Tanner on Paul Ryan
Cato's Michael Tanner has an excellent commentary detailing the history and evolution of the Ryan budget today that I highly recommend. It also highlights Ryan's long record of bipartisanship, pragmatism and compromise, showing that Ryan is far from the ideologue that his opponents try to paint.And...don't forget to check out Erskine Bowles' recent praise of Paul Ryan and the Ryan budget.
Read moreCCEA official misleads teachers; union takes voice vote on CCSD contract
Last week, I reported that Clark County Education Association teachers would be voting on a contract proposal by the Clark County School District at a meeting last night.
But when Jon Ralston asked CCEA Vice President Vikki Courtney about the vote last week on Face to Face, Courtney said, "There's not going to be a vote."
Except that last night at its meeting, CCEA members voted on the contract, ultimately rejecting it.
Teachers Reject CCSD's ProposalI've been told that CCEA orchestrated a voice vote to reject both CCSD's contract offer and CCEA's contract offer. As presented, the only difference between the contract offers was that CCSD called for teachers to take three furlough days, while CCEA proposed teachers only would have taken two.
... The first business item was to conduct introductions of the CCEA Executive Board and the Negotiations Team, followed by the contract update. Teachers learned about the status of contract negotiations with the Clark County School District (CCSD) and reviewed the District's proposal. Dozens of teachers took to the microphones to voice their concerns and opinions. After discussion, teachers provided guidance to the Negotiations Team to reject the proposal, reaffirming their belief that CCSD had used the layoff of 416 of their colleagues as a bargaining chip to get teachers to enter into a concessionary contract.
This is how CCEA officials treat teachers. Put a contract in front of a few hundred of them (out of 17,500) and force them into a voice vote on a proposal just minutes after teachers learned what the offers were.
As I wrote last week:
My prediction is that union officials want an overwhelming vote one way or the other (probably to reject the contract), and the best way to ensure that happens is to stack the audience with "in the know" union members and ensure they vote the "right" way.CCEA may have needed to conduct this charade in order to void its latest offer to the district, which, I've learned, union officials want to withdraw now that all laid-off teachers have been rehired. But CCEA's Policy Handbook states that "[a]ll ratification of collective bargaining agreements is done by written ballot or online voting," so I'm not sure if last night's voice vote qualifies or not.
And the ordinary teacher who couldn't make the meeting or didn't know his or her contract was going to be voted on? Union officials were content with not giving those teachers a voice. Again.
Unfortunately, because union officials have taken away the choice and voice of teachers for 50 weeks of the year, any teacher upset with how the union is being run isn't able to opt out until July 1, 2013.
Hayek making headlines in the NYT
It's been a long time since Henry Hazlitt served as the lead editorial writer on economics for the New York Times-a role that, ironically, is filled today by an intellectual heir to Hazlitt's biggest philosophical enemy, John Maynard Keynes. That'd be Paul Krugman, the former academician who won a Nobel Prize for his defense of free trade and now uses that cover to lend legitimacy to his more wacky, neo-Keynesian ideas.So given the Times' about-face on economic matters from one of the true legends of Austrian economics to the world's most prolific anti-Austrian, it's always interesting to see the rag run a story about any leader of the Austrian School. Today's column highlights the impact of Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek on modern economic theory as well as political thought.
I've always contended that a well-informed political philosophy should flow from a thorough, consistent economic theory and that economic theories shouldn't be invented in order to accomodate political trappings. And, if one looks at the major schools of economics, it seems to hold that the majority of each school's followers tend to gravitate toward respectively similar political leanings.
That's why it's unsurprising that discussion about any particular economist's impact on popular culture tends to focus on political movements and not the more elevated economic theories that undergird such movements.
Readers of common periodicals like the New York Times, for instance, are likely not inclined to develop an acute understanding of major Austrian tenets like subjective valuation, methodological individualism or the economics of knowledge. They're probably even less likely to be familiar with the theoretical objections to general equilibrium analysis. But these concerns do result in the conclusion, for most Austrians, that government intervention in the economy generally yields a sub-optimal production level and lower living standards for both individuals and the society which they compose.
