Bill Freeland : The Marx Brothers Are Reforming Public Education

Graphic by Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog.
The Marx Brothers are
reforming public education

Hilarious, but as Groucho himself might have observed, the joke’s on us!

By Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog / June 6, 2012

CONCORD, New Hampshire -- While the relentless right-wing war on everyone else’s rights rages on, you may yearn for a moment of comic relief.

To wit I offer the great state of New Hampshire where, with the help of the reincarnated Marx Brothers, its Tea Party-dominated legislature is determined to “reform” the state’s public education system.

But more than that, what follows is, in fact, a microcosmic glimpse of a movement growing in strength all across the nation.

1. Start with a bill that no longer makes public school attendance a requirement for any student. (Parents rule!)
2. If, however, a student actually wants to go to public school, at least postpone the trauma by killing off kindergarten. (All they really need is Sesame Street, right?)
3. But once in school, what if parents disagree with what’s taught -- like, say, that the earth goes around the sun? Give them the right to demand a special curriculum. (Science is for sissies!)
4. Of course, they might not like that curriculum either and decide on a private school. In that case why should they pay taxes to support the public school their child no longer attends? (Tax refund!)
5. But imagine if a student foolishly stays in public school. Then at least we can lower the dropout age. (More time to prepare for a career at McDonald’s.)
6. And what about the millions in education dollars the state gets from the federal “No Child Left Behind” program? Send it back! (The feds can surely find better uses for all that money than we can.)
7. And to make things really simple, why not transfer all rule-making authority from the state’s Department of Education to the legislature. (Obviously that’s where the real experts on our schools reside.)

Hilarious, but as Groucho himself might have observed, the joke’s on us! Because incredibly, bills designed to do all of this and more have been introduced in the New Hampshire legislature in just the last 18 months alone.* And not just in New Hampshire but across the country. (Still laughing?)

Who cares if only bill number three has actually become law. (Apparently there are still enough grownups in the state Senate to rein in the 10-year-olds now running the state House.) But they’re working on more. Much more!

For example, on May 16 the legislature authorized the transfer of up to $130 million of public school funds to private and religious schools over 10 years in the form of tax credits to businesses that provide “scholarships” for students who attend these schools.

These scholarship dollars will be deducted from state funding for the school districts from which these students withdraw. Which means local property taxes will make up for the loss. Or not. The measure passed with a veto-proof majority.

Of course, why pass mere laws when you can do something more substantial, like changing the state constitution!

Under a proposed amendment now under consideration (CACR 12), for example, it would no longer be the state’s responsibility to provide New Hampshire children an adequate public education. Which means that the legislature could change the rules and just, you know, decide to leave it all up to local municipalities -- including funding -- regardless how poor a given community might be. (Shared responsibility? Where do you think you are, Massachusetts!)

So between this amendment and the 50 measures lawmakers introduced during the past year, the direction is clear: starve public schools while subsidizing private and religious schools, even home schooling.

But here’s the point: This push is not coming primarily from people within the state. Lawmakers are responding to some 20 national organizations -- like the Cato Institute, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and FreedomWorks. And these organizations are not just operating in New Hampshire. They have public education in their sights in state houses across the country.

This school year is nearly over. But the fight to make the next year better for our children continues. Which means it’s time we all do some homework -- and then do some real work -- in our local communities!

*To read the bills cited above simply Google “N.H. bill” plus the appropriate number: 1) HB595, 2) HB631, 3) HB542, 4) SB340, 5) HB429, 6) HB1413 and 7) HB1360. For the constitutional amendment, see: CACR 12.

[In the Sixties, Bill Freeland was a contributor to The Rag in Austin and Liberation News Service in New York. Read more articles by Bill Freeland on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Bill Freeland : Republican Roulette

Graphic by Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog.
Republican roulette:
Romney vs. the rebels

By Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog / March 20, 2012

As the Republican nominating process enters its whirlwind phase -- with nearly a primary a week scheduled over the next three months -- it’s not just delegates that will be up for grabs. More fundamentally, it will also be the identity of the party itself.

On the surface, of course, it’s been between Romney and “Anybody But” -- a revolving cast of challengers dating back to Donald Trump. But now, as we enter the crucial home stretch, the pitchfork is firmly in the grasp of challenger Rick Santorum.

Yet as the bitterness of the contest has revealed, the nominating process has actually devolved into a rancorous sibling rivalry between two symbolic poles: an entitled Establishment and a diverse rebel insurgency.

So what began merely as a political contest between personalities has become something entirely different: a fight between two radically different paradigms.

