Much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the left on Obama's supposed inability to corral Democratic members of Congress to do his bidding. Already, the spectres of the ineffectual Carter and 1st term Clinton administrations are being raised to illustrate what seems fated to befall this administration. Apparently the fractious and independent congressional Dems like Ben Nelson and co. will gum up the works because of a failure of FDR or JFK-like leadership on the Prez's part.
Ambinder rightly calls balderdash on this meme, in a post which will hopefully help nip it in the bud. He rightly points out that Obama and the Dems are in this position because of strength, rather than weakness. In the Carter and 1st term Clinton administrations, Democratic control of the House and Senate was much narrower than it is today. Consequently, in lieu of having a bunch of extra Republicans in congress, we have a bunch of Democrats who are from states that have a sizeable number of Republican voters. All in all this is a far better situation, even if some of these moderate or conservative democrats go off the reservation from time to time, or have to prove their deficit hawk bona fides by watering down the stimulus package.
It's also important to remember that, even if some Dems defect, Obama is achieving better party unity than either Clinton or Carter. Obama had no Senate defections and 7 house defections from the stimulus plan, compared to six senate and 41 house defections from Clinton's 1993 economic plan.
The real impediment for Obama is the significant increase in filibusters, which nowadays essentially forces a 60 vote supermajority on all non-budget-reconciliation senate votes. Had today's filibuster been in place 15 years ago, Clinton wouldn't have passed much of anything. Even with 58 Senators and great party loyalty, Obama is held over a barrel by moderate senators who can extact dilutions of his reforms as the price of getting cloture.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sequestering Carbon in Concrete
Every year, the world produces about 6 billion cubic yards of concrete. New technologies raise the possibility that instead of having that concrete add to atmospheric carbon (through the manufacturing of concrete component Portland cement, which is the source of about 5% of carbon emissions), concrete could actually sequester carbon that would otherwise be emitted from power and industrial sources.
The most evil people?
James Webb, author of an interesting new criminal justice reform bill:
Let's start with a premise that I don't think a lot of Americans are aware of. We have five percent of the world's population; we have 25 percent of the world's known prison population. There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice...
Let's start with a premise that I don't think a lot of Americans are aware of. We have five percent of the world's population; we have 25 percent of the world's known prison population. There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice...
Monday, March 30, 2009
Utica
Congratulations to my old stomping ground Utica, New York, following up on its previous notoriety as Arson Capital of the US, by coming in as the 10th worst place in the US to live and start a business, according to Forbes. Utica ranks slightly higher than Atlantic City, Flint, Detroit, and California's rapidly imploding central valley cities.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Why we can't just throw the bums out
Megan McArdle on the problem with just canning all the execs at the failed banks:
So I'm distressed to see Tim Burke, of all people, making these kinds of statements about AIG:
"Considering that the 11-year veteran executive VP says that he's not at all accountable for AIGFP's losses because he wasn't involved at all in the CDS trading and knew nothing about it, maybe the 26-year old MBA might do a fair enough job."
Really? Really, maybe a 26-year-old MBA might do an okay job of liquidating the financial products division of the world's largest insurance company? I was a 28 year old MBA from (she noted modestly) one of the top finance programs in the country, and let me assure you that there is not the faintest whiff of a possibility that I or any of my classmates could have done an adequate job. We would have cost the taxpayer billions.
Among the necessary assets we would have lacked: 1) adequate skill to maintain the company's portfolio trading strategy in a really screwed up market until they could be wound down 2) contacts in other firms who could buy either our securities, or our line of business 3) experience in executing trades so that they make, rather than lose, money 4) knowledge about current market conditions 5) experience with complicated transactions.
This kind of hyperbolic speculation about an industry which he, respectfully, knows nothing about, is the exact opposite of how thoughtfully he approaches the institutional problems of his own industry.
What I find really worrying is that neither he, nor most of the other normally thoughtful commenters making these kinds of statements, appear to give any credence at all to the possibility that this just might be really, really hard--that it simply might not be a matter of throwing a lot of well-meaning guys in there to replace the jerks currently running the place, and by applying the cleansing forces of American middle class values and good old fashioned common sense, make everything all right again.
So I'm distressed to see Tim Burke, of all people, making these kinds of statements about AIG:
"Considering that the 11-year veteran executive VP says that he's not at all accountable for AIGFP's losses because he wasn't involved at all in the CDS trading and knew nothing about it, maybe the 26-year old MBA might do a fair enough job."
Really? Really, maybe a 26-year-old MBA might do an okay job of liquidating the financial products division of the world's largest insurance company? I was a 28 year old MBA from (she noted modestly) one of the top finance programs in the country, and let me assure you that there is not the faintest whiff of a possibility that I or any of my classmates could have done an adequate job. We would have cost the taxpayer billions.
Among the necessary assets we would have lacked: 1) adequate skill to maintain the company's portfolio trading strategy in a really screwed up market until they could be wound down 2) contacts in other firms who could buy either our securities, or our line of business 3) experience in executing trades so that they make, rather than lose, money 4) knowledge about current market conditions 5) experience with complicated transactions.
This kind of hyperbolic speculation about an industry which he, respectfully, knows nothing about, is the exact opposite of how thoughtfully he approaches the institutional problems of his own industry.
What I find really worrying is that neither he, nor most of the other normally thoughtful commenters making these kinds of statements, appear to give any credence at all to the possibility that this just might be really, really hard--that it simply might not be a matter of throwing a lot of well-meaning guys in there to replace the jerks currently running the place, and by applying the cleansing forces of American middle class values and good old fashioned common sense, make everything all right again.
Allow foreclosed owners to rent their homes
This letter to the Times has a great suggestion on how to deal with foreclosures- end banks' automatic-eviction policy for families whose homes have been foreclosed upon.
This would have a number of benefits. It keeps property values up in the neighborhood by not having a bunch of vacant, boarded up houses. It keeps squatters (and the crime they sometimes bring with them) out. It minimizes the disruption for families (particularly kids) who might otherwise have to move, change schools etc. It also has the political benefit of making it less critical for the government to bail out folks who can't pay their giant mortgages by removing the cry that "these families will lose their homes."
Freddie and Fannie have already gone this route, and it seems like something that the Treasury could build into any future TARP payments to the banks that hold mortgages. Banks might complain that they need the houses empty to facilitate resale, but a.) nobody's buying these things now anyway; and 2.) anyone buying a foreclosed home at an auction is going to get a serious discount, and consequently will probably overlook the fact that the previous owner's stuff is still in the house.
This would have a number of benefits. It keeps property values up in the neighborhood by not having a bunch of vacant, boarded up houses. It keeps squatters (and the crime they sometimes bring with them) out. It minimizes the disruption for families (particularly kids) who might otherwise have to move, change schools etc. It also has the political benefit of making it less critical for the government to bail out folks who can't pay their giant mortgages by removing the cry that "these families will lose their homes."
Freddie and Fannie have already gone this route, and it seems like something that the Treasury could build into any future TARP payments to the banks that hold mortgages. Banks might complain that they need the houses empty to facilitate resale, but a.) nobody's buying these things now anyway; and 2.) anyone buying a foreclosed home at an auction is going to get a serious discount, and consequently will probably overlook the fact that the previous owner's stuff is still in the house.
New York on the Verge of Repealing Rockefeller Drug Laws
Under the plan, judges would have the authority to send first-time nonviolent offenders in all but the most serious drug offenses — known as A-level drug felonies — to treatment. As a condition of being sent to treatment, offenders would have to plead guilty. If they did not successfully complete treatment, their case would go back before a judge, who would again have the option of imposing a prison sentence.
Currently, judges are bound by a sentencing structure that requires minimum sentences of one year for possessing small amounts of cocaine or heroin, for example. Under the agreement reached by the governor and lawmakers, a judge could order treatment for those offenders.
Judges would also have the option of sending some repeat drug offenders to treatment. Repeat offenders accused of more serious drug crimes, however, could only go to treatment if they were found to be drug-dependent in an evaluation.
The State Assembly has passed legislation of this nature every session for years, but finally, with a Democratic Senate, these laws that have treated first-time drug possession offenses as being as serious as, say, beating a child with a weapon, can be removed from the books at last. Remember that when people say it doesn't matter which party is in power.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Unilateral disarmanent
Regarding this post, a friend writes:
I disagree with your post. You say: "A boycott is a serious measure- it seeks to silence the boycotted show instead of engaging and defeating its ideas. It's a viable tool when the ideas that we seek to silence are so atrocious, like Nazism or something, sure- let's boycott." I think you need to differentiate between state action in silencing speech/ideas, on the one hand, and concerted, community conduct that seeks to silence speech, on the other. With respect to the former, I agree that an extremely high bar ought to be set, if at all, for boycotting or restricting speech. With respect to the latter--concerted, community conduct--I disagree that you can't or "shouldn't" institute a boycott unless the ideas are atrocious.
