To aid in the propagandizing of the debt ceiling debate, Democrats have begun to run ads around the country featuring a clip from a speech made by Ronald Reagan in 1987. It suggests that Reagan takes the side of Barack Obama in this debate and supports the raising of the debt ceiling. The featured clip reads as follows:
"Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility -- two things that set us apart from much of the world."
Okay, so it sounds like Reagan wanted to avoid the bad things that would happen if we default. Fair enough. But did he really want to raise the debt ceiling? (By the way, most Republicans are fine with a deal that raises the debt ceiling, just not any deal)
In 1987, Reagan asked Congress to appropriate more money for the military buildup against the Soviets, "peace through strength" and the collapse of the Soviet Unions economy being his number one priority since taking office. Another priority was to shrink the size of the federal government and to cut domestic spending programs, but defense took priority. The rather savvy Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill knew where Reagan's priorities lay, and sought numerous times to force Reagan's hand, so that to get the defense spending necessary, Reagan would have to pass bills including the domestic spending he wanted to cut. This 1987 incidence is one example.
Let me pull out a few quotes that Democrats are ignoring:
"The Congress, once again, has passed a bill that puts me in the position of accepting legislation with which I fundamentally disagree.
"The bill would continue the authority of the United States Government to borrow funds which we must do to avoid the default on our obligations. This legislation also includes a so-called fix of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law, but it really is an attempt to force me eventually either to sign a tax bill or to accept massive cuts in national defense, or both. I would have no problem with signing an extension of the debt limit. But the choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up. This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my hand...
"Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default... (etc, as quoted above)
"Some in Congress will claim that if I reject this bill with its Gramm-Rudman-Hollings fix, then I'm against deficit reduction. But, of course, nothing is farther from the truth. Since 1980 when you first elected me to this office, I have led efforts to control Congress' appetite to spend in deficit. Over a 5-year period, while revenues went up 28 percent, congressional spending went up 46 percent. From 1982 to 1987, for every dollar Congress cut from our national defense, they added $2 for domestic spending. Now, that's not fiscal restraint. Two years ago, Congress took a first step to curb spending with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and I agreed. Its purpose was to get on a track to lower deficits and eventually a balanced budget. Well, the ink was not even dry before Congress walked away from its own plan. Instead of facing the tough choices to reduce Federal spending, Congress attempted to shift the burden to our national security and to you, the American taxpayers, in the form of new taxes."
So the deficit has come from the Democrat-controlled House, from which all spending bills originate, eventually incurring debt that Reagan was forced to accept, and to continue to build up the military as necessary, he had to raise the debt ceiling, something he would not have had to do if Congress had reigned in domestic spending.
Reagan closes with this admonition, which sounds an awful lot like our contemporary Republicans:
"For those who say further responsible spending reductions are not possible, they are wrong. For those who say the only choice is undermining our national security at a time when the United States is close to an agreement with the Soviet Union on reducing nuclear weapons, they are wrong. For those who say more taxes will solve our deficit problem, they are wrong. Every time Congress increases taxes, the deficit does not decrease, spending increases. It's time for a clear and consistent policy to reduce the Federal budget deficit.
"In the weeks ahead, Congress will have the opportunity to meet this commitment. So today, let's get some things clear. I will not hesitate to use my veto to hold down excess spending, and I will spell out the impact that defense cuts will have on our long-term security interests. You don't need more taxes to balance the budget. Congress needs the discipline to stop spending more, and that can be done with the passage of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Congress needs to reform its budget process, at least by breaking up those massive, catch-all spending bills into individual parts. That way, each part can stand on its own. And to meet the new deficit target in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, if Congress insists on lowering defense spending, then I will certainly insist on lowering domestic spending as well.
"This decision is not easy. I have no choice but to sign this bill to guarantee the United States Government's credit. But I also will not permit Congress to dismantle our national defense, to jeopardize arms reduction, or to increase your taxes. I am determined that will not happen."
Ironically, in a Washington Post article attempting support the Democrats claim, a link is provided to view the transcript that proves them wrong. Can we please stop bringing a mythical Ronald Reagan into this discussion?
View the transcript here: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/092687a.htm
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
One Constitution, Under Siege
“You say you'll change the Constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head” – The Beatles
British statesman Edmund Burke once eruditely wrote, “Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state.” Great Britain, with no document serving as an official constitution, was nevertheless the freest and most stable of the great powers in the world for many years, until the founding the United States of America, 235 years ago today. The constitution of Nigeria is one the closet to ours, word for word; Nigeria could almost be considered a dictatorship. To maintain a free and prosperous society requires not simply the existence of a piece of paper declaring the intentions of those constituting government, but the vigilance of those who understand the importance of ideas behind it. Standing in opposition to constitutional government are the statists, who consider constitutionalism to be an impediment to government’s ability to make the world the way it should be.