But here’s the twist: This could be the year that the losers in the GOP primary process could ultimately have as lasting an influence as the winners on the party’s future as they plot their return.

Say, for example, the party elites get their way -- and their man -- and Romney is nominated but loses to President Obama.

The elites, who are bitterly opposed by the rebels, will be disgraced and the insurgents vindicated. It will be 1976 all over again, when the party mainstream mistakenly stuck with Ford over Reagan -- and lost to Carter. They corrected that mistake four years later, signing on with the Gipper and his purer vision of movement conservatism.

Next time today’s agitators will likely look early on to reincarnate a symbolic Reagan and move still further to the right to win in 2016.

Now compare that to a victory in Tampa by the “Anybody But Romney” wing of the GOP. It would be a stunning victory -- but what if they lose to Obama?

In that case, welcome to 1964. That year Goldwater proclaimed extremism was no vice -- but learned to his regret that moderation in pursuit of the presidency was a virtue -- as he lost to LBJ in a landslide.

What his party learned was the virtue of moderation -- and succeeded with Nixon four years later. A loss in 2012 will likely mean the party next time will avoid the mistakes of 1964 and seek a win with a similarly moderate candidate in 2016.

Now what about the Democrats? A parallel scenario could also emerge.

Recent polls, reflecting both better economic trends and perhaps a contrast with the bitter GOP primary battles, give the incumbent Obama a slight advantage over his challengers. But worsening job numbers and high gas prices could still put the outcome in doubt.

Should he lose, the signature policy of his administration, bipartisanship in the face of GOP obstructionism (which has driven many Democrats to distraction), would likely be repudiated -- resulting in a more assertive nominee next time. The likely outcome: a more aggressive party and an even more polarized political process.

The lesson in all this: hopes for the future are often haunted by the failures of the past -- and sometimes even defined by them. Thus it can be argued that instead of imagining the future, we sometimes settle merely for avoiding the mistakes of the past.

If that is the lesson the losers of 2012 take as a guide for the future, then their party and our nation will be the poorer for it.

[In the Sixties, Bill Freeland was a contributor to The Rag in Austin and Liberation News Service in New York. Read more articles by Bill Freeland on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Bill Freeland : A Balanced Budget for All Citizens!

Graphic by Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog.
Proposed:
A balanced budget amendment for all citizens

The guys who now work at bank loan departments and refinance companies would finally have to go out and find honest work.

By Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog / January 23, 2012

Like many Americans, I am thrilled by the Republicans’ bold support for a balanced budget amendment.

It’s the best way to get our fiscal house in order, they tell cheering crowds across the country.

But here’s my question: does the proposal go far enough!

Consider: if it’s good to limit new federal spending to only what the government takes in during a given year, why not place that same constitutional restriction on citizens? If Washington has to start living debt-free, why shouldn’t every American have to do the same?

That’s fair, right?

So here’s my simple solution: just as with the government under a balanced budget amendment, individual Americans should no longer be able take on more new debt than they could pay off by the end of each year.

Imagine: every American, every December 31st, with every bill from that year paid in full -- just like Uncle Sam!

Here’s some examples of how it would work:

Say you’re a young person about to go off to college but the money you’ve faithfully saved from a sidewalk lemonade stand or mowing lawns simply won’t cover it. Yet, unlike so many students, you don’t want to get a $100,000 bill along with your diploma.

Under this new pay-as-you-go amendment, you would only enroll in the courses you can pay for during each academic year. Result: no student loans -- ever! Of course, at that rate, it would probably take at least a dozen years to finish a four- year degree, but you’d be doing your part to fight nanny socialism.

Once out of school, new grads, of course, will want their first new car. But that would mean an expensive auto loan that can take years to pay off.

No more! Thanks to my consumer balanced budget amendment, these young people will escape that debt trap. What they will be required to do instead is to look for a reasonably priced used car, which with any luck will last them until they have saved up enough to buy their dream car for cash.

The next obvious step for these thrifty Americans would be owning a home. But as with their educational and transportation needs, they will have to save before they spend -- again, just like Uncle Sam.

That will mean finding suitable rental accommodations, perhaps for decades, since multi-year, debt-creating mortgages would be abolished as un-American. Meanwhile they will develop the moral rigor that only postponed gratification can impart.

Now see yourself in old age. Just like our newly prudent government, downsizing will be the order of the day -- including no borrowing allowed against home equity, for example, to pay for nursing home care, etc. That might be considered a downside until you recall that our Founding Fathers never had any such a safety net and yet they managed to build a great nation.

