Public Choice – Page 35 – artdiamondblog.com

UFT “Trying to Deny Poor Parents Choice for Their Children”

Madeleine Sackler. Source of image: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A13) ‘What’s funny,” says Madeleine Sackler, “is that I’m not really a political person.” Yet the petite 27-year-old is the force behind “The Lottery”–an explosive new documentary about the battle over the future of public education opening nationwide this Tuesday.

In the spring of 2008, Ms. Sackler, then a freelance film editor, caught a segment on the local news about New York’s biggest lottery. It wasn’t the Powerball. It was a chance for 475 lucky kids to get into one of the city’s best charter schools (publicly funded schools that aren’t subject to union rules).

“I was blown away by the number of parents that were there,” Ms. Sackler tells me over coffee on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, recalling the thousands of people packed into the Harlem Armory that day for the drawing. “I wanted to know why so many parents were entering their kids into the lottery and what it would mean for them.” And so Ms. Sackler did what any aspiring filmmaker would do: She grabbed her camera.
. . .
But on the way to making the film she imagined, she “stumbled on this political mayhem–really like a turf war about the future of public education.” Or more accurately, she happened upon a raucous protest outside of a failing public school in which Harlem Success, already filled to capacity, had requested space.
“We drove by that protest,” Ms. Sackler recalls. “We were on our way to another interview and we jumped out of the van and started filming.” There she discovered that the majority of those protesting the proliferation of charter schools were not even from the neighborhood. They’d come from the Bronx and Queens.
“They all said ‘We’re not allowed to talk to you. We’re just here to support the parents.'” But there were only two parents there, says Ms. Sackler, and both were members of Acorn. And so, “after not a lot of digging,” she discovered that the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) had paid Acorn, the controversial community organizing group, “half a million dollars for the year.” (It cost less to make the film.)
Finding out that the teachers union had hired a rent-a-mob to protest on its behalf was “the turn for us in the process.” That story–of self-interested adults trying to deny poor parents choice for their children–provided an answer to Ms. Sackler’s fundamental question: “If there are these high-performing schools that are closing the achievement gap, why aren’t there more of them?”

For the full interview, see:
BARI WEISS. “THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW; Storming the School Barricades; A new documentary by a 27-year-old filmmaker could change the national debate about public education.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., JUNE 5, 2010): A13.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the first paragraph quoted above has slightly different wording in the online version than the print version; the second paragraph quoted is the same in both.)

Public Employees’ Union Was Biggest Spender in 2010 Election

(p. A1) The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.
“We’re the big dog,” said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME’s political operations. “But we don’t like to brag.”

For the full story, see:
BRODY MULLINS And JOHN D. MCKINNON. “Campaign’s Big Spender; Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., OCTOBER 22, 2010): A1 & A4.

Feds Chastise Us for Being Fat AND Urge Us to Eat More Cheese Pizzas

“A government-created industry group worked with Domino’s Pizza to bolster sales by increasing the cheese on pies.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) Domino’s Pizza was hurting early last year. Domestic sales had fallen, and a survey of big pizza chain customers left the company tied for the worst tasting pies.

Then help arrived from an organization called Dairy Management. It teamed up with Domino’s to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese, and proceeded to devise and pay for a $12 million marketing campaign.
Consumers devoured the cheesier pizza, and sales soared by double digits. “This partnership is clearly working,” Brandon Solano, the Domino’s vice president for brand innovation, said in a statement to The New York Times.
But as healthy as this pizza has been for Domino’s, one slice contains as much as two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended amount of saturated fat, which has been linked to heart disease and is high in calories.
And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting.
. . .
When Michelle Obama implored restaurateurs in September to help fight obesity, she cited the proliferation of cheeseburgers and macaroni and cheese. “I (p. 23) want to challenge every restaurant to offer healthy menu options,” she told the National Restaurant Association’s annual meeting.
But in a series of confidential agreements approved by agriculture secretaries in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Dairy Management has worked with restaurants to expand their menus with cheese-laden products.

For the full story, see:
MICHAEL MOSS. “While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., November 7, 2010): 1 & 23.
(Note: the online version of the story is dated November 6, 2010.)
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Source of graphic: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

“Pork Actually Pushes Private Investment Out of a State”

Some West Virginia miners may have faced unemployment due to technological progress. But what they needed to improve their situation was economic growth from private enterprise, rather than Senator Robert Byrd’s federal pork.

(p. A11) . . . mining companies developed more efficient techniques for extracting coal and natural gas, which eliminated the need for many blue collar jobs. Laid-off workers lacked the skills to attract other types of businesses and college students couldn’t find jobs after graduation, so they left. Such dramatic changes would be serious obstacles for any politician.