On June 23rd, Time magazine’s managing editor Richard Stengel wrote an illustrative article entitled ‘One Document, Under Siege.’ Understanding the worldview of a statist like Stengel is imperative to the perpetuation of the constitutional system he neither cares for nor understands, so I will highlight key points in his article and expose the fallacies and the ignorance of America’s founding ideas.
Stengel opens with this: “Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.”
With all of these examples of changes since the founding, in what way does Stengel believe the government would be different than now, had the founders been gifted with clairvoyance. Would we have excluded certain rights from the Bill of Rights so that Roosevelt could have rounded up innocent Japanese-Americans legally? Would they have left out the part in the Declaration about all men being created equal, if they had known about DNA and genetics? Would they have even founded the country if they had known Lady Gaga would be born here? (Actually, they may not have…)
Stengel simply introduces a red herring here. No one contends that the founders were omniscient gods. It was precisely because they realized that no human beings have this kind of knowledge and understand that they created a government meant to stay out of these kinds of things for the most part. To illustrate the point, only one (maybe two) of the things Stengel listed could be said to have been created by government. How’s Medicare working out? Oh, yeah, it’s trillions of dollars in the red…
Stengel goes on, “The framers were not gods and were not infallible. (Hey, I just said that!) Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College. They did not give us income taxes. Or Prohibition. Those came later.”
Number one: Slaves, not blacks, were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting population for representation in the House of Representatives. This was a compromise between the Southern states and the Northern states. The Constitution gave no specific instruction when it came to who would vote – a point to keep in mind for the next paragraph. Knowing that slaves would not be allowed to vote, the Northern states sought to prevent the Southern states from acquiring power in the House that would not represent the slaves who could not vote, but would instead further entrench the institution that many of the Northern states wanted to do away with. The result of the debate over representation was called the three-fifths compromise.
Number two: Again, the Constitution did not give instruction on who could vote. States were left this power. Most states gave the power only to property owners so that those without property would not vote to use government to take the property away. Shortly after, women experienced societal and sometimes legal exclusion from landownership, and that was the reason behind their not being allowed to vote. Using the method of constitutional change left us by the founders, subsequent amendments paved the way to give women the right to vote in 1920.
Number three: Going from a confederation of near-sovereign states to a united nation, many of the states were wary that their power would be usurped by the national government. In particular, the smaller states believed that their interests would not be represented in any congress whose membership was determined by population. The larger states, of course, believed that with more people, they should have a greater say in national policy. Another compromise was born, and we have a bicameral legislation. The number of Electoral College votes is the combination of the number of all senators and representatives from all the states. In both cases, the Senate is a check on the people and the House is a check on the states.
Number four: Income taxes suck and Prohibition was repealed.
“Today's debates represent conflict, not crisis. Conflict is at the core of our politics, and the Constitution is designed to manage it... A crisis is when the Constitution breaks down. We're not in danger of that.”
May I ask a simple question, Mr. Stengel? Just when is it that the Constitution breaks down? Being such a constitutional expert, perhaps he will tell us precisely what is and is not constitutional.
“Nor are we in danger of flipping the Constitution on its head, as some of the Tea Party faithful contend. Their view of the founding documents was pretty well summarized by Texas Congressman Ron Paul back in 2008: "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose — to restrain the federal government." Well, not exactly. In fact, the framers did the precise opposite. They strengthened the center and weakened the states. The states had extraordinary power under the Articles of Confederation. Most of them had their own navies and their own currencies. The truth is, the Constitution massively strengthened the central government of the U.S. for the simple reason that it established one where none had existed before.”
By this extraordinary (il)logic, if I add vegetables to my diet, I am now a vegetarian. Creating a federal government is demonstrably not endowing it with unlimited powers. That is a false dichotomy. If it were true that the new federal government was not limited, why the thousands of words in the Constitution? Why not simply say that there is now a national government? Why bother to enumerate powers?
The Constitution was written to describe how the federal government was to be constituted.
“If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the "necessary and proper" clause, which delegates to Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Limited government indeed.”
So much for Stengel drawing a line at which point the Constitution breaks down. The “drumroll” of congressional power is apparently not enough for statists, as they continue to use powers not granted therein. Notably the clause to which Stengel refers does not give Congress the power to do whatever it wants. The laws it passes must be 1) necessary and proper, not whatever Congress feels like, and 2) for the execution of “the foregoing Powers,” not just anything.
Secondly, the Constitution does say that the national government is limited. The Tenth Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights!) reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Federalist Alexander Hamilton did not even think that this prohibition would need to be stated explicitly. In Federalist #84, he wrote, “[B]ills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, had this to say in Federalist #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
Unlimited government, indeed.