Such a consumer-centered amendment would have other benefits as well. To avoid the temptation to over spend on credit cards, for example, we would simply outlaw that form of “plastic money.” In addition, the amendment would also do away with other sorts of other easy credit. As a result the guys who now work at bank loan departments and refinance companies would finally have to go out and find honest work.

And by the way, since the Supreme Count has determined that corporations are people when it comes to speech, why not treat them like people when it comes to debt. So all of the above applies to them as well.

I’m not saying that a return to a nineteenth century financial system will be easy. After all, spending only what you literally have in your pocket will be challenging.

But if we are really serious about solving our debt crisis, public and private -- as the balanced budget advocates surely are -- this new amendment is what it’s going to take -- both from our government and from ourselves!

[In the Sixties, Bill Freeland was a contributor to The Rag in Austin and Liberation News Service in New York. Read more articles by Bill Freeland on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Bill Freeland : With 'Occupy,' the People are the Point

Image from Addicting Info.
‘Occupy America’:
The people are the point

By Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog / November 17, 2011

The “Occupy” movement, which began as a small gathering in a private park near Wall Street in New York City in September, has already swept across America and into another dozen countries around the world.

While these gatherings are local, their concerns are global. They are responding to economic and social trends that have been developing for decades. But the catalyst was the financial collapse of 2008.

In the aftermath of that collapse, what has become clear to many Americans­­ -- following aggressive bailouts for the banks but inaction on lost jobs and homes -- is that the nation’s economic system functions differently depending on which side of this divide you are on.

People in the top 1%, for example, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), between 1979 and 2007 saw their pretax income grow by an average of 275%. That’s an average increase of $700,000. People in the lower 90%, however, saw their pre-tax income actually fall by $900 for the same period.

As a result the CBO reports that now 1% of Americans control 35% of the nation’s wealth, which is the highest level of wealth disparity since 1929, the last great financial crash.

Occupy supporters advocate for the “99%ers," their now-famous shorthand for the majority of Americans. These are the people who increasingly find themselves with under-water mortgages and dangerously depleted savings. And with persistent 9% unemployment, they are just as likely to be out of work as out of their homes.

But when they look to Washington, what they find is gridlock. Most solutions include severe spending cuts, which many economists warn will likely result in a replay of the Hoover Administration’s policies of the early 1930s that only deepened that generation’s Depression.

And lawmakers are not the only bad actors. While the financial fallout continues to be borne by the victims of the crisis, those on Wall Street and elsewhere who created the mess have kept their profits without ever being held to account.

Unlike with the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, today -- after three years and hundreds of investigations -- not a single criminal charge has been filed by the Justice Department, the SEC, or any state Attorney General against a major figure in the financial industry.

For the Occupy movement, all of these developments are interrelated.

Financial and corporate interests hold the money and the influence they buy. That influence has produced the kind of tax code and financial deregulation that, over time, have lead directly to the huge economic imbalances which Occupy exposes.

Critics charge that the movement to date has no agenda to address all it decries. The Occupiers respond that, since the movement is barely 60 days old, the criticism is premature. But more than that, with their bottom-up approach, the process by which solutions are arrived at, they believe, is equally important as the solutions themselves.

It’s impossible to know now how public opinion will ultimately judge this effort. From my perspective, however, the movement at this early stage is similar to the lunch-counter-sit-in stage of the 1960s protests in the South. Except this time the demonstrators are fighting for economic, rather than civil, rights.

The loud turmoil and resulting media scrutiny is similar to those days 50 years ago, but it is also likely that someone is already at work on his or her own “I Have a Dream” speech.

[In the Sixties, Bill Freeland was a contributor to The Rag in Austin and Liberation News Service in New York. Read more articles by Bill Freeland on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Bill Freeland : Electric Cars Not All That 'Green'

Graphic by Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog.
All-electric cars:
The not-so-green alternative

By Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog / September 30, 2010

Conventional wisdom has just assumed electric cars are clean because there's no tailpipe. So the focus has only been on convenience and cost. We need to go back to square one and ask: what's the point, since they're no cleaner than what we already have -- plus they have a short range and long recharge times.

With new all-electric vehicles (EV's to the trade) soon coming to market, there’s a drumbeat building that proclaims them the next stage of the green revolution. They promise a convenient, cost-effective and clean alternative to the gas guzzlers we’ve been hoping to replace for years.

The only problem: the data so far show that none of this is true. Most surprising, going electric is at least as bad for the environment as staying with the fuel-efficient, gas-powered cars on the road today.

