Public Policy and Governance – Page 321

Crushing Their Dreams

In last night’s GOP debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney once again promised that, as President, he would veto the Dream Act.

I’ll admit that I find opposition to the Dream Act incomprehensible. I was really disappointed when Dick Lugar responded to the rightwing challenge from Richard Mourdock by withdrawing his long-time sponsorship of that measure. And I am constantly surprised and disheartened by those who are so rabidly anti-illegal-immigration that they see nothing wrong with punishing children for the acts of their parents.

The Dream Act would provide (conditional) permanent residency to undocumented residents of “good moral character” who graduate from US high schools, arrived in the US as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill’s enactment. If they complete two years in the military, or two years at a four-year institution of higher learning, they can obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within that six year period, they may qualify for permanent residency if they have “acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or has completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in the United States” or have “served in the armed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, received an honorable discharge.”

People for whom illegal immigration is a high-priority issue almost always defend that position by insisting that it isn’t the race or ethnicity of the people involved–that it is a question of rewarding law-breaking. Okay, I get that. But if the point is to punish those who break the law, why punish children who made no such decision, who had no choice in the matter? Most of these children know no other home but America, speak no language but English, and want nothing more than to be contributing citizens. It is heartless to insist that they must be deported to countries with which they are totally unfamiliar.

Not to get all biblical about it, but why visit the sins of the fathers on the children?

Why crush their dreams?

Comments

Not-So-Private Enterprise

This morning’s New York Times has a story about Mitt Romney’s campaign-trail praise for a “private” enterprise that–just coincidentally–happens to be owned by one of his largest contributors. It’s a story that could undoubtedly be written about several of the other candidates in an era when money makes the political world go around, and it wouldn’t merit much more than a sigh and a shrug if it weren’t for two things: the enterprise in question and the increasingly dishonest characterization of what constitutes “private enterprise.”

The business that Romney praises as a “cost-effective” alternative to soaring tuition rates is a for-profit college in Florida named Full Sail University. As the Times points out,

“Mr. Romney did not mention the cost of tuition at Full Sail, which runs more than 80,000, for example, for a 21-month program in ‘video game art.'”

Nor did he mention the institution’s 14% graduation rate.

In fact, there has been a growing recognition that many, if not most, for-profit colleges are royal rip-offs, promising students credentials that prove worthless in the marketplace and vastly overcharging for poor-quality instruction. In response, President Obama has proposed new regulations that would make it much more difficult for students attending such institutions to receive federal aid.

And that leads to the problem of mis-characterization. The reason so many of these for-profit colleges are lobbying so frantically against the Obama proposals is that they are “private” enterprises in name only. They depend almost entirely upon the financial aid available to students courtesy of the American taxpayer.

I’m told that for-profit colleges got their biggest boost in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the availability of the GI Bill promised quick profits to educational entrepreneurs who could best market their programs. Today, most of them would disappear without the ability to tap public funds.

We have a long history in this country of politicians extolling the virtues of those who fund their campaigns, and we have an equally long history of people railing against “socialism” and “bailouts” and “welfare” while happily sucking at the public you-know-what. (Remember Ross Perot, that apostle of private-sector “can do” attitudes who made his fortune contracting with the government?)

As the Times article points out, the for-profit college industry has “been the target of withering criticism in the last few years in the wake of federal investigations into fraudulent marketing practices, poor academic records and huge loans assumed by students ill-prepared for the expensive programs.”

Bottom line: these enterprises are not examples of private entrepreneurship. And what they are offering bears little resemblance to an education.

Our Money, Our Information

There is a very interesting op ed in this morning’s New York Times from an academic who does medical research, opposing a bill that has been introduced in Congress that would “protect” academic medical journals.

Protect them from what, you ask?

Under current practice, when the NIH or other tax-supported government agency funds research, the peer-reviewed articles that are subsequently written about that research are made available on-line for free. The journals want to change that practice, so that anyone interested in the results will have to buy their journals (which are, by the way, very expensive). The op-ed’s author believes–and I agree–that research funded by taxpayers ought to be freely available to taxpayers; it doesn’t seem fair to make the public pay for something that is then given to private parties who can profit from it.

It is interesting that our debate over healthcare reform has ignored the fact that this is a widespread phenomenon in medical science. Representative of “big Pharma” talk endlessly about the money they spend on research, and what constitutes a fair return on that R & R investment. They talk a lot less about how much of the essential research is funded by taxpayers, and how much more it would cost to develop drugs if that were not the case.