Here's why. Generally, to have your voice heard widely in the market place of ideas you need to appeal to mainstream companies that will advertise on your program or newspaper. In other words, companies that feel that the folks listening to your show will like their product/service and, more important for purposes of this discussion, that their product/service will not be tarnished by its sponsorship of your show. The system thus is geared, as a general matter, to moderate the views of folks who are attempted to disseminate their views--or, at the very least, the system sets some outer limits to the views that are capable of being expressed through mass media, like television.
This is a good thing--you still have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression--you just don't have a right to the financing to disseminate your views in the broadest manner possible. To the extent that boycotting becomes overused, moreover, people will simply stop participating or companies that advertise will stop caring--so there is probably a natural limit to its use.
I submit that this is positive state-of-affairs, and, I might add, a mechanism that serves to limit both left-wing shills and liars and right-wing shills and liars. Under your proposal, however, Republicans can take full advantage of boycotting, while Democrats do not--all for some unspecified, nebulous "high-ground." In the mean time, Republicans are disseminating fully all manner of views at the expense of Democratic views.
I think that this position is somewhat better suited to back in the day when King Arthur Flour or whoever sponsored an entire show. Nowadays, I think most advertising is done in a hands-off manner- advertisers essentially look not to the content of shows but to a set of demographics that they want to put X number of "points" of advertising in front of, and will contract with stations or local affiliates that basically say "show this Ford ad 50 times to 350,000 25-39 y.o. males" etc.
I have no problem with the general idea of not wanting to finance ideas or behavior you find offensive. I typically don't buy Coors products because the Coors family gives a lot of money to the sort of people who blow up abortion clinics. I also think it's fine to boycott Fox News- essentially don't give ratings points to the channel. I also don't buy the Weekly Standard.
I think that boycotts against advertisers are somewhat different. They're typically aimed at not just cutting into the revenue stream of the offending show, but to generate economic pressure so that the station pushes the show off the air. I agree with your distinction between state censorship and privately organized boycotts, but I still think that it's not "liberal" to try to silence one's opponent through economic pressure.
It's certainly problematic to unilaterally disarm on things like this, and I tried to make that clear in the post. This sort of thing is a real problem for the left, and very clearly manifested itself in the 2000 recount where Dems were unwilling to use the sort of tactics that the GOP did- like sending in a mob to shut down the Miami recount, or take self-contradicting positions on ballots ("we have to bend the rules to allow military voters in Pensacola to vote even if they mailed their ballots late" and "we need to hold Palm Beach voters to a strict reading of the rules"). Our refusal to use those tactics (or "squeamishness with them" to put it in a less noble fashion) had real consequences over the past 8 years. It's an issue that I very much struggle with, and one that the left must come to terms with.
I disagree with your post. You say: "A boycott is a serious measure- it seeks to silence the boycotted show instead of engaging and defeating its ideas. It's a viable tool when the ideas that we seek to silence are so atrocious, like Nazism or something, sure- let's boycott." I think you need to differentiate between state action in silencing speech/ideas, on the one hand, and concerted, community conduct that seeks to silence speech, on the other. With respect to the former, I agree that an extremely high bar ought to be set, if at all, for boycotting or restricting speech. With respect to the latter--concerted, community conduct--I disagree that you can't or "shouldn't" institute a boycott unless the ideas are atrocious.
Here's why. Generally, to have your voice heard widely in the market place of ideas you need to appeal to mainstream companies that will advertise on your program or newspaper. In other words, companies that feel that the folks listening to your show will like their product/service and, more important for purposes of this discussion, that their product/service will not be tarnished by its sponsorship of your show. The system thus is geared, as a general matter, to moderate the views of folks who are attempted to disseminate their views--or, at the very least, the system sets some outer limits to the views that are capable of being expressed through mass media, like television.
This is a good thing--you still have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression--you just don't have a right to the financing to disseminate your views in the broadest manner possible. To the extent that boycotting becomes overused, moreover, people will simply stop participating or companies that advertise will stop caring--so there is probably a natural limit to its use.
I submit that this is positive state-of-affairs, and, I might add, a mechanism that serves to limit both left-wing shills and liars and right-wing shills and liars. Under your proposal, however, Republicans can take full advantage of boycotting, while Democrats do not--all for some unspecified, nebulous "high-ground." In the mean time, Republicans are disseminating fully all manner of views at the expense of Democratic views.
I think that this position is somewhat better suited to back in the day when King Arthur Flour or whoever sponsored an entire show. Nowadays, I think most advertising is done in a hands-off manner- advertisers essentially look not to the content of shows but to a set of demographics that they want to put X number of "points" of advertising in front of, and will contract with stations or local affiliates that basically say "show this Ford ad 50 times to 350,000 25-39 y.o. males" etc.
I have no problem with the general idea of not wanting to finance ideas or behavior you find offensive. I typically don't buy Coors products because the Coors family gives a lot of money to the sort of people who blow up abortion clinics. I also think it's fine to boycott Fox News- essentially don't give ratings points to the channel. I also don't buy the Weekly Standard.
I think that boycotts against advertisers are somewhat different. They're typically aimed at not just cutting into the revenue stream of the offending show, but to generate economic pressure so that the station pushes the show off the air. I agree with your distinction between state censorship and privately organized boycotts, but I still think that it's not "liberal" to try to silence one's opponent through economic pressure.
It's certainly problematic to unilaterally disarm on things like this, and I tried to make that clear in the post. This sort of thing is a real problem for the left, and very clearly manifested itself in the 2000 recount where Dems were unwilling to use the sort of tactics that the GOP did- like sending in a mob to shut down the Miami recount, or take self-contradicting positions on ballots ("we have to bend the rules to allow military voters in Pensacola to vote even if they mailed their ballots late" and "we need to hold Palm Beach voters to a strict reading of the rules"). Our refusal to use those tactics (or "squeamishness with them" to put it in a less noble fashion) had real consequences over the past 8 years. It's an issue that I very much struggle with, and one that the left must come to terms with.
Stiffing the Plumber when the Electrician burns down the house
Great op-ed today by Jake DeSantis, an exec at AIG in the commodities trading department, (which has continued to be profitable), as an open resignation letter to AIG boss Edward Liddy. The whole piece is very much worth reading.
My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.
That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”
That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.
At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.
I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.
You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.
As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.
My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.
That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”
That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.
At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.
I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.
You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.
As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.
Boycotts
After my last post on O'Reilly's thuggery toward Amanda Terkel, I signed up for the facebook group "I Stand with Amanda Terkel." Today, I got an email from the group about organizing a boycott of companies that advertise on O'Reilly's show.
This is a time-tested right-wing ploy, which gets pulled out every time there's something objectionable (read: liberal) on television. A few years back they were able to kill a TV biopic about Reagan that was insufficiently deferential. I realize this works, but I have some qualms about it.
A boycott is a serious measure- it seeks to silence the boycotted show instead of engaging and defeating its ideas. It's a viable tool when the ideas that we seek to silence are so atrocious, like Nazism or something, sure- let's boycott.
O'Reilly is undisputably a thug, a bully, a liar and a shill for the right wing. However, out of all of these things, isn't this boycott really being proposed for the last of those reasons? If it were a left-wing host hassling people, would we on the left really care? I think it's right to make a stand against O'Reilly's incivility, but to the extent that his actions are not bad enough that they would trigger a progressive boycott if they were on a left-wing or neutral show, then that means that really, we're boycotting because a right-wing jerk, not just because he's a jerk.
The problem, endemic to the left, is that the GOP doesn't hesitate to use tactics like these to shut down or marginalize our point of view. Also, taking the moral high-ground here does in fact have real-world consequences, in that more people are influenced by right-wing media, and consequently more right-wingers are elected and more right-wing, bad policies are enacted. How high is the price of the high-ground?
This is a time-tested right-wing ploy, which gets pulled out every time there's something objectionable (read: liberal) on television. A few years back they were able to kill a TV biopic about Reagan that was insufficiently deferential. I realize this works, but I have some qualms about it.