That conclusion means that Austrians, more than followers of any other school of economic thought, tend to favor unhampered markets. And so, these economic theorists, perhaps appropriately, become heroes for political movements that favor the liberty and autonomy of individuals over aggressive state coercion or interference.
In other words, Austrians are heroes of the Tea Party movement.
That's the aspect of Hayek's impact highlighted by today's article in the Times. With Paul Ryan's nomination to the Republican ticket, the author believes this is Hayek's moment-even if Ryan and other politicians don't quite understand Hayek completely.
What's more, it's not just the Ryan nomination that signals Hayek's moment. There's also a major grassroots effort among the Tea Party faithful dedicated to bringing more Hayekians to Washington. As the author says:
Several activists and groups, including FreedomWorks, say they hope to turn the inchoate anger of the Tea Party into a focused pro-Hayek movement that would either take over the Republican Party or create a new one. That is a huge task.From his policy stances on economics, I wouldn't consider Paul Ryan to be as influenced by Hayek as some other notable politicians in Congress, but I certainly hope that the United States might depart from its failed Keynesian agenda and head in a decidedly more Austrian direction.
Republicans and Democrats alike have repeatedly given devastating illustration to the flaws of Keynesian policy prescriptions. Any credibility once enjoyed by the Keynesian school should be destroyed following the Keynesian eras of Nixon-Carter and Bush-Obama.
And while I might prefer Ludwig von Mises (or even Jesus Huerta de Soto) as the intellectual godfather to American policymaking, Hayek will do just fine.
CCEA contradicts itself: Will they or won't they vote on a contract?
Last week, I reported that CCEA teachers will be voting on CCSD's latest contract proposal today at their 4:30 p.m. meeting. In its most recent newsletter, CCEA wrote:
Your attendance at this meeting is critical because: ... 2) Teachers will be making a decision on the district's proposal.But last week, when Jon Ralston asked CCEA Vice President Vikki Courtney about the meeting, Courtney said the meeting was informational only (5:03 mark).
There's not going to be a vote. It's just a chance to hear what [CCSD is] telling us, what's been put there, and just to make some decisions. Maybe some ideas, or just give us some direction on where they would like to go.So CCEA, which is it? Will teachers be "[m]aking a decision on the district's proposal" or is there "not going to be a vote"?
I'm curious, but I bet teachers want to know even more than I do.
The seriousness of Paul Ryan
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them. Just enter your email in the box on the top right.
For today's week-in-review email, Andy looks at Gov. Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as a running mate and how that will impact the national policy debate.
Pundits and politicians, from both sides, are constantly telling us that our nation needs more "seriousness" in our political discourse.
I couldn't agree more.
And now, thanks to Paul Ryan's entrée into the presidential campaign, we may all get our wish.
Whatever you think of Ryan's particular policy prescriptions, the Wisconsin congressman and vice-presidential contender is a man of big ideas. He's an intellectual heavyweight who has risen through his party's ranks on his willingness and ability to offer bold, concrete solutions to our nation's foremost policy challenges - even (and especially) those that many policymakers, for reasons of political expediency, are loath to confront.
Ryan's presence in the race provides a tremendous opportunity to have the serious policy discussion we all agree is needed. We'll have the chance now to focus on topics like cost curves and revenue projections - as opposed to, for example, "boxers or briefs" or unfounded rumors about old tax returns.
This is an especially welcome development for someone who works at an organization that's dedicated to researching and analyzing public policy. That Ryan generally approaches policymaking from a limited-government, free-market perspective is a deal-sweetener, to be sure, but a similar passion for the nuts and bolts of public policy would be a refreshing addition to the presidential campaign even if it came from the current administration. It is Ryan's grasp of policy, in addition to his views regarding it, that should serve the country well over the next three months.
You'll notice, of course, that I said "should." What'll be interesting to see from here on out is whether Ryan's presence in the race does indeed result in the "serious discussion" for which everyone supposedly longs. The early returns are mixed.
I happened to catch Wolf Blitzer's interview with Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz the other day, and it was great to see Blitzer, a member of the national mainstream media, continue to push Wasserman Schultz on an important and substantive question regarding Medicare policy - even as his guest repeatedly tried to steer the conversation back to the stale talking points and platitudes we typically see in campaigns. Good for Blitzer - and good for the rest of us, too.
