but with real money instead of credit. Not only is that preferable financially, it would be good individually as people could teach themselves some discipline and patience. Plus, a new model of whatever they might want might be introduced, making the wait worth it.

On another note, do you really believe the recent jobs report would have been any, much different without the cut?? Please; I don’t think so. And while it might not have returned to its record heights of 14,000+, I bet the Dow Jones would have risen back up into the mid-to-upper 13,000s.
One last thing about the politics of all this. Speaking as a liberta

rian-conservative, while there is no part of me that believes Democrats espouse better ideas on economic and budget matters, Republicans deserve to be trailing Democrats in polling in all such matters (except taxes…huh?) . Almost 6 years of complete Republican control in D.C. and we get…a new farm bill, a tack on to Medicare, an expansion of the education department (doesn’t the Constitution prescribe that as a state matter in the 10th Amendment??), a 16,000-earmarked transportation bill, etc. etc. Is the budget deficit at a manageable level? Yes, but it could have been gone by now and paving the way for perhaps more tax cuts. Better yet, serious income tax reform. Who knows; we might have even had more success with Social Security reform.

Great; now I’m all depressed remembering what a lost opportunity Republicans had a few years ago.

I Guess $40,000/year Wasn't Enough, Ay Gov. Richardson?

The American Federation of Teachers recently endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president (http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2007/100307.htm). My reaction: who cares? Public education, I would point out, is something that should be a state matter. I guess that's kind of a quaint notion in this day of a federal department of education, NCLB and the like.

Regardless, establishment educators (I reserve these remarks for those actively involved in the union, because I'm sure there are some teachers and administrators who do not fit this characterization) these days still don't have students' and parents' best interests at heart, while at the same time essentially showing an utter lack of confidence in their own ability. If they, and the educational bureaucracy within which they exist in this country were, in fact, so confident, and really cared about the quality of public education, why would they stand in the way of allowing parents to choose where to send their kids' to school using the taxes they pay to support public education??

It's interesting on their website that they have pages for "Academic Freedom" and "Employee Free Choice Act". Yet, every time the issue of allowing parents of modest-to-low means the freedom to use at least a part of what they pay to support public education (I support public education, just not government schools), groups like this and the NEA vociferously oppose it. What are they so worried about?? There will always, always be demand for good teachers. I can only believe it is the paranoid and slackers amongst them who drive this opposition.

Too bad a dollar figure can't be applied to public education quality (results) in much the same way as they can be toward the U.S.-owned automobile industry. Hopefully, though, people will start to wonder why, as funding for government schools continues to increase unabated, the number of students being home/private schooled continues along the same trajectory. "Why is the rate of growth of funding increasing faster than the rate of growth in the public student body," they might ask.

Maybe then, the number of school choice legislators will also grow.