A boycott is a serious measure- it seeks to silence the boycotted show instead of engaging and defeating its ideas. It's a viable tool when the ideas that we seek to silence are so atrocious, like Nazism or something, sure- let's boycott.
O'Reilly is undisputably a thug, a bully, a liar and a shill for the right wing. However, out of all of these things, isn't this boycott really being proposed for the last of those reasons? If it were a left-wing host hassling people, would we on the left really care? I think it's right to make a stand against O'Reilly's incivility, but to the extent that his actions are not bad enough that they would trigger a progressive boycott if they were on a left-wing or neutral show, then that means that really, we're boycotting because a right-wing jerk, not just because he's a jerk.
The problem, endemic to the left, is that the GOP doesn't hesitate to use tactics like these to shut down or marginalize our point of view. Also, taking the moral high-ground here does in fact have real-world consequences, in that more people are influenced by right-wing media, and consequently more right-wingers are elected and more right-wing, bad policies are enacted. How high is the price of the high-ground?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Bill O'Reilly is a Thug and a Bully
A friend of mine passed me this link wherein Amanda Terkel (a friend of hers, and a blogger at CAP) gets stalked by O'Reilly's producers, cornered and harrassed by an O'Reilly producer, and then called a "Villain" by O'Reilly on his show. All because Terkel had the temerity to blog about the hypocrisy of O'Reilly headlining a benefit for a rape support foundation after he made derogatory comments about a rape victim on his radio show:
Our post highlighted the fact that in the past, O'Reilly has implied that women who dress in a certain way or consume too much alcohol should perhaps expect to be raped. Here is what he said on his radio show on Aug. 2, 2006, about Jennifer Moore, an 18-year-old woman who was raped and murdered:
"Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She's walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she'ss out of her mind, drunk."
Take a look here at Terkel's post on the O'Reilly thuggery, as well as the clip from O'Reilly's show where the harassment takes place: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/23/oreilly-terkel/
Our post highlighted the fact that in the past, O'Reilly has implied that women who dress in a certain way or consume too much alcohol should perhaps expect to be raped. Here is what he said on his radio show on Aug. 2, 2006, about Jennifer Moore, an 18-year-old woman who was raped and murdered:
"Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She's walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she'ss out of her mind, drunk."
Take a look here at Terkel's post on the O'Reilly thuggery, as well as the clip from O'Reilly's show where the harassment takes place: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/23/oreilly-terkel/
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Embarassment of Rich's
Today's Frank Rich column is totally washed. (Thank you, 30 Rock!)
As far as I can tell, the thesis is that President Obama either isn't angry enough about the financial mess, or that his staff isn't angry enough about it, or that he's failed to assign the task of being angry about the financial mess to people who are best capable of rallying the anger of others.
Typically, Frank suggests:
As far as I can tell, the thesis is that President Obama either isn't angry enough about the financial mess, or that his staff isn't angry enough about it, or that he's failed to assign the task of being angry about the financial mess to people who are best capable of rallying the anger of others.
Typically, Frank suggests:
To get ahead of the anger, Obama must do what he has repeatedly promised but not always done: make everything about his economic policies transparent and hold every player accountable. His administration must start actually answering the questions that officials like Geithner and Summers routinely duck.
Why should the President have any desire at all to 'get ahead of the anger'? Do you even know what that means? Which questions have they been ducking? Questions like: "how come nobody anywhere cared about how bad things were gonna get screwed up three years ago?" Real productive.
I'm pretty sure that Obama thinks that our pique, frustration, and anger will not get us anywhere. To that end, time spent on them probably won't get us anywhere either. I totally agree that some of the bailouts, the TARP, and other programs and initiatives which were around before Obama got in, and even the pre-existing policies that he has ratified, signed or implemented will continue to bear those signs of careful planning and public-spiritedness which we came to know as hallmarks of the Bush administration.
But what are we gonna do about it? If the answer is "nothing," then we need to move on. In a hurry.
---
I know Williams is a big fan of Andrew Cuomo, but unless Cuomo thinks that issuing subpoenas for a show trial that doesn't end up sentencing people will be a good deterrent against bad behavior in the future, I don't really have much respect his actions here.
Friday, March 20, 2009
A Weird State of Mind
Matt Yglesias on why it's a good thing to drive talented/ambitious people out of banks that are now owned by taxpayers:
One concern I’ve heard voiced about sharp executive compensation limits for executives at bailed-out firms is that this may cause an exodus of their most talented employees. One common rejoinder is to observe that the firms in question don’t actually seem to know very much about hiring talented employees or running a business. But another point is that I’m not sure I see why an exodus of the most talented and ambitious business minds from these firms would be a bad thing.
If you think of a talented and ambitious businessman, after all, you have to remember that you’re talking about a guy who, unlike normal people, mainly focuses his life on earning as much money as possible. That’s a weird state of mind in many ways. But it’s a good thing there are some folks like that around, because one good way to earn a ton of money is to invent a product that lots of people find useful when sold at a profitable price. None of my best friends are talented and ambitious businesspeople, but most of my favorite stuff is made by firms managed by such people. But if you’re a talented and ambitious businessman working at a government-support zombie financial institution then you don’t earn your riches by selling products to people. Instead, per Simon Johnson here and here, you maximize income by maximizing “tunneling,” i.e. “borderline legal/illegal smuggling of value out of businesses” and finding other ways to bilk the taxpayer.
A couple things:
1.) I think that Yglesias vastly underestimates the normality of spending one's life focused on earning money. Perhaps that's not normal for Harvard Philosophy majors who go immediately into liberal blogging and their friends, but this is essentially what people in the private sector are doing. Along with the people at the very top of large corporations, you also about 30 million various businesses in the US, most of which are small businesses with owners who are (gasp) focused on making money. I'm not sure that we can classify wide swaths of the country as "weird" because their focus isn't progressive blogging.
2.) It's all well and good to call Citi, AIG, etc. "zombie banks," and they're certainly getting federal money. However, it's important to remember that many of these organizations are gigantic, and have lots of parts that are in fact making money. Citibank has its retail banking and credit card division. AIG has a successful "insuring actual physical stuff" business. There's wealth and value (I like being able to access my Citibank account, factories like being insured) created by these "zombies," not merely attempts to swipe taxpayer dollars by greedy non-philosophy majors.
One concern I’ve heard voiced about sharp executive compensation limits for executives at bailed-out firms is that this may cause an exodus of their most talented employees. One common rejoinder is to observe that the firms in question don’t actually seem to know very much about hiring talented employees or running a business. But another point is that I’m not sure I see why an exodus of the most talented and ambitious business minds from these firms would be a bad thing.
If you think of a talented and ambitious businessman, after all, you have to remember that you’re talking about a guy who, unlike normal people, mainly focuses his life on earning as much money as possible. That’s a weird state of mind in many ways. But it’s a good thing there are some folks like that around, because one good way to earn a ton of money is to invent a product that lots of people find useful when sold at a profitable price. None of my best friends are talented and ambitious businesspeople, but most of my favorite stuff is made by firms managed by such people. But if you’re a talented and ambitious businessman working at a government-support zombie financial institution then you don’t earn your riches by selling products to people. Instead, per Simon Johnson here and here, you maximize income by maximizing “tunneling,” i.e. “borderline legal/illegal smuggling of value out of businesses” and finding other ways to bilk the taxpayer.
A couple things:
1.) I think that Yglesias vastly underestimates the normality of spending one's life focused on earning money. Perhaps that's not normal for Harvard Philosophy majors who go immediately into liberal blogging and their friends, but this is essentially what people in the private sector are doing. Along with the people at the very top of large corporations, you also about 30 million various businesses in the US, most of which are small businesses with owners who are (gasp) focused on making money. I'm not sure that we can classify wide swaths of the country as "weird" because their focus isn't progressive blogging.
2.) It's all well and good to call Citi, AIG, etc. "zombie banks," and they're certainly getting federal money. However, it's important to remember that many of these organizations are gigantic, and have lots of parts that are in fact making money. Citibank has its retail banking and credit card division. AIG has a successful "insuring actual physical stuff" business. There's wealth and value (I like being able to access my Citibank account, factories like being insured) created by these "zombies," not merely attempts to swipe taxpayer dollars by greedy non-philosophy majors.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The First Fan
Obama's NCAA tournament bracket here. Notice who he's got beating Oklahoma to go to the Elite Eight...