On the other hand, there was also this:
Vice President Joe Biden sparked a campaign commotion Tuesday, telling an audience in southern Virginia that included hundreds of black voters that Republican Mitt Romney wanted to put them "back in chains" by deregulating Wall Street.OK then.
Any efforts to genuinely elevate our national discourse face enough hurdles to begin with. But it certainly doesn't help when the sitting vice president would rather suggest that his political opponents want to bring back slavery - slavery! - than debate the issues on their merits.
While NPRI neither supports nor opposes any candidates for public office, we do believe that some ideas are much better than others and that the country is best served when candidates - whatever their party or philosophy - choose to debate those ideas.
That's why Biden's comments are so unfortunate. And it's also why Ryan's presence in the campaign holds such promise.
It's rare that someone like Paul Ryan, willing to offer a serious proposal to reform a popular entitlement program, finds his way onto a national ticket. But he's there now - and in a year when our nation faces its greatest policy challenges in at least a generation. Whichever side wins in November is going to have to address a number of very serious national problems, from stubbornly high unemployment to persistently weak GDP growth to staggering debt. Those problems will require some serious thinking and some serious solutions - even if they may seriously tick some people off.
Between now and November, voters should demand that the media and the candidates - from both parties - give us a serious discussion.
Until next time,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here. Enter your email address in the box on the top right.
The gift that keeps on giving
President Obama has remained proud of his purported success in bailing out General Motors. In fact, he's so proud that, just days ago, he told supporters in Colorado that he wanted to bail out "every industry" just like he did with the automotive industry.See it yourself:
And now, after this stunning pronouncement, it's becoming clear that GM is again headed toward bankruptcy. This time, however, American taxpayers will be left holding around 500,000,000 shares. As reported by Forbes, the price of a GM share closed at $20.21 this week as consumers continue to favor GM's competitors in the automotive industry.
In order for taxpayers to break even on the 2009 bailout, the government would need to get $53.00 per share. It is now sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.
To put this another way, GM is now worth 39 percent less than it was just two years ago. Its share of the U.S. car and truck market has fallen to 18.0 percent in 2012, down from 20.0 percent last year and 48.3 percent in the 1960s.
This is the type of success that the Obama Administration wants to expand to "every industry?"
What's truly scary is that the Administration likely wouldn't tolerate the political fallout of allowing GM to fail after its 2009 bailout and, therefore, is likely to offer the company a second bailout package if still in office.
Public bailouts are quickly becoming the gift that keeps on giving for GM.
At some point, don't we have to consider that America's largest rent-seekers are just "too big to bail out?"
Coolican echoes Bastiat, shows problem with businesses using government to stifle competition
Just like it's wrong for government take from the rich and redistribute their wealth to others, it's wrong for businesses to use the power of government to stifle competition.
J. Patrick Coolican points out one way that could happen in Las Vegas.
We often hear that businesses wish government would merely get out of the way. Just as often, however, I see businesses lobbying government to kill off the competition.Unfortunately, businesses using the government to hinder their competition are not a new phenomenon.
In the latest example, the Las Vegas City Council is mulling protecting Downtown brick-and-mortar restaurants from their wily new competitors: food trucks. As my Las Vegas Sun colleague Joe Schoenmann reported recently, the owner of Uncle Joe's Pizza on Fremont East was outraged that "there, in front of his pizza joint, was parked a food truck. And it was selling pizza, no less."
How dare they?! Next thing you know, someone is going to open a pizzeria next door! So now the City Council is considering an ordinance that would force food trucks to be parked at least 300 feet from an established restaurant-nearly the distance from home plate to the right field wall in Yankee Stadium-and operate there for just four hours in a 24-hour time period.
Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), a French economist, details how government authority is perverted and misused in a short and amazing book called The Law. While Bastiat is describing a generality here, notice how the above story is a perfect "real life" example of what Bastiat describes.
Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim-when he defends himself-as a criminal. ...If you haven't read The Law, it is available for free online here. Read it. It is an amazing book that clearly describes the principles of a just government.