Stengel throws this in: “Most of all, the framers created a weak Executive because they feared kings. They created checks and balances to neutralize any concentration of power.”
Oh, I guess they wanted to limit what government could do after all…
But then he is back to his old tune: “The framers weren't afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it. It was written in a spirit of change and revolution and turbulence. It was not written in stone.”
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that. Maybe something like this: “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone is it the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject… And that the Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of it origin and adoption.”
If the Constitution does not design government in a way that is not alterable arbitrarily, then it is no constitution. If it does not outline the object and function of government, it does not constitute government. To outline the object and function of government is to limit it. A constitutional government is a limited government, by definition.
Anyone who prizes what we have inherited in America needs to combat this kind of ideology that does not trust freedom, and prefers to put its faith in a handful of elites to use the state better than the people as a whole can use their own liberty.
The battle to which Stengel turns a blind eye is waging on many fronts. He goes on his article to discuss four specific issues. Those are topics for me to deal with next time…
Well, you know
We all want to change your head” – The Beatles
British statesman Edmund Burke once eruditely wrote, “Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state.” Great Britain, with no document serving as an official constitution, was nevertheless the freest and most stable of the great powers in the world for many years, until the founding the United States of America, 235 years ago today. The constitution of Nigeria is one the closet to ours, word for word; Nigeria could almost be considered a dictatorship. To maintain a free and prosperous society requires not simply the existence of a piece of paper declaring the intentions of those constituting government, but the vigilance of those who understand the importance of ideas behind it. Standing in opposition to constitutional government are the statists, who consider constitutionalism to be an impediment to government’s ability to make the world the way it should be.
On June 23rd, Time magazine’s managing editor Richard Stengel wrote an illustrative article entitled ‘One Document, Under Siege.’ Understanding the worldview of a statist like Stengel is imperative to the perpetuation of the constitutional system he neither cares for nor understands, so I will highlight key points in his article and expose the fallacies and the ignorance of America’s founding ideas.
Stengel opens with this: “Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.”
With all of these examples of changes since the founding, in what way does Stengel believe the government would be different than now, had the founders been gifted with clairvoyance. Would we have excluded certain rights from the Bill of Rights so that Roosevelt could have rounded up innocent Japanese-Americans legally? Would they have left out the part in the Declaration about all men being created equal, if they had known about DNA and genetics? Would they have even founded the country if they had known Lady Gaga would be born here? (Actually, they may not have…)
Stengel simply introduces a red herring here. No one contends that the founders were omniscient gods. It was precisely because they realized that no human beings have this kind of knowledge and understand that they created a government meant to stay out of these kinds of things for the most part. To illustrate the point, only one (maybe two) of the things Stengel listed could be said to have been created by government. How’s Medicare working out? Oh, yeah, it’s trillions of dollars in the red…
Stengel goes on, “The framers were not gods and were not infallible. (Hey, I just said that!) Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College. They did not give us income taxes. Or Prohibition. Those came later.”
Number one: Slaves, not blacks, were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting population for representation in the House of Representatives. This was a compromise between the Southern states and the Northern states. The Constitution gave no specific instruction when it came to who would vote – a point to keep in mind for the next paragraph. Knowing that slaves would not be allowed to vote, the Northern states sought to prevent the Southern states from acquiring power in the House that would not represent the slaves who could not vote, but would instead further entrench the institution that many of the Northern states wanted to do away with. The result of the debate over representation was called the three-fifths compromise.
Number two: Again, the Constitution did not give instruction on who could vote. States were left this power. Most states gave the power only to property owners so that those without property would not vote to use government to take the property away. Shortly after, women experienced societal and sometimes legal exclusion from landownership, and that was the reason behind their not being allowed to vote. Using the method of constitutional change left us by the founders, subsequent amendments paved the way to give women the right to vote in 1920.
Number three: Going from a confederation of near-sovereign states to a united nation, many of the states were wary that their power would be usurped by the national government. In particular, the smaller states believed that their interests would not be represented in any congress whose membership was determined by population. The larger states, of course, believed that with more people, they should have a greater say in national policy. Another compromise was born, and we have a bicameral legislation. The number of Electoral College votes is the combination of the number of all senators and representatives from all the states. In both cases, the Senate is a check on the people and the House is a check on the states.
Number four: Income taxes suck and Prohibition was repealed.
“Today's debates represent conflict, not crisis. Conflict is at the core of our politics, and the Constitution is designed to manage it... A crisis is when the Constitution breaks down. We're not in danger of that.”
May I ask a simple question, Mr. Stengel? Just when is it that the Constitution breaks down? Being such a constitutional expert, perhaps he will tell us precisely what is and is not constitutional.
