« January 2005 | Main | March 2005 »
February 25, 2005
Vouchers in Washington D.C.
Alfonso over at Hispanic Pundit recently urged everyone to read a great post by Casey Lartigue... and then added some harsh words of his own.
Over at his site, Lartigue recounts the experience of recently volunteering for the Washington Scholarship Fund's final recruitment session. This is the program which provides Washington D.C. school children with up to $7,500, in the form of a voucher, for school tuition to help them escape from some of the worst public schools in the nation (thank you Sen. Dianne Feinstein). I'll second Alfonso's advice and urge everyone to go over and give Casey's post a read. It does a great job of putting a face behind some of the people who are benefiting from this controversial program.
School vouchers have been the only issue to ever motivate me to get directly involved in politics. Proposition 38 was on the ballot in 2000, a initiative that would have given parents a $4000 voucher to use at the school of their choice, and I was determined to help it pass. I'd drive out to weekly meetings in East County, had signs in the back of my Nissan I'd put up around town, write letters to politicians, passed out over 1000 pamphlets I'd written with bumper stickers in support of Prop 38, and had my flag football team up at UCSD wearing bright yellow "Yes on Prop. 38" shirts as our team uniform. I even got into an argument with Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne over the issue at a speech he gave in San Diego.
It has just never made sense how much opposition there is to letting parents choose a school for their child, especially when the families these programs are meant to benefit are the poorest in our society who are forced to attend some of the worst schools. But I know what the real issue is about: teachers' unions and money. If parents were free to send their kids to the school of their choice, many parents might choose private schools where the teachers were not unionized. This could represent a huge loss to both the coffers and political clout of the unions. That's also why the unions spent around $80 million to defeat the proposition at the same time they complained schools were underfunded.
During the campaign, a teacher I knew gave me the packet her union had sent her on how to debate against Prop. 38. It included a variety of pamphlets and flyers explaining what was wrong with the proposition. It also included a small card you could keep in your wallet or purse with 10 rules to follow when debating the issue. First on the list was: "#1. Never defend the current system."
If that's not a telling statement I don't know what is.
There are lots of great parts to Casey's post but I particularly connected with this excerpt:
It was stressful talking to these parents, hearing their stories, knowing how desperate they are to get their children out of the situations they are in now. I'm on the WSF board, I volunteer, and every time I leave one of those sessions I feel drained. When I hear people denounce the program, I always like to check from where the person is talking. It is never in the room or at any Washington Scholarship Fund events. That's because the parents would probably rip them up. It is so much easier to denounce when you aren't involved or have an ideological or political axe to grind.
I volunteer at a local charter school where I've also helped review applications for the new incoming class of 6th graders. It's a heartbreaking experience because you read the applications and essays completed by both 10 year old 5th graders and their parents knowing in advance that out of the 500 applicants, the school only has room for 100. It should be noted this pool of 500 has already been trimmed down since all applicants must come from a low-income family (per Federal school lunch criteria) and students are ineligible if a parent or guardian has graduated from a 4-year college.
You read those applications knowing that you could create such a great school with all these kids we are forced to turn away. There is such a strong demand for better schooling and all these parents need is a means. Hopefully, through the effort of people like Casey, the success stories out of Washington will be impossible to ignore, and it will be a model that will spread across the country.
Posted by Peter Mork at 5:49 PM | Comments | TrackBack
February 24, 2005
Dominos: Part 2
"We are with the Muslims, the Druze, together for a free Lebanon," said one member of a Christian militia. "Tell America we are waiting for them to invade, all of us."
Major events are unfolding in the Middle East and I am surprised they are not getting more play from the major media outlets. The assassination of Rafiq Hariri set off a massive protest, unheard of in Beirut, that seems to have forced the Syrian government into withdrawing from Lebanon. This cry for freedom has direct parallels to both the recent "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, as well the Iraqi elections that took place less than a month ago.
This article from the Washington Times remarks on the inspiration the protesters have drawn from Ukraine. As their "tent city" grows, we can only hope that the outcome is resolved as peacefully.
Inspired by December's Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia a year earlier, the protesters have begun to call their action the "Cedar Revolt" in a tribute to the tree that adorns the Lebanese flag.
A member of the banned FPM, who identified himself only by the pseudonym "Pascal," said the protesters were considering another large demonstration tomorrow, "but the plan is to remain peaceful until Monday."
If the no-confidence vote "fails or is blocked by the Syrian lackeys, then Monday we will escalate the protests."
A constant stream of mourners and protesters swells the camp population in the evenings. Food and water are brought in by supporters, while a nearby Dunkin' Donuts and a Virgin Megastore provide bathroom facilities.