Bonus Rage
The news has been abuzz for the past couple days with outrage, real and feigned, over the "bonuses" being granted to AIG employees. The practical problem here is that these aren't actually bonuses in the conventional sense. Bonuses are discretionary awards, based on performance, longevity, a desire to retain talent, etc. These payments are contractually guaranteed- the company has to pay them even if it's doing catastrophically poorly and even if the recipients caused the catastrophically poor performance. When a payment is guaranteed, it's not a bonus- it's actually just deferred salary.
This shows the problems that happen when we try to prop these firms up through a government bailout instead of allowing them to go into bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, the "bonuses" would be treated as pre-petition, unsecured debt (money that's owed prior to the firm being in bankruptcy) and odds are the employees would get nothing. Outside of the bankruptcy context, there's no way for the government to actually break these contracts, absent somebody finding a provision in the employees' contracts that cancels bonuses, which to my knowledge nobody has.
There was also no way for AIG to cancel the bonuses or contracts as a prerequisite for receiving bailout money. The employment contracts are between AIG and its employees, and as long as AIG is a going concern it's stuck with them. If they broke the contracts they'd merely be sued by the recipients for breach of contract, and then would have to add attorneys fees for the litigation onto the bonuses they'd almost certainly still have to pay.
Essentially all these "bonuses" are is time-deferred salary. You dont' see anybody getting worked up over the regular salary for AIG employees (which dwarfs the amount spent on "bonuses"). People are mad because they think this is discretionary. The media won't correct this impression because they like to have a villain, and so do grandstanding members of Congress.
Jim Manzi comments on how the drive to get the bonuses back could be cutting off our nose to spite our collective face:
Or is it that many people hate the fact that senior employees of AIG Financial Products (i.e., "the same people who almost destroyed the world financial system") are being paid $100 million in retention bonuses to make sure they stay to unwind these positions? I don't like this any more than anybody else. But as a taxpayer, which is to say, partial owner of AIG, I'm not looking for cosmic justice, I want my equity to retain some value. The aggregate size of AIGFP positions appears to be on the order of $100 billion dollars. $100 million is 0.1% of $100 billion. I don't know if the incremental value that having these guys around to do the unwinding is worth more or less than that, but it's not an inherently crazy idea either. I am confident that Barney Frank is no better a judge of this than I am, even if his incentives were aligned with mine, which they are not.
This shows the problems that happen when we try to prop these firms up through a government bailout instead of allowing them to go into bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, the "bonuses" would be treated as pre-petition, unsecured debt (money that's owed prior to the firm being in bankruptcy) and odds are the employees would get nothing. Outside of the bankruptcy context, there's no way for the government to actually break these contracts, absent somebody finding a provision in the employees' contracts that cancels bonuses, which to my knowledge nobody has.
There was also no way for AIG to cancel the bonuses or contracts as a prerequisite for receiving bailout money. The employment contracts are between AIG and its employees, and as long as AIG is a going concern it's stuck with them. If they broke the contracts they'd merely be sued by the recipients for breach of contract, and then would have to add attorneys fees for the litigation onto the bonuses they'd almost certainly still have to pay.
Essentially all these "bonuses" are is time-deferred salary. You dont' see anybody getting worked up over the regular salary for AIG employees (which dwarfs the amount spent on "bonuses"). People are mad because they think this is discretionary. The media won't correct this impression because they like to have a villain, and so do grandstanding members of Congress.
Jim Manzi comments on how the drive to get the bonuses back could be cutting off our nose to spite our collective face:
Or is it that many people hate the fact that senior employees of AIG Financial Products (i.e., "the same people who almost destroyed the world financial system") are being paid $100 million in retention bonuses to make sure they stay to unwind these positions? I don't like this any more than anybody else. But as a taxpayer, which is to say, partial owner of AIG, I'm not looking for cosmic justice, I want my equity to retain some value. The aggregate size of AIGFP positions appears to be on the order of $100 billion dollars. $100 million is 0.1% of $100 billion. I don't know if the incremental value that having these guys around to do the unwinding is worth more or less than that, but it's not an inherently crazy idea either. I am confident that Barney Frank is no better a judge of this than I am, even if his incentives were aligned with mine, which they are not.
CNN saves you some money
Watching CNN today at lunch, they had a 5 minute segment on how buying store-brand food can be an effective money-saver during the recession. For some reason, however, they kept dwelling on the potential savings from buying store-brand ketchup over Heinz. Apparently the average bottle of store-brand ketchup costs $1.19, vs. $2.19 for Heinz. Percentage-wise, this is indeed a great savings. However, even if you're a particularly ketchup-intensive household, it's unlikely that you're buying more than a bottle a month, which means that CNN's vaunted savings are going to get you an extra $10-12 a year. On the other hand, that $12 will now get you about a 5% stake in Citigroup.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Authoritarianism "on the march"
A college buddy at the Heritage Foundation (see, progressive bloggers do have conservative friends) has an op-ed out in American Thinker with a good reminder that dictators and authoritarianism aren't merely in central asian "Stans" but are floating around in our very own hemisphere.
Since the 18th and 19th centuries, military strongmen, also known as caudillos, have been ruling many parts of Latin America with mostly mixed results. Among the more prominent include Mexico's Santa Anna, Guatemala's Jose Rafael Carrera and Venezuela's Jose Tadeos Managas.
More contemporary caudillos include Dominican Republic's Rafael Trujillo. His 30-plus year tenure was among the bloodiest. Or consider the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua. And of course no list of tyrannical caudillos is complete without mentioning Cuba's maximum leader, Fidel Castro, and, now, brother Raul.
At best, a couple of these caudillos could be credited with bringing about modest reforms to improve living conditions while encouraging modernization. But at worst, these regimes reflect an assault on democracy, civil liberties and humanity. The few benefited at the expense of the many. History tells us of the rampant abuse, cronyism and corruption that followed caudillos' promises of a better life and a stronger nation.
Overall this piece is a good reminder that many of the people in our own "sphere of influence" are not particularly free- which is good to think about when we try to lean hard on the Chinese about its aid the Burmese junta.
I take issue with the last sentence of the piece: And we must remain vigilant when authoritarianism is on the march, particularly in our own hemisphere.
I think that it's somewhat misleading to state that authoritarianism is "on the march," which implies that it's a growing force in South and Central America. I think that in general, many of these states are slowly shaking off centuries of shackles. Mexico, with the election of Vincente Fox in 1995, shook off decades of one-party rule. Declining oil prices have made it more difficult for Chavez to support the "bolivarian revolution" both inside and outside Venezuela. Many of the other caudillos are aging, and only time will tell if democratic forces can stir inside the ossified politics of Cuba and the DR. Authoritarianism is still alive and kicking in our hemisphere, but it appears that it's more likely reeling backward than on the march.
*Edit: The post previously stated that voters rejected Chavez's bid for an extension of term limits. They initially did, but voted him an extension in February.
Since the 18th and 19th centuries, military strongmen, also known as caudillos, have been ruling many parts of Latin America with mostly mixed results. Among the more prominent include Mexico's Santa Anna, Guatemala's Jose Rafael Carrera and Venezuela's Jose Tadeos Managas.
More contemporary caudillos include Dominican Republic's Rafael Trujillo. His 30-plus year tenure was among the bloodiest. Or consider the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua. And of course no list of tyrannical caudillos is complete without mentioning Cuba's maximum leader, Fidel Castro, and, now, brother Raul.
At best, a couple of these caudillos could be credited with bringing about modest reforms to improve living conditions while encouraging modernization. But at worst, these regimes reflect an assault on democracy, civil liberties and humanity. The few benefited at the expense of the many. History tells us of the rampant abuse, cronyism and corruption that followed caudillos' promises of a better life and a stronger nation.
Overall this piece is a good reminder that many of the people in our own "sphere of influence" are not particularly free- which is good to think about when we try to lean hard on the Chinese about its aid the Burmese junta.
I take issue with the last sentence of the piece: And we must remain vigilant when authoritarianism is on the march, particularly in our own hemisphere.
I think that it's somewhat misleading to state that authoritarianism is "on the march," which implies that it's a growing force in South and Central America. I think that in general, many of these states are slowly shaking off centuries of shackles. Mexico, with the election of Vincente Fox in 1995, shook off decades of one-party rule. Declining oil prices have made it more difficult for Chavez to support the "bolivarian revolution" both inside and outside Venezuela. Many of the other caudillos are aging, and only time will tell if democratic forces can stir inside the ossified politics of Cuba and the DR. Authoritarianism is still alive and kicking in our hemisphere, but it appears that it's more likely reeling backward than on the march.