This is not the conclusion one would expect, given the hype.

Let’s start with the first two “benefits”:

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) lists one EV model currently available and eight more “coming soon.” Four others are promised by 2013. In terms of driving range, DOE reports these cars go only “about 100–200 miles” on each charge. And recharging the battery pack can take “4 to 8 hours.” Hardly convenient.

And the initial cost? Of those with prices available, DOE finds the average base sticker price will be $43,600. Not exactly cheap.

And then there’s the upkeep -- particularly replacement batteries.

Replacements for the Tesla Roadster, the only EV model now available (for $109,000!), for example, cost around $36,000. Tesla, however, offers the option to pre-order them now (for $12,000) for delivery in seven years, the time the originals are predicted to wear out.

Still, there are likely to be some who will be willing to accept these limitations for the greater good of the planet. But even that is more than these cars can deliver.

Here’s the reason: Whether you’re getting your “juice” from a pump or a plug, that energy is produced from fossil fuels -- either at an oil refinery or a coal-fired electric power plant. So either way, cars pollute. The difference is whether the emissions are discharged locally from your tailpipe or somewhere else by a electric generating facility.

To understand why, imagine you’re making a trip of 30 miles. In today’s typical fuel-efficient car, that takes about one gallon of gas, which according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), produces 19.4 pounds of CO2.

Now consider the EV alternative. Their power consumption is measured, not in gallons of gas, but kilowatt-hours of electricity. To drive the same distance in the EVs now under development will take an average 10.6 kilowatt-hours of electricity. And according to the EPA, generating that much power results in 21.5 pounds of CO2 -- which is two pounds more than burning a gallon of gas!

So bottom line: there’s no free ride for any automotive technology based on fossil fuels.

Future advances in EV technology could increase battery performance. And mass production could bring down the sticker price. But gas-powered cars that get 40 miles per gallon are also on the horizon. And nothing is likely to surpass their driving range.

So EVs are likely to be only a “second car” at best. Which means the jury is still out on whether EVs will ever make sense.

But for now, if you’re considering electric transportation, you’re limited by driving range, recharge times and higher sticker prices -- and overall the planet is still worse off!

So, sadly for the environment, while all-electric cars are the new thing, they aren’t any better than what we have now.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Bill Freeland : More Evolution at Ten

Rag Blog graphic by Bill Freeland. See Bill's video version here.
Verified by a second source:

Image courtesy of Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog.
The Rag Blog / Posted September 15, 2010

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Freeland: Banking Goes Broadway

Pay Pals: Getting Big Bucks from Banks
By Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog / October 7, 2009

As MegaBank’s CFO, I’ve prepared the following guidelines for the upcoming meeting of the executive compensation committee.

(I say “upcoming” but, of course, I mean “long past.” It seems notice of this year’s meeting was once again sent late and as a result none of you were here. Don’t be concerned. It went off without a hitch. Simply sign below to confirm receipt of this back-dated mandatory communication.)

Item 1: Hello and Goodbye

First, let me welcome all of the newcomers -- which is to say, all of you. As you are aware, committee members are replaced annually to promote the bank’s goal of presenting policies that are always fresh -- at least to each of you.

The benefit in all of this is that there is little need for you to be concerned about details you’re likely to forget by the end of the meeting anyway. We apologize in advance if the new amenity we’ve added to the gathering creates a distraction. As I’m sure you know, access to an open bar during all the deliberations has recently become a widely accepted practice in our industry. What’s more, should you have any other needs that require attention (either here or in an adjoining room), feel free to consult the friendly companion who has been assigned to you for that purpose.

Item 2. Newly Strengthened Standards

In light of the recent financial crisis (or as we prefer to call it, “opportunity”), the time of business as usual is long past. Time was when hard work and political connections were all you needed to succeed in this business. Not anymore. Today we have a new partner: the federal government. As a result we are now free to move beyond merely rewarding success. In this new age we can concentrate exclusively on the rewards themselves.

Which means that the work of this committee can assume a sharply different focus. Having become really too big to fail also means we are now big enough to accept the rewards of this new status. Which is why this year’s bonus package, while it may appear exorbitant to others who have not achieved our level of systemic threat, we believe is simply too big to forego.

Item 3: Short-Term vs. Long Term Goals

If there is one thing this new realty has taught us it is that we need to focus more on long-term stability rather than short-term gain. This will require raising our sights above today’s quick profit and becoming more concerned with projecting earnings much further out. Say, a month or two -- at least. In this context, we hereby dedicate ourselves to the long-term goal of a minimum of two booms before every bust.