How to Identify Legal Plunder
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law-which may be an isolated case-is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it. (Emphasis added.)
Coolican concludes his article with a line that Bastiat could have written himself.
As (Slate's Matthew) Yglesias notes: "The fact that business owners would prefer not to face competition is not a valid regulatory purpose." Let the food trucks live.
CCEA teachers to vote on CCSD's contract proposal next Monday
Outside of CCEA's newsletter, which is buried on its website, I haven't seen this noted anywhere else, so here's a bit of breaking news.
The Clark County Education Association is having a meeting on August 20 at 4:30 p.m. and will be voting on a new contract with the Clark County School District. From the CCEA Express:
What could possibly be so important that the association has sent four mailers, two e-mail blasts, repeatedly posted information on Facebook & Twitter, is running a digital billboard message across the valley, and my fellow colleagues keep nagging me to attend?If you thought CCEA and CCSD were at an impasse, you're right. They are. Here's how CCEA Executive Director John Vellardita describes it in the same newsletter:
Your attendance at this meeting is critical because:
1) We will provide an in-depth review of the contract negotiations with the school district, as well as review the district's proposal.
2) Teachers will be making a decision on the district's proposal. (Emphasis added.)
First, we are still without a contract with the School District for the 2012-2013 school year. However, even after CCSD declared impasse, CCEA and CCSD have continued negotiations. On August 1, CCSD made an offer to resolve the contract. The Negotiations Committee has decided to bring that offer before the membership for discussion and a decision on August 20.Here's what I don't understand. If this meeting is so important - and since they're going to be voting on their contract, it is - why haven't CCEA officials let teachers know that's what's on the agenda before now? For instance, if you go to the event sign-up page, all it says about the contract is "I want to learn about the status of contract negotiations." There's nothing about taking a vote at the meeting.
It also appears CCEA's highly paid staffers are going to share details of the contract just minutes before they expect the rank-and-file members to vote on it!
Amazingly, this seems to abide by CCEA's Policy Handbook which simply state that "[a]ll ratification of collective bargaining agreements is done by written ballot or online voting."
Depending on attendance, this could lead to a situation where only 200 to 300 teachers (or less) are deciding on a contract for 17,000 of their colleagues.
It appears CCEA's highly paid officials don't want the vast majority of teachers to have a voice on the issue that matters the most to them - their contract.
Why isn't the union releasing contract details now and having online voting open for a week or even a few days? The response rate from teachers - the very workers these union bosses claim to represent - would certainly be higher.
Of course, I've just answered my own question. As seen this summer when NPRI did its best to let teachers know about their options regarding union membership, union officials are actively working to take away the choice and voice of teachers.
Vellardita concludes:
All teachers need to attend this meeting to make a very important decision. We are expecting a large turnout and seating will be limited. (Emphasis added)Unbelievable.
My prediction is that union officials want an overwhelming vote one way or the other (probably to reject the contract), and the best way to ensure that happens is to stack the audience with "in the know" union members and ensure they vote the "right" way.
And the ordinary teacher who couldn't make the meeting or didn't know his or her contract was going to be voted on? Union officials seem content with not giving those teachers a voice. Again.
I've put a call into CCEA for their comments. I will update if I get a response.
Nevada's housing problems: Do you want solutions or sound bites?
Yesterday, before Rep. Paul Ryan came to Las Vegas, Jon Ralston tweeted the following about Gov. Mitt Romney and Ryan's view of our nation's housing problems.
@RalstonFlash: Ryan on PBS on 11/15/10: "Housing is going to have to hit bottom.... If you put a moratorium on..you`re simply delaying the inevitable."This is the clear dichotomy between the two sides of the housing debate. Do you want hollow sound bites or a solution?
@RalstonFlash: Romney to "newspaper" edit board, 10/17/11: "One is, don't try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom."
@RalstonFlash: So Romney and Ryan are on video saying let housing market "hit bottom." I wonder if Dems/OFA salivating to use those in NV ads. #wematter
@RalstonFlash: FYI, tweeps: Not saying Romney/Ryan wrong about letting market run its course in housing. Just suggesting "hit bottom" echo is ad fodder.