*Edit: The post previously stated that voters rejected Chavez's bid for an extension of term limits. They initially did, but voted him an extension in February.
Monday, March 16, 2009
16% Fail
We have a little TV in each of the elevators in my building, and today I saw a survey (I think by CNN, but I can't find it on their site) showing that while 84% of Americans wanted Obama's policies to fix the economy, only 62% believed that they would.
Two things:
1.) The survey results were worded to express dismay or shock that only 62% believed that Obama's policies would work... I don't have historical polling data in front of me, but I'd be surprised if many presidents get a higher number than that on "do you think this guy's economic policies will work?"
2.) 16% of people actively want the economy to not be fixed? I guess the Rushist, bitter-enders of the GOP are more numerous than I thought.
Also- posting may be light for the next week, as I'm getting swamped at my real job.
Two things:
1.) The survey results were worded to express dismay or shock that only 62% believed that Obama's policies would work... I don't have historical polling data in front of me, but I'd be surprised if many presidents get a higher number than that on "do you think this guy's economic policies will work?"
2.) 16% of people actively want the economy to not be fixed? I guess the Rushist, bitter-enders of the GOP are more numerous than I thought.
Also- posting may be light for the next week, as I'm getting swamped at my real job.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
A further conversation on merit pay
A friend from highschool who's currently working in the ed policy field in DC wrote me yesterday about my post on merit pay:
My objection to the notion is an ethical one. How do you say to a parent, "sorry but your kid's teacher this year has lower merit than his peers' teacher." If that were my kid, I would be pissed. And building that structure into the system is asking for seas of letters from angry parents, and probably lawyers too. You would have to have a totally random placement system, which would take the flexibility away from administrators to match kids with teachers, and even a random system would probably still get push back from overbaring parents.
If we are supposed to be holding all teachers to the same standard of excellence and expecting them to do the same job, it seems unethical to pay one more than the other. Year end bonuses would be different, because it rewards performance in the short term but doesn't effect the underlying salary structure, but that doesn't seem to be the proposal, at least here in DC.
Ultimately, I think the solution is to create more and better professional pathways for teachers. If a teacher is great, they ought to take on more responsibility (providing training, support and professional development for new or struggling teachers). This would create the incentive to stay in the profession and help reform bad teachers, before Pres. Obama kicks them to the curb. And if they don't get better, the curb is where they belong. I'm sure you sucked as a teacher your first day/week/month as a teacher... I know I did! But, as a part of Teach for America, you had way more support right out of the blocks than most new teachers ever get. The problem now is that teachers are allowed to suck for their whole careers without support to get better or consequences for not getting any better. And these teachers are more common in low performing schools than high-performing ones.
I think the subtext of merit pay (and high-stakes testing) is that if teachers (students) have more incentive to work hard, they'll get better. This is, at best, an incomplete representation of the issue. It's an old Oswego County expression, "you don't fatten a hog by weighing it." If you want to change the outcomes, you have to change the inputs, not just change the way you measure outcomes. If you want teachers to get better, start by changing the way they are trained and supported.
I agree that officially labelling one teacher as "excellent" and another as "not excellent" would have serious public relations, and perhaps legal problems. It would not, however, change the underlying situation- that some kids randomly get good teachers and some get terrible teachers. I think he's right that shifting merit pay into a bonus system would work better from this standpoint- teachers aren't permanently "good" or "bad", but "did well last year."
He's also right that this isn't the entire solution. One of the reasons I'm no longer in teaching is that the idea of teaching the same prep 5 times a day for 30 years held no interest for me, and there wasn't a natural pathway for development to take on new responsibilities. I think my Dad would have been more interested in sticking around and teaching 5th grade longer if he had been spending most of his time in a mentoring role instead of doing essentially the same job he had when he started teaching in the 70s.
I don't necessarily agree that additional support and training is enough. It gets you part of the way there, by helping teachers who start off being terrible (which I most definitely was) get better. The problem is that there are too many people in the profession who, even with a lot of support, are not going to ever be very good teachers because they don't care about the subject matter, they don't read or learn new things themselves, or just aren't smart or hard-working enough. On top of that, a lot of smart, committed, well-read, hard-working people leave teaching because there's no professional advancement and the pay is significantly less than what they can get in other fields. I think merit pay is to some degree a pathway to ultimately professionalizing teaching to create a self-reinforcing system where most/all teachers are highly paid because most or all of them deserve to be highly paid. One of the big problems with raising pay for teachers now is that too many taxpayers know, have had, or have kids who have had a lousy teacher, and they can't stand the idea of that lousy teacher getting more money.
His response:
I think we are in agreement that the ultimate goal is not just to reward good teachers but to improve the quality of teaching overall. My wife is a medical resident and having her go through the process is usually infuriating, due to the amount of time she spends working, but seeing the amount of support she gets seems exactly appropriate. Practicing medicine is high-stakes... and so is teaching. There is recent research that says that if a kid gets two bad teachers in a row, they rarely recover academically. I'm not sure what you do about the bad teachers we have now (other that try to help them get better or fire them), but I think the public policy goal should be to make sure that new teachers entering the profession are substantially better prepared on day 1 and substantially better supported throughout their careers. We should view new teachers as apprentices, not as masters. And excellent veteran teachers should be sharing their expertise. The role as a master teacher would be earned and rewarded with better pay. This system would be well-defined, meritocratic and, most importantly, fair to children.
My objection to the notion is an ethical one. How do you say to a parent, "sorry but your kid's teacher this year has lower merit than his peers' teacher." If that were my kid, I would be pissed. And building that structure into the system is asking for seas of letters from angry parents, and probably lawyers too. You would have to have a totally random placement system, which would take the flexibility away from administrators to match kids with teachers, and even a random system would probably still get push back from overbaring parents.
If we are supposed to be holding all teachers to the same standard of excellence and expecting them to do the same job, it seems unethical to pay one more than the other. Year end bonuses would be different, because it rewards performance in the short term but doesn't effect the underlying salary structure, but that doesn't seem to be the proposal, at least here in DC.
Ultimately, I think the solution is to create more and better professional pathways for teachers. If a teacher is great, they ought to take on more responsibility (providing training, support and professional development for new or struggling teachers). This would create the incentive to stay in the profession and help reform bad teachers, before Pres. Obama kicks them to the curb. And if they don't get better, the curb is where they belong. I'm sure you sucked as a teacher your first day/week/month as a teacher... I know I did! But, as a part of Teach for America, you had way more support right out of the blocks than most new teachers ever get. The problem now is that teachers are allowed to suck for their whole careers without support to get better or consequences for not getting any better. And these teachers are more common in low performing schools than high-performing ones.
I think the subtext of merit pay (and high-stakes testing) is that if teachers (students) have more incentive to work hard, they'll get better. This is, at best, an incomplete representation of the issue. It's an old Oswego County expression, "you don't fatten a hog by weighing it." If you want to change the outcomes, you have to change the inputs, not just change the way you measure outcomes. If you want teachers to get better, start by changing the way they are trained and supported.
I agree that officially labelling one teacher as "excellent" and another as "not excellent" would have serious public relations, and perhaps legal problems. It would not, however, change the underlying situation- that some kids randomly get good teachers and some get terrible teachers. I think he's right that shifting merit pay into a bonus system would work better from this standpoint- teachers aren't permanently "good" or "bad", but "did well last year."
He's also right that this isn't the entire solution. One of the reasons I'm no longer in teaching is that the idea of teaching the same prep 5 times a day for 30 years held no interest for me, and there wasn't a natural pathway for development to take on new responsibilities. I think my Dad would have been more interested in sticking around and teaching 5th grade longer if he had been spending most of his time in a mentoring role instead of doing essentially the same job he had when he started teaching in the 70s.
I don't necessarily agree that additional support and training is enough. It gets you part of the way there, by helping teachers who start off being terrible (which I most definitely was) get better. The problem is that there are too many people in the profession who, even with a lot of support, are not going to ever be very good teachers because they don't care about the subject matter, they don't read or learn new things themselves, or just aren't smart or hard-working enough. On top of that, a lot of smart, committed, well-read, hard-working people leave teaching because there's no professional advancement and the pay is significantly less than what they can get in other fields. I think merit pay is to some degree a pathway to ultimately professionalizing teaching to create a self-reinforcing system where most/all teachers are highly paid because most or all of them deserve to be highly paid. One of the big problems with raising pay for teachers now is that too many taxpayers know, have had, or have kids who have had a lousy teacher, and they can't stand the idea of that lousy teacher getting more money.
