Category Archives: Uncategorized

I’ve spent the last semester grousing about the various deficiencies of my current undergraduate class–they’re disinterested in the world around them, they can’t write a coherent or grammatical sentence and they clearly have no idea how research differs from stream-of-consciousness-essay.

Fairness, however, impels me to note that my graduate students continue to teach me a lot.

What prompted this post were statistics contained in a student’s paper. She chose to analyze Indiana’s aggressive school privatization efforts. (For clarity’s sake, I should note here that charter schools are public schools, and thus not the focus of her analysis.)

Opponents of school privatization have emphasized the financial benefits to private contractors, and the connections of those contractors to officials in positions to enrich them. Tony Bennett and Mitch Daniels worked tirelessly for policies that–surprise!–benefitted donors and cronies; several large corporations that actively lobby for school privatization have an obvious financial interest in that outcome.  That being the case, it isn’t unreasonable to conclude that corporate profit motives are helping to drive this particular policy approach, and many observers have leveled that claim.

My student’s paper suggested a different set of motivations. She noted that the rhetoric of school choice in Indiana focuses heavily on the right of parents to send their children to a private, religious school. (She reports that public arguments elsewhere have revolved far more around educational quality.) She then goes on to share some illuminating numbers.

The Indiana Department of Education publishes enrollment data of accredited non-public schools (only accredited non-public schools are eligible to receive the Choice Scholarship funds), and according to the list of accredited non-public schools for the year 2013, 95.01% of these schools are religiously affiliated, or 310 schools out of 326 (IDOE, 2013). Of the sixteen schools that are not religiously affiliated, two are military high schools, five are alternative high schools for at-risk and troubled youth, and four are for children with special needs or disabilities (IDOE, 2013). Of the 310 religiously affiliated accredited schools in Indiana in 2013, only five are not affiliated with some denomination of Christianity (three are Islamic private schools and two are Hebrew private schools) (IDOE, 2003). For parents looking to pull their children out of public schools in favor of private schools, these eleven schools are likely too specialized to be considered a choice for any child who does not fit into the mission of those schools. The five remaining non-religious private schools are college preparatory schools, three of which are located in the Indianapolis metropolitan area and the other two in Evansville.

Apparently, the real “choice” parents are being given is between a private religious education and a public secular one (provided by a school system increasingly starved for funds).

Whether that is the “choice” privatization proponents really want to offer is an open–and interesting– question.

It’s “War on Christmas” time again, so let me suggest a tactic that might make those who don’t appreciate the insulting nature of wishing someone “Happy Holidays” take the Christian Warriors more seriously.

Listen, guys, if you really want to make the case that everyone needs to acknowledge the sanctity of Christmas and implicitly, the cultural and moral superiority of your belief system, here’s a great way to do that: start acting like Christians. Not just in December, either, but all year.

It’s really hard for Jews, Muslins, Pagans, et al to respect your demands for obeisance when you blithely and consistently ignore the rules upon which your claims of Christian superiority are based.

When people see you refusing to pay your employees a living wage, when they see you get all pissy about the very idea of giving poor folks access to health insurance, that doesn’t look very Christian to them.

When elected officials like Mike Pence publicly parade their piety but then screw over  400,000 Hoosiers by refusing to use federal dollars to expand Medicaid–all the while pontificating about the need for poor people to take “personal responsibility”–you can’t blame other folks for wondering whether they missed that place in your bible where Jesus refused to share loaves and fishes with the irresponsible masses.

When you make shit up in order to bolster your political arguments, when you get oh-so-offended because someone wished you well without including the magic words, when you wrap yourself in a blanket of victimization whenever a court doesn’t allow you to impose your beliefs on people who don’t share them….well, it gets really hard to see the light of Christian charity in your behavior.

Maybe you’d have better luck–and earn more respect– if you lived in accordance with the religion you want to cram down everyone else’s throat.

Just a thought.

I have a theory about why people are so agitated these days. I think it is because our daily lives have become too complicated–because it is increasingly impossible for any one person to truly understand–let alone master– the various social and scientific systems on which we increasingly rely.

Let’s be honest: how many of us really understand how the financial sector works? How government policy affects the Internet? The intricacies of tax or regulatory policies? Reading the current punditry about the Affordable Care Act leads inexorably to one conclusion–no one knows very much about medical practice, the healthcare industry or the ACA. Not to mention the construction of a website.