As during Monday's mass demonstration, the police and army are keeping a respectful distance from these protesters and seem unwilling to use violence against them. Only those directly in front of the parliament have ammunition clips in their rifles.
Another piece from a few days ago shows that the Iraqi elections are an equal source of inspiration. David Ignatius in the Washington Post relays an interview he conducted this week with Walid Jumblatt, a Lebanese leader who used to accommodate the Syrian occupation, and has been a vocal critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. With that in mind, this quote is very telling:
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
It appears Bush's domino theory is working. Much as a free Poland was the dagger in the heart of the USSR, a democratic Iraq may mean an end to the dictatorships of the Middle East. But the question remains, what will be the next step? Will country after country begin to go through peaceful transfers to democratic states? or will violence accompany the struggle for freedom? It should be noted that if not for a few military officials in the Ukraine, we now know the protests in Kiev could have easily turned into a bloodbath.
In his State of the Union, Bush predicted that the elections in Iraq would "inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran." He also made it clear to the people of Iran that "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." It was a bold and powerful statement.
But what if these governments refuse to back down? There is a real possibility for violence and calls for the U.S. to back up these pledges. At that point the American public must decide how closely they equate the freedom of the people in the Middle East with that of their own. It's a decision we may be facing sooner than we think.
Thanks to TIA Daily the many links above.
Posted by Peter Mork at 5:44 PM | Comments | TrackBack
February 23, 2005
Clinton on Private Accounts
Below is a quote from Clinton in 2002 on reforming Social Security. He's against privatization but for private accounts.
Today, a little more than two years after Clinton's remarks, Democrats in the House and Senate are trying to equate the two for political gain. But everyone needs to keep in mind the following: Allowing individuals to keep a portion of their payroll taxes in an individual account is not equivalent to getting the government out of Social Security.
Clinton grasped this concept. Here is his quote:
If you don't like privatizing Social Security and I don't like it very much, but you want to do something to try to increase the rate of return, what are your options? Well one thing you could do is to give people one or two percent of the payroll tax, with the same options that Federal employees have with their retirement accounts; where you have three mutual funds that almost always perform as well or better than the market and a fourth option to buy government bonds, so you get the guaranteed social security return and a hundred percent safety just like you have with Social Security.
You can't just attack the other guy's ideas unless you have something to say.
Posted by Peter Mork at 9:55 AM | Comments | TrackBack
February 21, 2005
Immigration Reform
Yesterday, The Union-Tribune published a letter to the editor I wrote regarding immigration reform. They cut it down a bit but I was still pleased with the version they put in print. If you have a chance give both the published and original letters a read.
You can't turn on talk radio today without John & Ken, Savage, and now even Rush Limbaugh screaming their heads off about illegal immigration. Now, I understand that there is a cost to immigration given our semi-welfare state, but the solution to this problem is not to A) stir up anger towards the many immigrants who are just coming here to work then B) turn this anger into calls for Congress to build a bigger fence and limit the amount of people who can enter this country.
There are other ways to address our problems with immigration while still staying true to the fact that immigration is a benefit to our nation (see here). Immigration is the foundation of this country that gives us the diverse culture we enjoy each and every day. We also should take pride in the fact that our country is the envy of so many. This last point was articulated well by my Governor at the Republican National Convention this past summer. He said:
We are still the lamp lighting the world, especially those who struggle. No matter in what labor camp they slave, no matter in what injustice they're trapped, they hear our call. They see our light. And they feel the pull of our freedom.
They come here, as I did, because they believe -- they believe in us. They come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, "If only I can get to America."
I hope his Party remembers this message as they tackle the issue of immigration reform in the coming year.
Posted by Peter Mork at 9:14 AM | Comments | TrackBack
February 20, 2005
Hopkins over Eastman
Bernard Hopkins beat Howard Eastman tonight adding one more notch to my belt of incorrect predictions. While Hopkins isn't the most exciting fighter, how this guy can continue to perform like he did tonight at the age of 40 is beyond me. Credit where credit is due. His next move should be up to light-heavyweight to fight Tarver because he has more or less cleared out the middleweight division.
Posted by Peter Mork at 1:54 AM | Comments | TrackBack
February 17, 2005
Evolutionary Psychology
I received an email from Will Wilkinson a few days ago letting me know that he had written an article, Capitalism and Human Nature, for the latest Cato Policy Report. Having just finished the piece I strongly recommend you give it a read.