His response:
I think we are in agreement that the ultimate goal is not just to reward good teachers but to improve the quality of teaching overall. My wife is a medical resident and having her go through the process is usually infuriating, due to the amount of time she spends working, but seeing the amount of support she gets seems exactly appropriate. Practicing medicine is high-stakes... and so is teaching. There is recent research that says that if a kid gets two bad teachers in a row, they rarely recover academically. I'm not sure what you do about the bad teachers we have now (other that try to help them get better or fire them), but I think the public policy goal should be to make sure that new teachers entering the profession are substantially better prepared on day 1 and substantially better supported throughout their careers. We should view new teachers as apprentices, not as masters. And excellent veteran teachers should be sharing their expertise. The role as a master teacher would be earned and rewarded with better pay. This system would be well-defined, meritocratic and, most importantly, fair to children.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Merit Pay
Yesterday I wrote about some of the things that merit pay shouldn't be- pay for special certification or a type of incentive "combat pay" to entice teachers into low-income schools. The next challenge is to figure out how to determine who gets it.
The objective way would be for pay to go to teachers who successfully raise test scores. Opponents of merit pay often make the specious argument that this won't work because a teacher shouldn't be faulted (ie denied merit pay) based on being assigned difficult students for a given year. This argument is nonsense, because merit pay systems (and current evaluations) look at the level of students when they come into a class, and the level that they're at when they leave the class. That way, a 6th grade teacher who's incoming class has on average a 2nd grade reading level, but has them reading at a 4th grade level by the time they leave is more "meritorious" than another teacher whose kids enter at a 5th grade level but leave at a 6th.
There are a number of snags with basing excellence only on test scores. It doesn't work terribly well in secondary school, because you have teachers teaching biology or world religions where either there's no standardized test at the end of the year, or no good assessment to tell you what a student's baseline knowledge is coming into the class. It's even worse for art and music teachers- how do you determine how many levels of tromboning a kid has gone up?
The other option is to use a more subjective definition of merit/excellence, using teacher evaluations (perhaps in combination with test scores). Having been a teacher, and raised in a family of teachers, I realize that there is a genuine worry that this system won't work fairly. School systems are often rife with petty politics and favoritism, and it would be all too easy for pay intended to go to excellent teachers to be funnelled to cronies of the administrators. That said, many other industries award merit-based bonuses to employees based on a combination of objective and subjective factors without the bonuses devolving into a slush fund for conniving bosses to reward their pets. The key is probably to have a scoring system laid out (tests are worth 40%, attendance 10%, administrator classroom evaluations 30% etc.) and have the decisions made by a committee so that one unscrupulous administrator can't have total control. At any school, the teachers, students and administrators all have a good idea of who the good teachers are- the key is to figure out a rubric that effectively channels merit pay to these folks, and to other teachers who begin to emulate them once merit pay goes into effect.
The objective way would be for pay to go to teachers who successfully raise test scores. Opponents of merit pay often make the specious argument that this won't work because a teacher shouldn't be faulted (ie denied merit pay) based on being assigned difficult students for a given year. This argument is nonsense, because merit pay systems (and current evaluations) look at the level of students when they come into a class, and the level that they're at when they leave the class. That way, a 6th grade teacher who's incoming class has on average a 2nd grade reading level, but has them reading at a 4th grade level by the time they leave is more "meritorious" than another teacher whose kids enter at a 5th grade level but leave at a 6th.
There are a number of snags with basing excellence only on test scores. It doesn't work terribly well in secondary school, because you have teachers teaching biology or world religions where either there's no standardized test at the end of the year, or no good assessment to tell you what a student's baseline knowledge is coming into the class. It's even worse for art and music teachers- how do you determine how many levels of tromboning a kid has gone up?
The other option is to use a more subjective definition of merit/excellence, using teacher evaluations (perhaps in combination with test scores). Having been a teacher, and raised in a family of teachers, I realize that there is a genuine worry that this system won't work fairly. School systems are often rife with petty politics and favoritism, and it would be all too easy for pay intended to go to excellent teachers to be funnelled to cronies of the administrators. That said, many other industries award merit-based bonuses to employees based on a combination of objective and subjective factors without the bonuses devolving into a slush fund for conniving bosses to reward their pets. The key is probably to have a scoring system laid out (tests are worth 40%, attendance 10%, administrator classroom evaluations 30% etc.) and have the decisions made by a committee so that one unscrupulous administrator can't have total control. At any school, the teachers, students and administrators all have a good idea of who the good teachers are- the key is to figure out a rubric that effectively channels merit pay to these folks, and to other teachers who begin to emulate them once merit pay goes into effect.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama endorses merit pay and charter schools
And the haters said it would never happen... Obama bucks the teachers unions and their pals and endorses merit pay for teachers and the removal of state limits on the number of charter schools :
"Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom."
Union leaders tried to fudge Obama's language, arguing that what he really meant is that teachers with extra certifications or that work in low-income areas are going to get the bonuses, not teachers with higher performing kids. Hopefully Obama remains firm, at least on the first point. There's very little causation between certification and high-quality teaching. Some number of high-quality teachers get the certification, but that's not what makes them better. Certification is all about teachers making portfolios of lesson plans and a lot of other nonsense, very little of which actually makes them better. I agree that it's worthwhile to pay teachers in challenging areas a "combat pay" differential in order to lure better teachers to those schools and keep them there (because, take it from me, teaching in a low-income area is hard, hard work), but this is a different issue from rewarding excellence.
In the speech, Obama also touched on a corollary issue that's probably even more important- removing poor teachers. This is not just about test scores- in every school, everybody, from students to administrators to other teachers knows who the bad teachers are. Obama's stated bluntly that, if these teachers have had a chance to improve, and don't, there's no excuse for keeping them around. Good stuff, now let's turn it into policy.
"Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom."
Union leaders tried to fudge Obama's language, arguing that what he really meant is that teachers with extra certifications or that work in low-income areas are going to get the bonuses, not teachers with higher performing kids. Hopefully Obama remains firm, at least on the first point. There's very little causation between certification and high-quality teaching. Some number of high-quality teachers get the certification, but that's not what makes them better. Certification is all about teachers making portfolios of lesson plans and a lot of other nonsense, very little of which actually makes them better. I agree that it's worthwhile to pay teachers in challenging areas a "combat pay" differential in order to lure better teachers to those schools and keep them there (because, take it from me, teaching in a low-income area is hard, hard work), but this is a different issue from rewarding excellence.
In the speech, Obama also touched on a corollary issue that's probably even more important- removing poor teachers. This is not just about test scores- in every school, everybody, from students to administrators to other teachers knows who the bad teachers are. Obama's stated bluntly that, if these teachers have had a chance to improve, and don't, there's no excuse for keeping them around. Good stuff, now let's turn it into policy.
Monday, March 09, 2009
The partisan case for shutting down earmarks
Very interesting piece in American Prospect (via Matt Yglesias) that explains why Republicans need earmarks much more than Dems do. It goes beyond the mere hypocrisy of everybody in Congress wanting earmarks for their districts, but wanting to be generally "against earmarks and pork."
There's nothing partisan about earmarks -- Republicans do it, Democrats do it, and if you were a member of Congress, you'd do it, too. But for the moment, Republicans are far more dependent than Democrats on their ability to take some credit for federally funded projects. In the world with earmarks, Lindsay Graham is able to stand against the president on stimulus, on the budget, on Iraq, on health care. And then he's able to go home, cut a ribbon, get his picture in the paper, and tell everyone that he delivered the money for the new Myrtle Beach Convention Center.
But in a world without earmarks, what does Lindsay Graham bring home? Just words, and great stories about how he fought bravely against health care and economic stimulus.
Whereas a Democrat in a world without earmarks will be able to go home, ideally, and tell her constituents that she supported a popular president, that she helped rescue the economy, that she's moving us toward universal health care.
The article goes on to make the very interesting case that, absent earmarks, Republicans in Congress would be forced to either tell their constituents that they spent two years in Washington and accomplished absolutely nothing, or else learn how to compromise so that they can have a part in the accomplishments of the majority.