. . .
By contrast, Byrd’s solution was to steer federal largess to his state.
. . .
Take Route 50. Thirty years ago, the federal government extended the route from two lanes to four with the hopes of spurring development. But hit the open road today and you’ll notice it’s just that–open. “You won’t see another car for two hours,” says Russell Sobel, a professor of economics at West Virginia University. “You can’t just build roads and expect that things will happen. People who want to transport goods and services need to be there.”
. . .
“We’ve created this culture of dependency,” warns Mr. Sobel, “Our human capital is not good at competing in the marketplace; it’s good at securing federal grants.”
Federal funding is a shaky foundation for an economy because no one can replace Big Daddy. In their recently released paper “Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?” Harvard professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval and Christopher Malloy found that states that lose chairmanships on important congressional committees lose 20% to 30% in earmarks.
Even worse, they found that pork actually pushes private investment out of a state. When the federal government intrudes, it raises demand for the state’s workers and real estate, jacking up prices. Often, companies can’t compete, so they flee.

For the full commentary, see:
BRIAN BOLDUC. “CROSS COUNTRY; Robert Byrd’s Highways to Nowhere; Government pork hasn’t made West Virginia prosperous.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., JULY 10, 2010): A11.
(Note: ellipses added.)

The research referenced is:
Cohen, Lauren, Joshua D. Coval, and Christopher J. Malloy. “Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?” NBER Working Paper No.15839, March 2010.

Mob Museum Financed from Local, State and Federal Tax Dollars

“The $42 million museum has been financed through a series of state, federal and local grants. It is set to open next March.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 4) The idea for the Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement was seeded when the city bought the 1933 federal courthouse and post office from the federal government for $1 in 2002, with the strict understanding that the building — one of the oldest in Southern Nevada — be used for cultural purposes.

For much of the middle of the last century, organized crime ruled the Strip, developing and managing an array of casinos, skimming their way to success. Federal prosecutors put an end to their reign in the 1980s. The city determined its historical relationship to organized crime — and the role the courthouse played in it — made the site a perfect fit.
. . .
The $42 million project has been financed through a series of state, federal and local grants, and the work has progressed a bit glacially as money has trickled in.
The project, once listed as one that could stimulate this city’s embattled economy, was attacked by Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, when city officials suggested that it might qualify for federal stimulus money.

For the full story, see:
JENNIFER STEINHAUER. “‘2 Mob Museums in Las Vegas, Ready to Go to the Mattresses.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., April 25, 2010): 1 & 4.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the article is dated April 24, 2010 and has the title “Vegas Mob Museums, Set to Go to the Mattresses.”)

MidAmerican Energy Gives Ben Nelson a $1.1 Million Ride from Georgia to Omaha

(p. 3B) LINCOLN — MidAmerican Energy is suing the state after state officials grounded a $1.1 million sales tax refund the company expected on the purchase of a corporate jet.

Under Nebraska’s 1987 economic development act, LB 775, companies can get sales tax refunds for such aircraft.
But the Nebraska Department of Revenue rejected the refund because MidAmerican’s multimillion-dollar Falcon 50EX jet, purchased in 2004, was used to transport U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., on a trip between Albany, Ga., and Omaha on Nov. 28, 2006.
Using such planes for fundraising or transporting an elected official disqualifies a company from getting the sales tax benefit, State Tax Commissioner Doug Ewald ruled, citing prohibitions in LB 775.
MidAmerican, an Iowa-based energy firm headed by Omaha businessman David Sokol, is appealing.
The company is asking the Lancaster County District Court to overturn the department’s March ruling.
MidAmerican argued that a single trip taken by Nelson should not be enough to deny the refund. It also maintained that the state, under LB 775, should have based its ruling on the intended purpose of the airplane and can test that use only when the plane is purchased.

For the full story, see:
Paul Hammel. “MidAmerican Sues State Over Tax Credit on Jet.” Omaha World-Herald (Friday, May 7, 2010): 3B.
(Note: the online version of the article was dated Thursday, May 6, 2010 and had the title “MidAmerica (sic) sues Neb. for refund.”)

FDR’s Logrolling to Pack Supreme Court

The unsavory political practice known as “logrolling” is discussed in one of the public choice chapters of the Gwartney et al text that I use in my micro principles courses. Here is an apt example:

(p. 193) . . . , McCarran was more than ever determined to (p. 194) fight the Court-packing plan, even if he lost all of his federal patronage.

Roosevelt had some success charming more malleable politicians such as young Florida senator Claude Pepper. Roosevelt invited the wavering Pepper into the Oval Office and turned on the charm. It helped even more when he turned on the spigot. “The president,” Pepper recalled, “was not above a little logrolling, promising to help me win re-election in 1938 and, in my presence, notifying the army that he wanted to see some favorable action on a Florida canal project that I had been pushing.” Pepper ended up backing Roosevelt.