The premise deals with evolutionary psychology and the theory that since we slowly evolved from hunter-gathers some 50,000 year ago, many of the psychological traits that evolved then are still with us today. This helps to explain why some aspects of modern society are easy for us to deal with, while others require quite a bit more exertion. Some points that are mentioned are the fact that we are coalitional, hierarchical, envious zero-sum thinkers, and that we understand mutually beneficial exchange. These characteristics can all theoretically be traced to evolution in our distant past and have implications in terms of how our society functions presently.
It got me thinking about the introduction to this essay by Paul Romer:
In the modern version of an old legend, an investment banker asks to be paid by placing one penny on the first square of a chess board, two pennies on the second square, four on the third, etc. If the banker had asked that only the white squares be used, the initial penny would double in value thirty-one times, leaving $21.5 million on the last square. Using both the black and the white squares makes the penny grow to $92,000,000 billion.
People are reasonably good at forming estimates based on addition, but for operations such as compounding that depend on repeated multiplication, we systematically underestimate how fast things grow.
Now tying this in with the discussion above, hunter-gatherers could possibly need to make estimates based on addition, but clearly they would not need to make estimates based on compounding in order to survive. It follows then that our brain could evolve without this ability.
This fits nicely into one of the reasons that private accounts for social security are such a hard sell. Just as I'm amazed that doubling a penny 32 times leads to $21.5 million, no matter how many times I see the numbers, I'm equally shocked that investing $2000 a year over a 45 year period ($90,000 of actual savings) turns into $1,251,725.52 if it compounds at 9%. It's just not something that is intuitive. So try as he might, pointing out that a portion of our payroll taxes will now compound at 6.5% instead of 1.5% will never have the desired effect that Bush is looking for.
Now this isn't to say we can't understand the process if we rational think about it, but it clearly involves some extra effort.
Finally, it must be said that Will is just a damn good writer (despite the fact that sometimes what he writes about is over my head). Take a look at how well he starts off the piece and then go through the whole thing:
In the spring of 1845, Karl Marx wrote, ". . . the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." Marx's idea was that a change in the "ensemble of social relations" can change "the human essence."
In June 2004 the communist North Korean government issued a statement to its starving citizens recommending the consumption of pine needles. Pyongyang maintained that pine needle tea could effectively prevent and treat cancer, arteriosclerosis, diabetes, cerebral hemorrhage, and even turn grey hair to black.
Tragically, human nature isn't at all as advertised, and neither is pine needle tea. According to the U.S. State Department, at least one million North Koreans have died of famine since 1995.
Marx's theory of human nature, like Kim Jong Il's theory of pine needle tea, is a biological fantasy, and we have the corpses to prove it. Which may drive us to wonder: if communism is deadly because it is contrary to human nature, does that imply that capitalism, which is contrary to communism, is distinctively compatible with human nature?
A growing scientific discipline called evolutionary psychology specializes in uncovering the truth about human nature, and it is already illuminating what we know about the possibilities of human social organization. How natural is capitalism?
Posted by Peter Mork at 10:32 PM | Comments | TrackBack
February 15, 2005
NHL Lockout and Boxing
It looks like the NHL season is about to be canceled. I can't say I'll shed any tears if the season is called off. Not only would this be a plus as NBA highlights on SportsCenter won't have to compete with their NHL counterparts, but it looks like it's helping out another of my favorite sports: boxing.
All across North America, arenas that normally host NHL hockey remain empty. And if a deal isn't struck by this afternoon, there is a good chance that the NHL could be on ice for the rest of the season.
And with this, the business of boxing could be the biggest benefactor.
This Saturday night at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, Bernard Hopkins will defend his middleweight championship against Howard Eastman. If the Los Angeles Kings were in action, this fight would be taking place somewhere else, as would have the December 18th light heavyweight showdown between Glen Johnson and Antonio Tarver.
Dates that were once reserved for hockey are now vacant and more and more they are being filled with boxing events.
Also, you heard it here first: Howard Eastman (the boxer pictured above) will upset Bernard Hopkins this Saturday. I haven't seen Eastman fight in a few years but he is younger, quicker, and most important... cocky. Should make for a good fight.
A quick disclaimer before you rush off to Vegas to bet on the underdog. Some of my other guaranteed upset predictions have been Golota over Tyson, Tyson over Lewis, Gatti over De la Hoya, De la Hoya over Hopkins, and I could keep going. I figure one of these times I have to get one right.
Posted by Peter Mork at 9:18 PM | Comments | TrackBack
February 13, 2005
Question
Anyone have advise on how to stop trackback spam? I'm getting like 20 a day from some online poker site. I thought it would stop but it's been a week straight now and I'm getting sick of deleting these things. Hit the 'Comments' link below if you have any suggestions. Thanks.