There's nothing partisan about earmarks -- Republicans do it, Democrats do it, and if you were a member of Congress, you'd do it, too. But for the moment, Republicans are far more dependent than Democrats on their ability to take some credit for federally funded projects. In the world with earmarks, Lindsay Graham is able to stand against the president on stimulus, on the budget, on Iraq, on health care. And then he's able to go home, cut a ribbon, get his picture in the paper, and tell everyone that he delivered the money for the new Myrtle Beach Convention Center.
But in a world without earmarks, what does Lindsay Graham bring home? Just words, and great stories about how he fought bravely against health care and economic stimulus.
Whereas a Democrat in a world without earmarks will be able to go home, ideally, and tell her constituents that she supported a popular president, that she helped rescue the economy, that she's moving us toward universal health care.
The article goes on to make the very interesting case that, absent earmarks, Republicans in Congress would be forced to either tell their constituents that they spent two years in Washington and accomplished absolutely nothing, or else learn how to compromise so that they can have a part in the accomplishments of the majority.
From my mouth to Justice Chin's ear
A justice on the California Supreme Court seems to have taken my suggestion to heart that the government should get out of the marriage business:
What if California got out of the marriage business altogether? What if the state merely licensed or just recognized private, contractual civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, and couples went to the religious or private institution of their choice to sanctify their vows? Would that resolve the legal differences between Proposition 8 and the state Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals? These were the questions Justice Ming W. Chin posited during oral arguments on the proposition Thursday before the high court. To which both sides responded: Why, yes, it would.
As reasonable as this sounds, my guess is that the same right-wingers who claim that civil unions are just as good as marriage would be up in arms if anybody suggested that their state-sanctioned marriages be converted to state-licensed civil unions.
What if California got out of the marriage business altogether? What if the state merely licensed or just recognized private, contractual civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, and couples went to the religious or private institution of their choice to sanctify their vows? Would that resolve the legal differences between Proposition 8 and the state Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals? These were the questions Justice Ming W. Chin posited during oral arguments on the proposition Thursday before the high court. To which both sides responded: Why, yes, it would.
As reasonable as this sounds, my guess is that the same right-wingers who claim that civil unions are just as good as marriage would be up in arms if anybody suggested that their state-sanctioned marriages be converted to state-licensed civil unions.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Another step for science
ABC news is reporting that Obama is set to overturn President Bush's ban on stem cell research. Good news for everybody who thinks that our science policy shouldn't be dictated by, err, people who don't believe in science.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Going Nuclear
Much to Slate writer Timothy Noah's glee, the Obama administration has quietly made a move to shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program:
That, in effect, is what President Obama is saying in fulfilling his campaign promise to shut down Yucca Mountain. The program, Obama's new budget states, "will be scaled back to those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while the administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal." That's bureaucratese for "Yucca Mountain is dead."
...
In shuttering Yucca Mountain, Obama makes it extremely likely that nuclear power in the United States will continue its long, slow, and extremely welcome death.
Noah's problem with nuclear power is the fact that the waste, which degrades very slowly over tens of thousands of years, is dangerous and will probably outlast us. Everybody agrees that this is a problem. He then makes the same problem that many enviro-types do in not weighing that problem against the problems associated with other options for producing power. Sure it would be great if all our energy came from sunlight and wind, but that's just not feasible given existing or near-future technology (and neither is completely free of ecological problems). Nuclear power is available right now, and has zero carbon emissions.
Think of it this way- for every nuclear plant that is not built, the US will continue operating two normal-sized coal-fired plants. That's the trade-off we should think about, and in that analysis it's hard to see how a no-nukes policy makes any sense. Coal-mining is enormously damaging to the environment and dangerous to workers. According to Scientific American, the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
The biggest fear about a nuclear plant or nuclear waste site is the worst-case-scenario of either a meltdown/giant leak, once you recognize that contrary to popular perception it would be extremely difficult for terrorists to steal and weaponize waste from a US nuclear facility. So given that the vast majority of nuclear plants and waste sites are fairly removed from major population centers, the worst case scenario would be a loss of some number of lives and the irradiation of the immediate area. Even a disastrous meltdown at Indian Point, 24 miles from New York City, might (in its worst estimate) cost 50,000 lives.
These are all, admittedly, terrible consequences. But put them against the worst-case-scenario for global warming- with millions dying or losing their homes from flooding, drought and severe weather, and they pale in comparison.
That, in effect, is what President Obama is saying in fulfilling his campaign promise to shut down Yucca Mountain. The program, Obama's new budget states, "will be scaled back to those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while the administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal." That's bureaucratese for "Yucca Mountain is dead."
...
In shuttering Yucca Mountain, Obama makes it extremely likely that nuclear power in the United States will continue its long, slow, and extremely welcome death.
Noah's problem with nuclear power is the fact that the waste, which degrades very slowly over tens of thousands of years, is dangerous and will probably outlast us. Everybody agrees that this is a problem. He then makes the same problem that many enviro-types do in not weighing that problem against the problems associated with other options for producing power. Sure it would be great if all our energy came from sunlight and wind, but that's just not feasible given existing or near-future technology (and neither is completely free of ecological problems). Nuclear power is available right now, and has zero carbon emissions.
Think of it this way- for every nuclear plant that is not built, the US will continue operating two normal-sized coal-fired plants. That's the trade-off we should think about, and in that analysis it's hard to see how a no-nukes policy makes any sense. Coal-mining is enormously damaging to the environment and dangerous to workers. According to Scientific American, the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
The biggest fear about a nuclear plant or nuclear waste site is the worst-case-scenario of either a meltdown/giant leak, once you recognize that contrary to popular perception it would be extremely difficult for terrorists to steal and weaponize waste from a US nuclear facility. So given that the vast majority of nuclear plants and waste sites are fairly removed from major population centers, the worst case scenario would be a loss of some number of lives and the irradiation of the immediate area. Even a disastrous meltdown at Indian Point, 24 miles from New York City, might (in its worst estimate) cost 50,000 lives.
These are all, admittedly, terrible consequences. But put them against the worst-case-scenario for global warming- with millions dying or losing their homes from flooding, drought and severe weather, and they pale in comparison.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Debunking the meritocracy of the rich
Jonathan Chait at TNR has a fantastic post, "Wealthy Idiots Meet Idiot Reporter":
I've seen a lot of dumb news reports in my life, but I'm not sure anything can quite match this one from ABC News. The premise of the report is this: Barack Obama plans to raise taxes on people who make more than $250,000, so the reporter has gone and found people who earn a little more than that sum who plan to decrease their income so that they come in underneath the magic line.
Now, the obvious objection here is that the tax code doesn't work that way. A tax increase affects the marginal dollar that a person gains. That's means only every dollar over $250,000 is taxed at a higher rate. Obama is not proposing a tax system whereby somebody who goes from $249,999 to $250,000 suddenly becomes poorer. Nobody has ever enacted a tax hike like that in the history of the United States.
The ABC Story in question:
President Barack Obama's tax proposal – which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.
A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law. ...
"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.
"We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"
The attorney says that in order to decrease her income she'll have to let go of clients, some of whom she's been counseling for more than a decade.
"This means I'll have to tell some of my clients we can't help them and being more selective in general about who we help," she said. "I hate to do it." ...
Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan.
"I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off."
One of Chait's commenters has a fantastic post: I think this helps debunk any theories that all of these high earners got there through purely meritocratic means.
Paterson in trouble, Cuomo looking good
A new Marist poll shows only 26% of New Yorkers approving of Governor Paterson's job performance. Hypothetical 2010 matchups show Rudy Giuliani whupping Paterson 53-39, but have AG Cuomo (a 62-26 favorite over incumbent Paterson) beating Giuliani 56-39.
Straw-man position on vouchers
The Chicago tribune attacks the Congressional Dems' attempt to block continued financing for the only federal school-voucher plan in the US- one in DC that gives vouchers of $7,500 (about 1/3 of the amount the district spends per student) to 1,900 kids to allow them to attend private schools. The article characterizes the Dems' position as follows:
But vouchers are anathema to many in the Democratic Party because teachers unions feel threatened by the prospect of more children going to non-union private schools. So this bill says there will be no more money for the program after this year and directs the head of D.C.'s public schools to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for kids who will be forced back into schools their parents found wanting.
Democrats to kids: Tough luck.