In Nevada, for the last few years, government has tried numerous "sound bite" policies - policies that sound good for five seconds, but after four years have failed to fix the problem.
Those policies have included the Federal Reserve's manipulation of interest rates; Congress passing an $8,000 tax credit for new home buyers; Nevada passing an unconstitutional Foreclosure Mediation Program; the feds subsidizing those who can't make their mortgage payments; and the Nevada legislature passing AB 284, which has brought the foreclosure process to a standstill and which housing experts have said "could postpone a housing recovery in the area by two to three years."
And let's not forget that government interventions in the housing market led to the housing bubble. Keynesians like Paul Krugman actually called for a housing bubble to boost the economy in 2002. We had "the government's distortion of mortgage finance through the Community Reinvestment Act and the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." And, of course, we had the Federal Reserve's manipulation of interest rates.
Government created the housing bubble and has failed to fix the inevitable housing crash that followed - even after four years of trying.
So what do believers in liberty and free enterprise propose? Freedom.
Enforce contracts. Let the market work by allowing foreclosures.
Is it going to be painful for some? Absolutely. But that pain - created by government inflating the housing bubble - is inevitable. Prolonging it is only hurting more and more people by delaying the recovery.
And that's the true tragedy in this. By rewarding foreclosure, current government policy is ensuring that Nevada will have more foreclosure not less. This doesn't just harm those additional folks who face foreclosure; it's also a drag on their neighbors and even city and county tax rolls (because if someone stops paying their mortgage, he will likely stop paying his property tax as well.).
Nevada's policymakers and voters should look to Arizona, where allowing the market to work is already leading to a sustainable recovery.
If Nevada had tried a free-market solution four years ago, we'd likely be one to two years into a recovery, instead of four years into a slump.
Do you want empty sound bites or solutions?
Erskine Bowles praises Ryan budget
I've personally found the hard Left's attacks on the Ryan budget plan baseless and laughable.Ryan's proposed FY13 budget, for instance, would reduce federal expenditures from $3,624 billion to $3,530 billion-a whopping 2.5 percent reduction! Yeah...this guy's truly some type of radical...sure.
From there, Ryan's plan would allow for a three percent average annual growth in federal outlays through 2022, when spending will total to $4,888 billion. You read that right. Ryan's plan will result in a growth of the federal government each year. As a percentage of GDP, Ryan still plans to spend more than was spent during the final years of anarcho-extremist Bill Clinton's administration.
So, the big deal is that Ryan would allow Medicare beneficiaries to choose their own plan instead of just being herded like cattle into a one-size-fits-all plan administered by Team Bureaucrat? Oh, the horror.
Ryan also wants to change the way Medicaid is funded so that states can tailor their programs more specifically to their unique circumstances. Does anyone really think the current Medicaid financing structure is cost-effective? If so, read this, then come back. If American taxpayers are going to spend $460 billion per year on a public health insurance program, then that program should produce a sizable improvement in health outcomes for the poor. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case. Ryan's plan, though, offers some hope that states might be able to improve Medicaid performance. Why would the Left have a problem with that? Do they hate poor people?
The wailing of the Left over Ryan's budget is particularly curious because his budget, ultimately, is about saving many programs cherished by the Left, but which are teetering on the brink of insolvency. Indeed, as Cato's Chris Edwards argues, "Too often the Ryan budget proposes to fix broken programs when the proper reform would be elimination." Cato scholar Tad DeHaven says, "It's still big government."
Rothbard often highlighted the lunacy of suggesting methods for improving the efficiency of government programs with which one fundamentally disagrees, thereby prolonging their existence. I'm sure he would have picked apart various elements of Ryan's plan for that reason.
So, given how generous the Ryan budget actually is to those on the Left, I was delighted to come across this video of Erskine Bowles of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. It's not that I agree with everything Bowles says or everything contained within the Ryan budget; it's just refreshing to discover some intellectual honesty in the policymaking arena on occasion.
Bowles-who served as Chief of Staff for the Clinton Administration-calls the Ryan plan "a sensible, straight-forward, honest, serious budget" and offers additional praise for the man who oversaw its creation.
It's a short video, but it's worth a watch.