“Nor are we in danger of flipping the Constitution on its head, as some of the Tea Party faithful contend. Their view of the founding documents was pretty well summarized by Texas Congressman Ron Paul back in 2008: "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose — to restrain the federal government." Well, not exactly. In fact, the framers did the precise opposite. They strengthened the center and weakened the states. The states had extraordinary power under the Articles of Confederation. Most of them had their own navies and their own currencies. The truth is, the Constitution massively strengthened the central government of the U.S. for the simple reason that it established one where none had existed before.”
By this extraordinary (il)logic, if I add vegetables to my diet, I am now a vegetarian. Creating a federal government is demonstrably not endowing it with unlimited powers. That is a false dichotomy. If it were true that the new federal government was not limited, why the thousands of words in the Constitution? Why not simply say that there is now a national government? Why bother to enumerate powers?
The Constitution was written to describe how the federal government was to be constituted.
“If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the "necessary and proper" clause, which delegates to Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Limited government indeed.”
So much for Stengel drawing a line at which point the Constitution breaks down. The “drumroll” of congressional power is apparently not enough for statists, as they continue to use powers not granted therein. Notably the clause to which Stengel refers does not give Congress the power to do whatever it wants. The laws it passes must be 1) necessary and proper, not whatever Congress feels like, and 2) for the execution of “the foregoing Powers,” not just anything.
Secondly, the Constitution does say that the national government is limited. The Tenth Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights!) reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Federalist Alexander Hamilton did not even think that this prohibition would need to be stated explicitly. In Federalist #84, he wrote, “[B]ills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, had this to say in Federalist #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
Unlimited government, indeed.
Stengel throws this in: “Most of all, the framers created a weak Executive because they feared kings. They created checks and balances to neutralize any concentration of power.”
Oh, I guess they wanted to limit what government could do after all…
But then he is back to his old tune: “The framers weren't afraid of a little messiness. Which is another reason we shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it. It was written in a spirit of change and revolution and turbulence. It was not written in stone.”
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that. Maybe something like this: “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone is it the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject… And that the Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of it origin and adoption.”
If the Constitution does not design government in a way that is not alterable arbitrarily, then it is no constitution. If it does not outline the object and function of government, it does not constitute government. To outline the object and function of government is to limit it. A constitutional government is a limited government, by definition.
Anyone who prizes what we have inherited in America needs to combat this kind of ideology that does not trust freedom, and prefers to put its faith in a handful of elites to use the state better than the people as a whole can use their own liberty.
The battle to which Stengel turns a blind eye is waging on many fronts. He goes on his article to discuss four specific issues. Those are topics for me to deal with next time…
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Lauded Independents
On his radio program today, Rush Limbaugh characteristically questioned conventional wisdom. This particular monologue, questioning whether oft- praised virtue and intelligence of political independents and moderates was indeed a reality, brought a question to my mind not articulated by Mr. Limbaugh. That question is this: why do these independents, responsible as we are told they are for the outcomes of national (and particularly presidential) elections, change their minds so predictably and routinely?
We are reminded by the political pundits that shifts of power from one party to another like the 2010 elections, however nearly unprecedented, occur almost every election cycle. They are normal. A shift in some 60 seats is normal? The wise mass of open-minded voters must have made a terrible error if they must correct it with such a change. But again, if what the pundits tell us is true – I do not believe it is – this body untainted by prejudice makes the same mistake every election cycle, and must fix it the next time around.
Is this simply their way of balancing our political system? Is this their moderating power? It seems to me instead to be the behavior of a group of people with short memories and discontentment with the circumstances of the country, our simply with their own circumstances. They may express the sentiment of George Orwell: “It is not possible for any thinking person to live in such a society as our own without wanting to change it.” But change it to what? It is impossible for any thinking person not to ask that question. As Henry David Thoreau said, “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” Complaining of futility is cathartic, perhaps, but it accomplishes nothing. Realizing difficult goals is one of America’s most noteworthy virtues. Or at least, it has been.
I believe that our educational system has failed to equip a large number of the population with the necessary thinking skills and understanding of our political system to determine a good goal for the form of our government. We need an active, informed populace to begin work from the ground up if we are ever going to restore our system. The “ground up” invokes the concept of federalism, an American principle completely lost on a substantial number of the American population. But that is a topic for another time…
For now, we would do well to remember what James Madison recognized: governments are the ultimate reflection of those governed. A glance at our current reflection does not make us look good.
We are reminded by the political pundits that shifts of power from one party to another like the 2010 elections, however nearly unprecedented, occur almost every election cycle. They are normal. A shift in some 60 seats is normal? The wise mass of open-minded voters must have made a terrible error if they must correct it with such a change. But again, if what the pundits tell us is true – I do not believe it is – this body untainted by prejudice makes the same mistake every election cycle, and must fix it the next time around.