I think this article unreasonably portrays the Democratic (as opposed to the teachers' union) position. I and many other dems oppose voucher programs like this becauase $7,500 is not in fact enough money to put poor kids into private schools (except for some religious schools with subsidies from the church). In a 2002 study, non-sectarian private school tuition averaged over $10,000/year, and has almost certainly gone up since then, and the top private schools in DC cost over $25,000/year. Consequently, the vouchers wind up being used by middle-class kids whose parents have enough money to fund the difference between the $7,500 and the cost of private school tuition, or by kids whose parents could afford the whole tuition and essentially get a free $7,500. This has two negative effects. 1.) there's some non-useful transfer of money between the school system, which needs it, and parents who largely don't; and more importantly 2.) as middle-class kids are drawn out of the public schools by vouchers, the public schools become (even more than they currently are) a concentration of the poorest kids or the kids whose parents don't know or care enough to utilize vouchers.
I'm not averse to voucher programs in principle, but I don't think that the DC program makes sense as it's currently structured. For a voucher system to work, and not merely siphon children of the relatively wealthy or super-involved parents out of the system, it needs to do a couple of things. It must provide enough of a tuition subsidy to cover non-sectarian private school tuition for the neediest kids (and could be means-tested to only provide a partial subsidy to wealthier parents). It also must be actively promoted to parents and have an easy way to sign up, so that kids aren't left out of the running for vouchers because their parents are at work, or don't speak English, or are undocumented.
I think this is a much more nuanced position, held by many dems, that goes far beyond this article's sneering "Dems to kids: tough luck" tone.
But vouchers are anathema to many in the Democratic Party because teachers unions feel threatened by the prospect of more children going to non-union private schools. So this bill says there will be no more money for the program after this year and directs the head of D.C.'s public schools to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for kids who will be forced back into schools their parents found wanting.
Democrats to kids: Tough luck.
I think this article unreasonably portrays the Democratic (as opposed to the teachers' union) position. I and many other dems oppose voucher programs like this becauase $7,500 is not in fact enough money to put poor kids into private schools (except for some religious schools with subsidies from the church). In a 2002 study, non-sectarian private school tuition averaged over $10,000/year, and has almost certainly gone up since then, and the top private schools in DC cost over $25,000/year. Consequently, the vouchers wind up being used by middle-class kids whose parents have enough money to fund the difference between the $7,500 and the cost of private school tuition, or by kids whose parents could afford the whole tuition and essentially get a free $7,500. This has two negative effects. 1.) there's some non-useful transfer of money between the school system, which needs it, and parents who largely don't; and more importantly 2.) as middle-class kids are drawn out of the public schools by vouchers, the public schools become (even more than they currently are) a concentration of the poorest kids or the kids whose parents don't know or care enough to utilize vouchers.
I'm not averse to voucher programs in principle, but I don't think that the DC program makes sense as it's currently structured. For a voucher system to work, and not merely siphon children of the relatively wealthy or super-involved parents out of the system, it needs to do a couple of things. It must provide enough of a tuition subsidy to cover non-sectarian private school tuition for the neediest kids (and could be means-tested to only provide a partial subsidy to wealthier parents). It also must be actively promoted to parents and have an easy way to sign up, so that kids aren't left out of the running for vouchers because their parents are at work, or don't speak English, or are undocumented.
I think this is a much more nuanced position, held by many dems, that goes far beyond this article's sneering "Dems to kids: tough luck" tone.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Outside the Rule of Law
A friend passed on a report from the Brennan Center criticizing the Obama administration's position on the state secrets privilege. Critical graf-
What's shocking here is not that the Obama administration invoked the state secrets doctrine. The Supreme Court has long recognized that evidence may appropriately be withheld in litigation where public disclosure of the evidence could jeopardize national security. But the notion that the entire subject matter of a lawsuit could be a state secret, such that a law-free zone is created for that subject matter, is a highly controversial one, for obvious reasons: it is a notion that is utterly toxic to the rule of law. And the district court decision that the Obama administration is now defending took this dangerous notion to an extreme. It concluded that the CIA cannot be held accountable in a court of law for any actions it takes in connection with its foreign operations. Since the entire purpose of the CIA is to conduct foreign operations, it is not too much of a stretch to say that the court's decision would largely remove the CIA from the reach of the law—even if the CIA is doing something as illegal and reprehensible as outsourcing torture.
I think the author is somewhat overheated here. Two points on this-
1.) Holder's explanation was that they have not yet conducted a review of state secrets policy at the DOJ, and were going along with current litigation as planned, as opposed to having individual US Attorneys crafting their own policy ad hoc.
2.) I don't think it's fair to state that, just because some activities of the CIA aren't reviewable in the courts, that the CIA operates outside the rule of law. Congress, particularly the select committees on intelligence, have security clearance to review and conduct oversight on all activities of the CIA. The courts can't rule on a president's foreign policy choices either, but that doesn't make them "outside the rule of law." Members of Congress as well as the president are charged in their oaths of office with upholding the constitution. I agree that recently, that duty has been abdicated to the courts, but it's important for those branches to take seriously their responsibilities for upholding the rule of law and the constitution in the areas where they conduct policy or oversight.
Cyclical tax policy sophistry
Yglesias on the right's constantly shifting rationale for tax cuts on the rich:
[In the late 90s] when progressive tax policy has been in place during a period of growth, and that growth has led to a budget surplus, you argue not that it’s smart to balance the budget over the course of the business cycle, but rather that the surplus reflects the government “overcharging” in taxes that should be returned to those who pay the most taxes; which is to say to those who have the most money; which is to say to the rich. That’s a 1999 argument. Then if the economy falls into recession wiping out the surpluses, you argue that a tax cut for the rich is needed as economic stimulus. That’s a 2001 argument. And if the economy is growing during a period of conservative tax policy, you argue that the low taxes produced the growth so need to be kept in place forever. That’s a 2005 argument. And then if the economy falls into recession again, you argue that additional permanent tax cuts for the wealthy are the only solution.
[In the late 90s] when progressive tax policy has been in place during a period of growth, and that growth has led to a budget surplus, you argue not that it’s smart to balance the budget over the course of the business cycle, but rather that the surplus reflects the government “overcharging” in taxes that should be returned to those who pay the most taxes; which is to say to those who have the most money; which is to say to the rich. That’s a 1999 argument. Then if the economy falls into recession wiping out the surpluses, you argue that a tax cut for the rich is needed as economic stimulus. That’s a 2001 argument. And if the economy is growing during a period of conservative tax policy, you argue that the low taxes produced the growth so need to be kept in place forever. That’s a 2005 argument. And then if the economy falls into recession again, you argue that additional permanent tax cuts for the wealthy are the only solution.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
So am I
From Obama's weekly radio/youtube address:
I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I. The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people. I didn’t come here to do the same thing we’ve been doing or to take small steps forward, I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November.
(via Matt Yglesias)
How long it takes to work itself out
So NPR has replayed parts of an interview once or twice where they have a professor who says something to the effect of "Right now, we're borrowing about 100% of our GDP, and the only other time that that's happened in history was 1929." This is supposed to be the key fact about our economy that shapes understanding of where we are.
I'm interested in that stat for what it says about how we get out of this mess. That debt level is high right now, but it will get lower because people pay off some of their debt (while at the same time not taking on any new debt), some will die, and some will declare bankruptcy.
This is a big deal because most of the economic activity that we care about is actually associated with borrowing on one side of the transaction or the other, and maybe both: you borrow money when you buy a car or a house, and then someone gets paid. Their employer almost certainly borrowed money to employ them.
So to figure out when the economy starts really moving again (if this debt level unlocks the mystery) the question for me becomes "how long will it take of us not borrowing anything until we start needing to borrow again?"
Think about it yourself: when do you think you'll next buy a car or a house or take on debt for another purpose? Sometimes these decisions get thrust upon us (ie car accident, birth of kids, etc.), but otherwise I'm thinking "three years."
Not cool.
I'm interested in that stat for what it says about how we get out of this mess. That debt level is high right now, but it will get lower because people pay off some of their debt (while at the same time not taking on any new debt), some will die, and some will declare bankruptcy.
This is a big deal because most of the economic activity that we care about is actually associated with borrowing on one side of the transaction or the other, and maybe both: you borrow money when you buy a car or a house, and then someone gets paid. Their employer almost certainly borrowed money to employ them.
So to figure out when the economy starts really moving again (if this debt level unlocks the mystery) the question for me becomes "how long will it take of us not borrowing anything until we start needing to borrow again?"
Think about it yourself: when do you think you'll next buy a car or a house or take on debt for another purpose? Sometimes these decisions get thrust upon us (ie car accident, birth of kids, etc.), but otherwise I'm thinking "three years."
Not cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)