February 11, 2009: President Obama says that if his Stimulus package is passed, the CEO of Catepillar will rehire some of the 22,000 people that were laid off in January.
Charlie Albertson, a North Carolina State Senator, is proposing a bill that would get rid of athletic programs at schools that don't perform academically.
"Senate Bill 377 would bar interscholastic athletics at schools where more than half of the students score below the 50th percentile on end-of-grade or end-of-course tests for at least two straight years."
At first glance this sounds like a reasonable request. Schools primary objective should be educating its students, and if they are not doing their primary job, they shouldn't be wasting money on athletics. However, this bill is clearly not the best way to go about it.
If you didn't catch the statistical error in the news report, re-read it. Mr. Albertson wants more than half of the students in his state to score above the 50% mark. This does not mean answering more than 50% of the questions correctly. It means he wants more half the students taking the test to do better than 50% of the students that take the test. (If that last sentence didn't make since don't blame me, blame Mr. Albertson's bill)
I haven't spent a lot of time reading about ways to improve public schools - I figure I'll think about it more once I have kids. However, when that day comes, I'll probably start with the Cato Blog.
When I was in college, I spent a summer interning for a US senator. While I was there I learned that one of the most important things about passing legislation is the way the debate is framed. Unfortunately, the Democratic party did a great job with the recent "Stimulus" legislation.
Just by having the bill called the "Stimulus Package", it infers that the bill will be good for the economy. The Democrats have the battle halfway won before the debate begins. Instead, if it was called the "Deficit Spending Package”, I'm pretty sure it would have had a lot more trouble passing.
This is especially important with the next piece of legislation the Democrat's are trying to pass, the "Fairness Doctrine". Unsurprisingly, I don't think this law would be "fair" at all. Instead, I suggest the "Government Censorship Doctrine." I'm guessing that bill would have a little more trouble passing. Fortunately, it won’t matter if congress passes it or not because Obama has said he doesn’t support it.
I meant to post this earlier but never did. I just wanted to post my thoughts on the Auto Bailout, and since they say a picture is worth a thousand words:
Harvard Economist Jeffrey Miron proposes a stimulus package that will actually stimulate the economy and not just the government:
“When libertarians question the merit of President Obama's stimulus package, a frequent rejoinder is, 'Well, we have to do something.' This is hardly a persuasive response. If the cure is worse than the disease, it is better to live with the disease.
In any case, libertarians do not argue for doing nothing; rather, they advocate eliminating or adjusting policies that are bad for the economy independent of the recession. Here is a stimulus package that libertarians can endorse:”
From the Washington Post Washington Post "Obama repeatedly stressed the need for swift and aggressive action on the economy, pitting his plan against those who he said would "do nothing" to assist a desperate public."
Russell Roberts pointed that it reminded him an offense hurrying to the line of scrimmage after a questionable play to quickly snap the ball before the other team can throw the challenge flag.
If you are looking for an easy read to help you learn how economists think, I reccomend Roberts' novel Invisible Heart.
An interesting, short video on how the Department of Agriculture is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, Obama voted for the farm bill in 2008, so it will probably be a problem for another 4 (8) years. (Cato: Downsizing the Federal Government)
A great sentence from Tyler Cowen:
"Lock Jason Furman and Larry Summers in a room for an hour, with no web connection and equipped only with a single crayon between them. They still would come up with a better spending plan than would Congress." (Marginal Revolution)
A cool map showing all the Wal-Mart's being built across the country. (Flowing Data)
Charles Platt was curious about Wal-Mart, so he decided to get a job there. It's pretty interesting. (Boing Boing)
Incase you missed Miss America, here are some pictures and a video. (Huffington Post)
The 50 Most Loathsome People in America (THE BEAST)
I really wish John McCain would have won…….8 years ago. I really bought into that straight talk express. Even back then he was an older guy with a lot of political experience, but Washington hadn't really seemed to get to him. He thought he would be able to cut through the politics, not play the dumb games, and be able to win. If he would have won 8 years ago, I think he would have been an excellent president. But he didn't win. And, he didn't win mainly because of dirty politics, and I think that changed him. He thought voters would support him taking actual stances on issues, that voters would understand that he was not a regular politician, that he wouldn't play stupid political games. Well, the voters are idiots, and they elected George W. Bush.
8 years later McCain ran for the highest office again, but he wasn't the same guy. He turned into somebody that would say and do anything for votes. Hillary Clinton was the same way. The main thing that jumps to my mind was that stupid gas tax holiday. Both of them supported it, while Obama laughed at them. Throughout the whole campaign, Clinton and McCain both acted like they had already earned the presidency. Almost like it was their right and they were indignant that somebody else had the gall to challenge them.
"Fortunately",* Obama decided to run for president. His campaign consisted mostly of him looking handsome, acting cool, speaking extraordinarily eloquently, and making broad promises of hope and change. The perfect campaign.
So how will Obama do as president? I have no idea. I predict football games (poorly) not politics. However, there is one thing I'm confident Obama will do, that I haven't really heard mentioned anywhere. I really think that Obama will restore support in the United States of people from foreign countries. Or at least no longer make us a laughing stock.
My wife and I have traveled overseas twice in the last 3 years. Both times she tried to convince me that we should wear Canadian flag pins on our backpacks so that people wouldn't be mean to us because we were Americans. I talked her out of it both times and we were never treated poorly, but just having the conversation about it sucked. The majority of the world does not like the United States, and I think it is primarily because of George W Bush.
But now. Now we have a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama as our president. That's nuts. Ask the average American his opinion on India and thier Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Then ask the average American his opinion on India and tell him India's Prime Minister is a white guy named Fred Johnson. I think they will have a slightly higher regard in the second scenario.
What I'm basically trying to say is, remember the guy that threw his shoe at Bush?
I don't think anyone is going to throw a shoe at Obama. Mr. President, feel free to use that quote in any future campaigns.
*I say "fortunately" because I didn't support Obama. I do think he will be better than McCain, and MUCH better than Clinton. I was one of those crazy people that supported Ron Paul.