Is this simply their way of balancing our political system? Is this their moderating power? It seems to me instead to be the behavior of a group of people with short memories and discontentment with the circumstances of the country, our simply with their own circumstances. They may express the sentiment of George Orwell: “It is not possible for any thinking person to live in such a society as our own without wanting to change it.” But change it to what? It is impossible for any thinking person not to ask that question. As Henry David Thoreau said, “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” Complaining of futility is cathartic, perhaps, but it accomplishes nothing. Realizing difficult goals is one of America’s most noteworthy virtues. Or at least, it has been.
I believe that our educational system has failed to equip a large number of the population with the necessary thinking skills and understanding of our political system to determine a good goal for the form of our government. We need an active, informed populace to begin work from the ground up if we are ever going to restore our system. The “ground up” invokes the concept of federalism, an American principle completely lost on a substantial number of the American population. But that is a topic for another time…
For now, we would do well to remember what James Madison recognized: governments are the ultimate reflection of those governed. A glance at our current reflection does not make us look good.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Right to Privacy?
In the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invoked the concept of a “right to privacy” in order to rule that the practice of abortion was indeed constitutional. One may be forgiven for wondering from where this concept was derived. The word privacy never appears in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any subsequent amendment.
Defenders of the “right to privacy” claim that it is implied in the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment. None of these contain any implication that can be said to support any constitutionality of abortion.
The “relevant” section of the 5th Amendment deals with “due process”. It states that “no person shall be…deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” “Due process” has been since used to denote the preservation of the rights that we, citizens of the British colonies in America, had under British law. Under strict construction interpretation, the fact is, that concept is never stated explicitly. If it were, one would have to assume that a right to privacy defined in such a way that is relevant to abortion existed. That is a questionable assumption, since abortion – at least as we understand it – did not exist in 18th century England.
Contextually and literally, the term “due process” means that advance notice of what the law requires must be given for the enforcement of that law to be in fact legal. It also follows that advance notice is necessary to make legal the subsequent deprivation of life, liberty or property that comes as a consequential punishment for the breaking of the law. If indeed unborn babies are alive (something I am not debating here), then for them to be deprived of life legally, they must be given advance notice of the law that they are breaking, the subsequent penalty for which is deprivation of life. If the 5th Amendment does indeed apply to abortion, this, in my view, is how.
The 9th Amendment reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment is invoked in order to argue that the fact that a right is not enumerated does not mean that it does not exist. Therefore, just because a right to privacy has never been articulated, it does not mean there is not one. But the weakness of this argument is this: saying that a right does not necessarily “not exist” is not the same as saying it does exist. It simply does not preclude the possibility of its existence.
The 14th Amendment is said to be relevant in two ways. The first is the use of the phrase “equal protection”. This is the idea that the government is not allowed to discriminate in the application of the law. The problem is that discrimination does legally occur in the law. In fact, that is what the law is: discrimination on the basis of behavior or choices. We discriminate in terms of whether certain actions should be legally allowed or not. The relevant discrimination to the 14th Amendment is discriminating between people. All people are to be protected equally under the law. Equal protection applies to people, not to actions.
The second relevant portion of the 14th Amendment is that it applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Rights that are not to be violated by the federal government are now not to be violated by the states either, according to the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This is insufficient for any argument depriving jurisdiction from the states to decide for themselves whether or not to legalize abortion (the way it was handled prior to Roe v. Wade), as it requires that a right to privacy relevant to abortion be previously protected from infringement by the federal government. Otherwise that right does not exist and thus cannot be extended to include the states.
In fact, if the 5th Amendment can be construed to protect against the legalization of abortion (as mentioned in the fourth paragraph), it would then be extended properly by the 14th Amendment to an interpretation that even the states cannot legalize abortion.
The last (and perhaps, best) argument that there is a right to privacy found in the Bill of Rights is in the 4th Amendment. It begins with “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” Is this privacy in the relevant sense? It continues “…against unreasonable search and seizure…” and “…but upon probable cause…” Perhaps I am missing something, but this is talking about a warrantless search. What that has to do with whether or not a woman decides to get an abortion, I cannot divine.
Clearly it is illegal for the law to invade your privacy to establish whether or not you committed a crime unless it can first provide proof of probable cause, but there is no way to construe this to mean that because something is done in private, is therefore legal. No one would approve of that. Just because “the home is the castle” (Lawrence et al. v. Texas) it does not mean that killing someone or even pick-pocketing someone is legal because it is done in the privacy of your home. If abortion is indeed taking a life (again, something I am not arguing here), then it is murder whether or not it is done “privately”.
Since abortion is not even done in the home generally speaking and is instead performed in abortion clinics, the real relevance according to the Supreme Court is that abortion is a private choice. This, of course, has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. Would that liberals fought for the privacy of other choices!