Posted by Peter Mork at 7:22 PM | Comments | TrackBack
February 10, 2005
FDR and Social Security
Via John Fund:
Republican members of Congress have a ready response for Democrats crying foul over President Bush's constant references to Franklin Roosevelt and other icons of liberalism to bolster his call for Social Security reform.
They note that in an address to Congress on January 17, 1935, President Roosevelt foresaw the need to move beyond the pay-as-you-go financing of the current Social Security system. "For perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions," the president allowed. But after that, he explained, it would be necessary to move to what he called "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." In other words, his call for the establishment of Social Security directly anticipated today's reform agenda: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans," FDR explained.
"What Roosevelt was talking about is the need to update Social Security sometime around 1965 with what today we would call personal accounts," says one top GOP member of the Ways and Means Committee. "By my reckoning we are only about 40 years late in addressing his concerns on how make Social Security solvent."
Update: I'm getting some complaints that I'm posting Republican propoganda with this selective quote. I'll have more to say but here is a reply to the above by Al Franken and here is the unedited quote from FDR:
In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.
Sounds to me that FDR A) understood the need to get part of the Social Security system in real assets and B) recongized a way to do this was through "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."
But hey... I report, you decide.
Posted by Peter Mork at 5:14 PM | Comments | TrackBack
February 9, 2005
Making the Top 1%
J. Howard Crews, in a letter to the editor of the Union Tribune today, makes an error with regards to who constitutes the top 1% of income earners. I point it out because the data he criticizes I used in a post a few months back. Crews states:
I must dispute the information given by Jerry Grossman (Letters, Jan. 27) that those making $293,415 and above constitute the top 1 percent of U.S. wage earners. This low end is nowhere near being in the top 1 percent. One must make at least $1.2 million annually to be in the top percentile according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office published April 9, 2004.
This is incorrect. The report Crews cites actually shows a lower figure ($238,000 in Table 1C "Minimum Adjusted Income") as the level above which individuals enter the top 1% of wage earners.
The figures Crews uses are average income figures for those in the top 1% (again in Table 1C, "Average Income"). So his figure reflects taking the average income of everyone who makes it to at least that minimum level, from the guy that makes a penny over that cutoff up to Bill Gates who sells $1 Billion worth of stock.
Also, not sure why Crews used it but it looks like the $1.2 million average is from 1999. In 2000 this average income for the top 1% of earners jumped to $1.3 million, while in 2001 (the last year of data) it fell to $1.05 million.
Posted by Peter Mork at 8:47 AM | Comments | TrackBack
February 7, 2005
Social Security and KPBS
Last week Full Focus, a local television show on KPBS, had a special on the proposed changes to Social Security. The program featured host Gloria Penner along with three guests, Democrat Congressman Bob Filner, UCSD History professor Michael Bernstein, and San Diego County Treasurer Dan McAllister. Both Filner and Bernstein were both strongly opposed to giving workers the option of investing a portion of their payroll taxes in private accounts, while McAllister agreed that there were problems with the President's proposal and suggested the matter needed further study.
Gloria Penner did her best to add a few Bush quotes to the debate, as she realized her viewers were only getting one side of the story. But as the host of the show, she was not prepared to fully defend some of the proposed changes. The guests left viewers with the impression that there were no imminent problems with Social Security, and that the trust fund was something Americans could count on to fund their retirement far into the future.
I was dumbfounded as to why no guest was present to defend a partial privatization of Social Security, so I fired off an email to complain how one-sided the show was in my opinion.
The next night Gloria read a portion of my letter (below) on the air, followed by an explanation that while they tried to get a Republican in Congress to come on to defend the President's proposal, none took them up on their offer. Still, surely they could have found at least one professor at UCSD, USD, or SDSU who supports the President's proposal I thought to myself.
Nonetheless, I thought that was an adequate response to my complaint but to my surprise the show's Executive Producer contacted me the next day, with another explanation and a response from Bernstein regarding some of my complaints. It led to an interesting correspondence that concluded with the possibility that I might be a guest on their show when they address the issue again in the future. We'll see what happens, but no matter what I was quite impressed with the follow-up on behalf of KPBS.
One final point, the numbers I used in the email below don't really tell the whole story. I'll be posting again on that topic in the next few days so stay tuned.
Posted by Peter Mork at 10:41 PM | Comments | TrackBack
Quote of the Day
"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid... seems determined to earn the description Teddy Roosevelt applied to President John Tyler -- 'a politician of monumental littleness'...[H]e disparaged the idea of voluntary personal retirement accounts funded by portions of individuals' Social Security taxes as 'Social Security roulette.' This is the crux of the Democrats' argument against Bush's plan: Equities markets are terribly risky -- indeed, are as irrational and risky as roulette. Think about that. Reid is saying that the risks and rewards of America's capital markets, which are the foundation of the nation's economic rationality and prosperity, are as random as the caroms of the ball in a roulette wheel. This, from a national leader, is amazing" -- columnist George Will, writing in Newsweek.