But this kind if discipline comes at a price. Which, of course, brings us again to the compensation committee. Long-term perspective merits long-term pay. Therefore, we will be proposing the industry’s first “better than life” lifetime pay. The checks keep coming as long as we (or our beneficiaries) keep cashing them.

Item 4. New Levels of Accountability

We have all grown up to respect the importance of the work ethic. In recent years that has meant the grinding demands of working from ten to four for a solid three days a week with only a two-hour break for lunch. But in this new age of bailouts and corporate consolidations, we call for a new definition of the term “work” itself. Who anymore really believes that this requires time actually spent at a desk. Or for that matter, even at the office.

No, work can now assume a new existential dimension. Now the new definition of “executive performance” can be inextricably joined to “executive existence” itself. We no longer merely do our jobs. We are our jobs. Recognizing this new reality, however, presents a unique challenge to the compensation committee.

Existence obviously requires a 24-hour commitment. And as a “24-hour executive,” our compensation must be similarly comprehensive. We exist around the clock. We should be paid around the clock. Seen from this perspective, executive pay that was once considered outrageous is now merely au currant.

And given what we’ve been through over these last months, that seems the least we can do for ourselves.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Ask Yourself, 'How Valuable Is My Health?'

Death Panels: Let Me Explain
By Bill Freeland / The Rag Blog / August 19, 2009

As regular readers of these pages are aware, we seek to be a resource for information about the health care debate from an industry perspective. So let me begin with a current hot topic: “Death Panels.”

Let me explain.

It should come as no surprise that here we recognize, to borrow Al Gore’s convenient term, “an inconvenient truth”: which is to say that, despite our best efforts, we have yet to achieve the goal of universal immortality for any of our citizens.

The rumored reappearances of Elvis notwithstanding, we must accept that at some point each of us will one day finally “leave the building.”

This is a difficult moment, not merely for the deceased, but for family and friends, among whom we, of course -- as providers of primary or secondary health care coverage -- count ourselves.

Of course, as in any family, differences arise about priorities in such a close relationship. Which helps to explain why we find it necessary on occasion to take a “tough love” approach when the loved one seeks an experimental treatment, an expensive joint replacement, or more than one night’s hospital stay after surgery.

All of which leads us to this so-called “death panel” option. Predictably, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about what the industry is actually advocating here. It’s often said that no one can place a premium on human life. Indeed, our critics would have you believe that premiums are our entire life. Absurd! Premiums are in fact merely a society’s mechanism for keeping score in the game of who lives and who dies.

Ask yourself, how valuable is my health? Answer: simply check your monthly insurance statement. Nowhere in the Western world are insurance premiums as high as in this country. Which is as good a gauge as any of the value we place on your well being.

Of course, we would like to say that your life (and our premiums) could go on forever. But they can’t. Which is why we think it prudent from time to time to let us help you review your options.

Let me explain.

Remember that beloved goldfish your parents bought you for your sixth birthday which somehow survived until after you went away to college? Now, remember when it suddenly hit you: a teenage goldfish is a biological impossibility!? And remember how at that moment the crushing realization of mortality descended upon you? How many stand-ins were there for the original “Goldilocks,” you wondered? How could you ever trust your parents -- or anyone else for that matter -- ever again?

The idea of a “death panel” is in no way meant to balance the scales for that injury as you come to consider the circumstances of your parents’ passing. At least not on a conscious level. No, rather it is merely an attempt to lift that awesome responsibility from you and place it in the hands of a bureaucrat -- and I might point out -- not an insurance company bureaucrat but a government bureaucrat! That should satisfy the reformers -- and help you deal with an empty “family fish bowl.”

Of course, the whole idea is bound to create yet another firestorm of criticism from the other opposite side of the... grave site, so to speak. And we’ll have to accept strict regulation of everything, naturally.

For example, we’ll need special treatment for the few still able to pay for coverage, as distinct from the unfortunately underinsured many. No need to hurry anyone along if they can afford to be made comfortable in a first-class nursing home. And there should also be a sensitivity for facilities that maintain an around-the-clock medical team. Reducing the number of patients in such settings can only increase costs for those not yet at death’s door. Controlling costs must be a priority!

Clearly, we stand on the threshold of change for the living -- or as our actuarial specialists prefer, the dying.

Let me explain.

The "inconvenient" question: "when will I die?" would now be determined by an efficient cost-benefit formula: which is to say -- whenever the “death panel” says so.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...