Besides that, the privacy of a choice does not determine its legality. I highly doubt that someone decides to commit murder in public. It is a private choice. The law, again, discriminates between actions, between whether or not we allow certain actions. The law determines whether or not something can be chosen privately, not the other way around.
Any “right to privacy” one can elicit is implied in the Constitution or its amendments cannot be applied to the legality of abortion.
Defenders of the “right to privacy” claim that it is implied in the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment. None of these contain any implication that can be said to support any constitutionality of abortion.
The “relevant” section of the 5th Amendment deals with “due process”. It states that “no person shall be…deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” “Due process” has been since used to denote the preservation of the rights that we, citizens of the British colonies in America, had under British law. Under strict construction interpretation, the fact is, that concept is never stated explicitly. If it were, one would have to assume that a right to privacy defined in such a way that is relevant to abortion existed. That is a questionable assumption, since abortion – at least as we understand it – did not exist in 18th century England.
Contextually and literally, the term “due process” means that advance notice of what the law requires must be given for the enforcement of that law to be in fact legal. It also follows that advance notice is necessary to make legal the subsequent deprivation of life, liberty or property that comes as a consequential punishment for the breaking of the law. If indeed unborn babies are alive (something I am not debating here), then for them to be deprived of life legally, they must be given advance notice of the law that they are breaking, the subsequent penalty for which is deprivation of life. If the 5th Amendment does indeed apply to abortion, this, in my view, is how.
The 9th Amendment reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment is invoked in order to argue that the fact that a right is not enumerated does not mean that it does not exist. Therefore, just because a right to privacy has never been articulated, it does not mean there is not one. But the weakness of this argument is this: saying that a right does not necessarily “not exist” is not the same as saying it does exist. It simply does not preclude the possibility of its existence.
The 14th Amendment is said to be relevant in two ways. The first is the use of the phrase “equal protection”. This is the idea that the government is not allowed to discriminate in the application of the law. The problem is that discrimination does legally occur in the law. In fact, that is what the law is: discrimination on the basis of behavior or choices. We discriminate in terms of whether certain actions should be legally allowed or not. The relevant discrimination to the 14th Amendment is discriminating between people. All people are to be protected equally under the law. Equal protection applies to people, not to actions.
The second relevant portion of the 14th Amendment is that it applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Rights that are not to be violated by the federal government are now not to be violated by the states either, according to the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This is insufficient for any argument depriving jurisdiction from the states to decide for themselves whether or not to legalize abortion (the way it was handled prior to Roe v. Wade), as it requires that a right to privacy relevant to abortion be previously protected from infringement by the federal government. Otherwise that right does not exist and thus cannot be extended to include the states.
In fact, if the 5th Amendment can be construed to protect against the legalization of abortion (as mentioned in the fourth paragraph), it would then be extended properly by the 14th Amendment to an interpretation that even the states cannot legalize abortion.
The last (and perhaps, best) argument that there is a right to privacy found in the Bill of Rights is in the 4th Amendment. It begins with “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” Is this privacy in the relevant sense? It continues “…against unreasonable search and seizure…” and “…but upon probable cause…” Perhaps I am missing something, but this is talking about a warrantless search. What that has to do with whether or not a woman decides to get an abortion, I cannot divine.
Clearly it is illegal for the law to invade your privacy to establish whether or not you committed a crime unless it can first provide proof of probable cause, but there is no way to construe this to mean that because something is done in private, is therefore legal. No one would approve of that. Just because “the home is the castle” (Lawrence et al. v. Texas) it does not mean that killing someone or even pick-pocketing someone is legal because it is done in the privacy of your home. If abortion is indeed taking a life (again, something I am not arguing here), then it is murder whether or not it is done “privately”.
Since abortion is not even done in the home generally speaking and is instead performed in abortion clinics, the real relevance according to the Supreme Court is that abortion is a private choice. This, of course, has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. Would that liberals fought for the privacy of other choices!
Besides that, the privacy of a choice does not determine its legality. I highly doubt that someone decides to commit murder in public. It is a private choice. The law, again, discriminates between actions, between whether or not we allow certain actions. The law determines whether or not something can be chosen privately, not the other way around.
Any “right to privacy” one can elicit is implied in the Constitution or its amendments cannot be applied to the legality of abortion.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Analysis of the GOP Pledge to America
The GOP Pledge to America is subtitled: “a New Governing Agenda built on The Priorities of Our Nation, the Principles We Stand For, & America’s Founding Values”. Right off the bat, it quotes the Declaration of Independence concerning some of those founding values: “the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Regarding America as not just a country, but an idea, they proceed to assert that “like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own.”
The priorities of our nation, they imply, are more truly reflected in the views they express in the pledge than those of the current administration. They recognize the well-known issues the country faces – joblessness, debt, etc. – and proceed to make somewhat generic pledges that may sound like platitudes to some. But we are still, of course, in the introduction.