Technology is an increasingly important part of our everyday lives, but I know I’m not the only person who can’t fix my own car, and whose first and only response to a computer malfunction is to reboot.  Very few of us have the background or expertise to independently evaluate claims about climate change or the loss of biodiversity.

My programmable thermostat says its 69 degrees in my house. It feels colder, but who am I to argue with that sophisticated new piece of technology?

As the world around us gets more complicated, our discomfort over losing personal control of our lives increases. Different people react differently to this perception that we are at the mercy of systems beyond our ken or control: some simply “opt out,” become disengaged. (“My vote/participation makes no difference, so why bother?”) Others retreat into simplification and ideology. (“If government would just get out of the way/ if we lived by biblical principles/if parents would ban video games everything would be better.”)

As we lose control (or the illusion of control) over ever greater portions of our lives, we need to recognize what may be the most pressing issue posed by an ever-more complex modern society: the need to know who to trust.  How do we identify those who are truly expert and honest, those who are not spinning or denying or manufacturing evidence, those who are reliable interpreters of their particular disciplines?

It’s hard enough to find a trustworthy auto mechanic when you don’t really know how your car functions.

Right now, Americans don’t trust anyone. Not the media, not the government, not academics, not businesspeople. As a result, we can’t even agree on what our problems are, let alone agree on solutions.

When you don’t trust anyone, when you don’t know whose description of the world you inhabit is correct, that world becomes a very scary place.

We won’t regain a sense of control until we collectively decide who we can trust. I have no idea how we do that.

I have previously noted my skepticism of so-called “privatization” of public assets. (I say “so called” because we Americans use the term inaccurately, to mean “contracting out” for goods and services; genuine privatization would involve selling those assets off and letting them succeed or fail in the market.)

Note that the term I use is skepticism, not opposition. There are obviously times and tasks where contracting makes sense. My concern is that government isn’t a very good judge of when and what those are.

A recent post at the Urbanophile illustrates my point (albeit inadvertently). Aaron Renn was an enthusiastic supporter of the Toll Road lease, and an equally ardent opponent of the ill-considered Chicago and Indianapolis parking meter deals. In this post, he uses a considerable amount of data to make a perfectly reasonable point: the devil is in the contracting details. There are good deals and not such good deals.

My skepticism–and that of other critics of “privatization as panacea”–comes from the recognition that contracts with units of government are qualitatively different from contracts between private actors, and those differences make it far more likely that the contracts ultimately negotiated will be unfavorable to taxpayers.

Mayors and Governors who are considering privatization are operating under a different set of incentives than the corporate CEO who is charged with long-term profitability of his business. As the saying goes, long term to a politician means “until the next election.” Typically, the elected official is looking for immediate cash to relieve fiscal stress (and improve his immediate political prospects) and is much less concerned with the extended consequences of the transaction.

Furthermore–although it really pains me as a former Corporation Counsel to admit this–the lawyers who review these deals for government tend to be far less sophisticated than  lawyers acting on behalf of the contractors. That’s not, I hasten to say, because they aren’t good lawyers–many are. But the skills required to advise a municipality or state government aren’t generally the same skills as those whose emphasis is business transaction law.

In addition to the existence of unequal bargaining capacities, there is also—unfortunately—the potential for “crony capitalism,” the temptation to reward a campaign donor or political patron with a lucrative contract at taxpayer expense. (Can we spell Halliburton?)

Ideally, the media will act as a watchdog in these negotiations, alerting the public when a proposed contract is lopsided or otherwise unfavorable. But media has never been very good at providing this sort of scrutiny, because news organizations rarely employ business reporters able to analyze complex transactions. (In today’s media environment, of course, we’re lucky if we even know a deal is in the works.)

So-too often, government contracting pits an officeholder who is focused on short-term gratification and represented by a lawyer unfamiliar with the arcana of business contracting against a savvy contractor looking to lock in long-term advantage who is represented by an experienced lawyer-negotiator.  We shouldn’t be surprised when the resulting transaction is unfavorable to the taxpayer.

Is this lack of parity reason to eliminate government contracting? Of course not. But it is definitely reason to be cautious , and read the fine print, especially when an elected official is trumpeting the great deal s/he just made.

What’s that old saying? If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.