When I was doing some research for a paper a few years ago–before the Affordable Care Act–colleagues from the medical school shocked me when they explained that taxpayers were shouldering between 60% and 70% of all costs for medical care. From public hospitals like Wishard, to programs like Medicare and Medicaid, to underwriting scientific research, We the Taxpayers have paid most of the tab for many years.

Whatever the merits of “private enterprise,” it doesn’t exist in medicine, and hasn’t for a very long time. Perhaps if policymakers understood that, we taxpayers would get some respect–and a return on our investment.

Comments

Excuse Me??

A lobbyist friend sent me a new legislative proposal by Mike Delph to abolish Grand Juries in Indiana.

My considered response was: huh??

In prior sessions, with his not-too-coherent animus against immigrants, Delph established himself as not the sharpest knife in the drawer–proposing measures that (as he should have learned in law school) would not have passed constitutional muster. Despite insisting that he was acting on principle, he came off looking both mean-spirited and uninformed.

But this one is a puzzler.

Grand Juries are constitutionally required in federal courts, but because that requirement has never been “incorporated”–that is, never held to apply to the states–they are entirely optional in Indiana.Unless the law changed while I wasn’t looking–certainly a possibility–Indiana prosecutors initiate charges through the filing of something called an “information,” and only employ Grand Juries in more complicated cases, generally those involving white collar crimes or criminal financial schemes. In any event, last time I looked, the use of a Grand Jury was entirely within a prosecutor’s discretion. So why “abolish” a tool that prosecutors can use or ignore as they see fit?

There is probably a story that explains this bizarre bill, but none of the Statehouse folks I asked had any idea what it might be.

To paraphrase the voice-over that concluded each episode of “The Naked City,” an old TV crime series: There are eight million stories in our weird Indiana legislature. This has been one of them.

Comments

The Power of Framing

During one hour of television tonight, I heard four repetitions of an ad in which Mitch Daniels explains that “this one simple law”–the deceptively named Right to Work law–will bring jobs to Indiana, and keep people from being forced to pay union dues. It was extremely well done. Once during that hour, I saw a much less persuasive ad calling Right to Work an “attack on working people.” Daniels had specific points to make; the opposing ad simply claimed the bill would be bad for workers. Advantage: Daniels.

Unfortunately for the policy process, Daniels’ specific points were simply untrue. The union ad would have been considerably more effective had it pointed that out.

Let’s begin with the way the administration is framing this issue. People shouldn’t be “forced” to pay “dues or fees” as a condition of employment. Put that way, it seems like a very reasonable position. But let’s ask a slightly different–and arguably more accurate–question: should some people be forced to provide services to their co-workers for free?

Let’s try an analogy: Let’s say you are a dues-paying member of a social club, and a guy you know says he want to come to the parties and enjoy the refreshments, but he doesn’t want to join the club. Fine, you say, just pay for your food and drink. But the visitor doesn’t even want to do that–indeed, he is highly offended by the suggestion.

That’s what Right to Work is really about–letting some folks “mooch” off the efforts of others.

Under current labor laws, no one has to join a union. But if you go to work in a union shop, you are required to pay your fair share of the costs of negotiation–your share of the amount paid to the people who represent you in dealings with management. You are required to pay for a benefit you receive. That’s it.

A lot of claims are being made by those who want to see this law passed, and most of them are either blatantly untrue or incredibly misleading. For example, the National Right to Work Committee has issued a “Fact Sheet” claiming–among other things–that job growth in Indiana was slower than the average job growth of Midwest states with Right to Work laws. Daniels echoes that assertion in his TV ad– but the claim is “true” only because one of those states is North Dakota, where oil fields were recently discovered, leading to a huge boom. If you exclude North Dakota, the remaining Right to Work States averaged a net job loss. Similarly, the Committee lauds Texas, a Right to Work state, for its job creation during the past decade–without bothering to mention that Texas’ job growth was all in the public sector, and entirely due to the growth of government–Texas private sector actually lost jobs during the past decade.

Other claims were similarly misleading. Independent research–as I noted in a previous post--finds absolutely no relationship between job creation and Right to Work laws, either positive or negative. The only documented effect of such laws is to weaken unions and reduce wages for both union and non-union workers.

So–one might ask–why is the Governor so determined to enact this legislation that he is willing to spend a fortune airing highly misleading TV ads? Why is he so intent upon ramming this through that he was willing to impose “safety” regulations that would keep union members from filling the Statehouse, until the public outcry made him rethink that tactic? The only reason I can think of is because such laws hurt unions, and unions generally support Democrats. It’s purely political.

But you’ve got to give Daniels and the Republicans credit: they are one hell of a lot better at framing this issue than the Democrats are in explaining it.

Comments