One of the most intriguing sentences is this: “We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.” Conventional wisdom has it that these issues are on the back-burner this election cycle, and that it would be more profitable for the GOP to attract citizens disgusted with the Obama administrations’ economic policies, like the Tea Party, with promises of fiscal responsibility, while leaving such social issues untouched, as some predict that they could be divisive.
Cynically, some may speak of the dominance of the “religious right” in influencing the GOP and thus their pledge. Apparently the GOP is less concerned (at least in this case) with repelling some Tea Party members than leaving out some major concerns of conservative Christians. They go on to reiterate their commitment to this cause in the forward, promising to “permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.”
The rest of the pledge is divided into categories: the economy, government spending, health care, restoring trust in Congress, national security, and checks and balances.
A Plan to Create Jobs, End Economic Uncertainty, and Make America More Competitive
After the introduction and the forward, the first section of the pledge deals with the economy. It reminds readers of various tax hikes that will go into effect if no legislation is passed to deal with it. The GOP goes onto promise said action to stop taxes from going up. It promises to cut small business taxes and red tape. Repealing the health care bill is also promised here, because of its mandates on businesses.
A Plan to Stop Out of Control Spending and Reduce the Size of Government
“Washington’s out-of-control spending spree needs no introduction,” says the first line of this section of the pledge. They promise to return spending to pre-bailout levels (which at least is a start), to end the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and to end government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The following quotation might not go over well: “Unfortunately, Washington Democrats refuse to listen to the American people and eliminate, restrain, or even budget for their out-of-control spending spree.”Many people will remember that Republicans’ spending was out-of-control as well. However, to be fair, our deficit and debt is primarily the result of the last four years of the Democratically-controlled Congress, and most of that during the last two years with a Democrat president.
A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care
The Republicans count the costs of the Obamacare bill as loss of jobs, increased medical costs, more debt and deficits, higher taxes, loss of Medicare coverage for seniors, loss of the ability to choose your own doctor and tax dollars funding abortions.
They pledge to repeal the law, enact “medical liability reform”, allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines, expand health savings accounts, “strengthen doctor-patient relationships” (who knows how?), and “ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions.”
The only one of these promises that concerns me is the last, for this reason: “We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition.” First of all, I do not see how this is constitutional. Exactly what business is it of the government’s to decide what an insurance company will offer to its customers? Many people who do not have pre-existing conditions will likely prefer a company that does not offer such coverage, as they will offer cheaper policies, all things equal, due to the fact that they take on less risk. Why should they be denied that choice to go to an insurance company that decides not to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions?
A Plan to Reform Congress and Restore Trust
We have to at least give them credit for trying, right? I doubt that most cynics will be won over by anything that GOP does if they are elected, but maybe I’m just being cynical about the cynics.
Republicans pledge to publish the text of any bill under consideration online at least three days in advance, which may remind people of Nancy Pelosi’s joke of a pledge to run the most transparent and ethical Congress the world has ever known. They also invite scrutiny by pledging to cite the constitutional authority for every bill, which will only mean something to those who actually care about what the Constitution says. Lastly, they promise to consider issues one bill at a time, instead of putting together a package deal.
A Plan to Keep Our Nation Safe at Home and Abroad
The GOP list for national security includes the following: 1) Pass Clean Troop Funding Bills 2) Keep Terrorists Out of America (Keep Guantánamo Bay open) 3) Demand an Overarching Detention Policy 4) Fully Fund Missile Defense (my favorite) 5) Require Tough Enforcement of Sanctions against Iran 6) Establish Operational Control of the Border 7) Work with State and Local Officials to Enforce Our Immigration Laws (which sounds to me like not stopping Arizona from enforcing actual immigration law) and 8) Strengthen Visa Security
I have only two issues with the pledge. The first is the promise to make it illegal to deny coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions. The second is that they seem to be unwilling to deal with the two elephants in the room: Social Security and Medicare. They will be issues shortly whether anyone wants them to be or not. That is most important issue to spending. Unfortunately, the GOP seems to be unwilling to take a stand here. Maybe they plan to deal with it, but they don’t want to blow their chances at taking back the House and maybe the Senate by taking an unpopular position. I hope that that is why they mostly ignored it.
I do not have an issue with the vagueness of some of it. They will have to deal with political realities that exist when they take control.
Finally, it is up to us, the people to keep them honest and keeping their promises. To quote the GOP pledge: “In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed.”
The priorities of our nation, they imply, are more truly reflected in the views they express in the pledge than those of the current administration. They recognize the well-known issues the country faces – joblessness, debt, etc. – and proceed to make somewhat generic pledges that may sound like platitudes to some. But we are still, of course, in the introduction.