Source:
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Reid on Ben Nelson’s Cornhusker Kickback: “He Got This for Himself; He Wanted It”

(p. 5A) WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this week defended the now-defunct Nebraska Medicaid exemption that was tucked into the Senate health care bill as Reid sought the support of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

Nelson has said that he never asked for the exemption and that his goal all along was to provide relief for all states.
Tagged with the derisive moniker “Cornhusker kickback,” the arrangement quickly proved politically toxic.
. . .
Asked why he didn’t offer the same deal to every state from the start, Reid said, “Because I didn’t have it for everybody at that time. I thought I could get it as we moved along in the legislation, and I did.”
Van Susteren said: “You’re telling me that when Ben Nelson got that, when the two of you sat down together, you said, ‘Ben, we’ll do it this way. … Nebraska’s got it now, but after we get this passed we’re going to go for everybody?’ ” “No, no, no. He got this for himself. He wanted it,” Reid said.

For the full story, see:
JOSEPH MORTON. “Reid thought Nelson should boast of ‘kickback’; The Senate leader says it was a “terrific” Medicaid deal that all states now share.” Omaha World-Herald (Weds., April 7, 2010): 5A.
(Note: first ellipsis added; second ellipsis in original.)

Ben “Kickback” Nelson Seeks More Earmarks

Source of graph and photo: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1A) WASHINGTON — In the battle to secure federal earmarks for Nebraska, Sen. Ben Nelson is feeling lonely this year.

The Nebraska Democrat is seeking 51 earmarks worth $183.1 million. The four other members of the Nebraska congressional delegation, all Republicans, have submitted no requests this year, three of them agreeing to a House GOP moratorium.
That’s a big change from 2009, when Rep. Lee Terry requested 11 earmarks totaling more than $85 million, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry sought 28 earmarks totaling more than $75 million and Rep. Adrian Smith sought two earmarks totaling $1.2 million.
Sen. Mike Johanns has abstained from seeking earmarks since joining the Senate in 2009.
. . .
(p. 2A) Johanns has criticized earmarking as a method of directing taxpayer money based on lawmaker clout rather than a project’s merits. He said last week that the process would be better if lawmakers had to justify their individual earmarks at hearings.

For the full story, see:
JOSEPH MORTON . “Nelson stands alone on earmark requests; He is seeking $183 million for Nebraska projects while the state’s GOP lawmakers sit out this round.” Omaha World-Herald (Tues., May 18, 2010): 1A & 2A.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

“I Cannot Consent to Buy Votes with the People’s Money”

(p. 91) . . . Thomas Gore, . . . was first elected to the Senate in 1907, the year Oklahoma became a state. Gore had a populist streak in him, but he always recognized the protections to individual liberty that came from limited government. In the 1930s, therefore, he strongly opposed the federal government going into the relief business. Interestingly, Gore was made totally blind by two childhood accidents. He still managed to become a lawyer, and as a senator, he had to have family members or staff assistants read bills, books, and newspapers to him. Yet he claimed to see clearly through the political chicanery that would occur if the federal government entered the relief business. No depression, Gore argued, “can be ended by gifts, gratuities, doles, and alms handed out by the Federal Treasury and extorted from taxpayers that are bleeding at every pore.” On the issue of relief, especially, Gore argued that state and city officials “have immediate contact” with hardship cases and can best “superintend the dispensation of charity.” Soon after the ERA brought federal relief into existence, Gore said, “The day on which we began to make these loans by the Federal Government to States, counties, and cities was a more evil day in the history of the Republic than the day on which the Confederacy fired upon Fort Sumter.”

In 1935, Gore helped lead the charge in Congress against funding the WPA with $4.8 billion. After he spoke against the bill, thousands of people in southeast Oklahoma held a mass meeting to denounce Gore. They sent him a telegram demanding that he cast his vote for the WPA and, by implication, start bringing more fed-(p. 92)eral dollars into Oklahoma. Gore responded with a telegram of his own. Your action, he wrote, “shows how the dole spoils the soul. Your telegram intimates that your votes are for sale. Much as I value votes I am not in the market. I cannot consent to buy votes with the people’s money. I owe a debt to the taxpayer as well as to the unemployed.” Shortly after dictating these words, the blind Senator was led to the Senate floor to cast a lonely vote against the WPA.

Source:
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.
(Note: ellipses added.)

FDR Spent Other People’s Money Freely, But Was Stingy with His Own

(p. 75) . . . when Roosevelt was spending his own money, he was sometimes very stingy. For example, when Roosevelt traveled by train from Washington to Hyde Park, he always wanted a private car for himself and his staff: Servicing this private car, which might include providing dozens of meals, newspapers, and various amenities for the president and his staff would require great diligence and attention to detail. But for round-trip service on Roosevelt’s private car, he tipped the porter a mere five dollars. The reporters. on their car nearby, combined to tip eight to ten times more than the president did. Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune observed the unhappiness this created:

FDR wasn’t a heavy tipper at any time, but was less so aboard trains. He gave five dollars to the porter on his car for the round trip from Washington to Hyde Park, which included payment for what guests he might have in his car. In the press car we each gave two dollars for the trip, but there were about twenty of us all told. Sam [Mitchell, the porter] soon begged off the private car; the honor of serving the President faded for a man raising a family and sending a boy to college as well as paying for a home, when he could count on forty dollars in the press car as against five dollars in the private car.

Source:
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.
(Note: italics in original; ellipsis added.)