Hat Tip: OpinionJournal
Posted by Peter Mork at 9:43 AM | Comments | TrackBack
February 4, 2005
Seeking Asylum in the U.S.
This week's San Diego Reader profiles the story of two minors seeking asylum in the United States. Both are clients of my friend Chris Chouteau, who is the attorney that heads a detained minors' program at Casa Cornelia Law Center. The article is a great tribute to some of the inspiring work Chris is doing here in San Diego and is definitely worth a read.
His clients, whose names were changed for the article to Enrique (age 17) and Leticia (age 16), demonstrate what extraordinary lengths some young individuals go to in order to flee horrible situations and reach the United States. At age when I was living a carefree life simply going to high school, these two were facing harrowing situations.
For example, when asked if she was scared about starting her journey to the U.S., Leticia recounts:
"A little," Leticia reflected. "It's very hard. But it's an unforgettable experience." The lawyer, administrator, and I burst out laughing in agreement with that.
Every time the train approached a station, the girls jumped off to avoid being caught. They then made their way to the outbound tracks, purchasing food and drinks to stash in their backpacks for a ride that might last 16 to 48 hours. If they were clinging to the side of the train, "We couldn't sleep because we might fall," the girl recalled.
and here are some details from Enrique's terrifying journey:
He spent the night sleeping on a nearby hillside, and in the early morning, he spotted two teenaged boys with a canoe. They offered to take him to the other side in exchange for ten dollars, an exorbitant fee, Enrique thought. But he agreed. Once across, he proffered only five. "They threw rocks at me, but I took off running. I hid until they left."
Enrique had asked the boys if he would find a town across the river, and they told him there was only dense jungle, inhabited by snakes and other dangerous animals. But Enrique says he didn't know what else to do, so he plunged into the pathless undergrowth. He walked for hours in the fetid humidity, flinching at the startling sounds of monkeys and insects. He could smell the animals, he said; he saw snake trails everywhere. When night fell, the noises increased. He climbed a tree and tried to sleep. He says he woke around 5:00 a.m. and descended, then climbed a taller tree to try to find his bearings. He saw no trace of human habitation. Hungry and thirsty, he admitted to himself that he had to turn back.
That first day of Enrique's journey across Mexico was a harbinger of times to come. Eventually he made it out of the jungle and found his way to a town. There he met some Guatemalans heading north who agreed to take him on as a traveling companion. They knew about an "immigrant's bus." But its driver turned out to be in cahoots with machete-wielding bandits, who jumped aboard and demanded money. One of the Guatemalans then pulled out a revolver, forcing the bandits to let them go.
The article concludes happily as Enrique has been granted asylum and has moved to Los Angeles to live with his uncle and pursue his dreams. Leticia has been placed in a foster home in Michigan where she is attending high school while awaiting her asylum trial.
Congratulations to Chris for receiving some well deserved recognition.
Posted by Peter Mork at 10:53 AM | Comments | TrackBack
February 3, 2005
Social Security: Part 1
Quick post as I've been slightly neglecting my web site. Last week, TIA Daily directed me to an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times entitled: "Privatizing Social Security: 'Me' over 'We' ". In response I sent off this letter to the editor which was not published:
Dear Editor:
Benjamin R. Barber in his recent op-ed ("Privatizing Social Security: 'Me' over 'We,'" January 27) states that Social Security privatization is a "reverse social contract," which would destroy a common bond that holds our society together. But I would suggest that if the basis of our society rests on such an unstable Ponzi scheme, we are in much more trouble than Dr. Barber can imagine.
In the year 2042 I will be 65 years old and ready to retire. This is the same year that the Trustees of the Social Security trust fund estimate that my promised benefits will have to be drastically cut. That, or taxes must be raised on younger workers.
This option would be unfair to my future children and the younger generation as a whole. Why not let me set aside a portion of the 12.4% of my income that currently is taken for social security? This way, I'll be able to rely on my own savings for retirement, instead of forcing younger workers to pay even more into a system they may not collect from themselves.
Ultimately, what bonds us together is not our broken Social Security system, but the principles that this country was founded on, namely, a respect for each individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." A mutual understanding of that concept is what makes a "we" truly possible.
Peter Mork
San Diego, CA
The letters that were published can be viewed here. A couple were selected from fellow San Diegans.