One of the most intriguing sentences is this: “We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.” Conventional wisdom has it that these issues are on the back-burner this election cycle, and that it would be more profitable for the GOP to attract citizens disgusted with the Obama administrations’ economic policies, like the Tea Party, with promises of fiscal responsibility, while leaving such social issues untouched, as some predict that they could be divisive.
Cynically, some may speak of the dominance of the “religious right” in influencing the GOP and thus their pledge. Apparently the GOP is less concerned (at least in this case) with repelling some Tea Party members than leaving out some major concerns of conservative Christians. They go on to reiterate their commitment to this cause in the forward, promising to “permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.”
The rest of the pledge is divided into categories: the economy, government spending, health care, restoring trust in Congress, national security, and checks and balances.
A Plan to Create Jobs, End Economic Uncertainty, and Make America More Competitive
After the introduction and the forward, the first section of the pledge deals with the economy. It reminds readers of various tax hikes that will go into effect if no legislation is passed to deal with it. The GOP goes onto promise said action to stop taxes from going up. It promises to cut small business taxes and red tape. Repealing the health care bill is also promised here, because of its mandates on businesses.
A Plan to Stop Out of Control Spending and Reduce the Size of Government
“Washington’s out-of-control spending spree needs no introduction,” says the first line of this section of the pledge. They promise to return spending to pre-bailout levels (which at least is a start), to end the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and to end government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The following quotation might not go over well: “Unfortunately, Washington Democrats refuse to listen to the American people and eliminate, restrain, or even budget for their out-of-control spending spree.”Many people will remember that Republicans’ spending was out-of-control as well. However, to be fair, our deficit and debt is primarily the result of the last four years of the Democratically-controlled Congress, and most of that during the last two years with a Democrat president.
A Plan to Repeal and Replace the Government Takeover of Health Care
The Republicans count the costs of the Obamacare bill as loss of jobs, increased medical costs, more debt and deficits, higher taxes, loss of Medicare coverage for seniors, loss of the ability to choose your own doctor and tax dollars funding abortions.
They pledge to repeal the law, enact “medical liability reform”, allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines, expand health savings accounts, “strengthen doctor-patient relationships” (who knows how?), and “ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions.”
The only one of these promises that concerns me is the last, for this reason: “We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition.” First of all, I do not see how this is constitutional. Exactly what business is it of the government’s to decide what an insurance company will offer to its customers? Many people who do not have pre-existing conditions will likely prefer a company that does not offer such coverage, as they will offer cheaper policies, all things equal, due to the fact that they take on less risk. Why should they be denied that choice to go to an insurance company that decides not to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions?
A Plan to Reform Congress and Restore Trust
We have to at least give them credit for trying, right? I doubt that most cynics will be won over by anything that GOP does if they are elected, but maybe I’m just being cynical about the cynics.
Republicans pledge to publish the text of any bill under consideration online at least three days in advance, which may remind people of Nancy Pelosi’s joke of a pledge to run the most transparent and ethical Congress the world has ever known. They also invite scrutiny by pledging to cite the constitutional authority for every bill, which will only mean something to those who actually care about what the Constitution says. Lastly, they promise to consider issues one bill at a time, instead of putting together a package deal.
A Plan to Keep Our Nation Safe at Home and Abroad
The GOP list for national security includes the following: 1) Pass Clean Troop Funding Bills 2) Keep Terrorists Out of America (Keep Guantánamo Bay open) 3) Demand an Overarching Detention Policy 4) Fully Fund Missile Defense (my favorite) 5) Require Tough Enforcement of Sanctions against Iran 6) Establish Operational Control of the Border 7) Work with State and Local Officials to Enforce Our Immigration Laws (which sounds to me like not stopping Arizona from enforcing actual immigration law) and 8) Strengthen Visa Security
I have only two issues with the pledge. The first is the promise to make it illegal to deny coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions. The second is that they seem to be unwilling to deal with the two elephants in the room: Social Security and Medicare. They will be issues shortly whether anyone wants them to be or not. That is most important issue to spending. Unfortunately, the GOP seems to be unwilling to take a stand here. Maybe they plan to deal with it, but they don’t want to blow their chances at taking back the House and maybe the Senate by taking an unpopular position. I hope that that is why they mostly ignored it.
I do not have an issue with the vagueness of some of it. They will have to deal with political realities that exist when they take control.
Finally, it is up to us, the people to keep them honest and keeping their promises. To quote the GOP pledge: “In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed.”
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Poor Grade Students: A Call to Action
With much attention recently paid to issues like health care, bankrupted industries, economies in recession, global warming, immigration, and oil spills, one area seems to have been neglected: the plight of poor grade students. Much like low-income families, poor grade students have been lost in the fray as we rush to higher and higher education. Changes in the perceptions of degrees – a master’s degree today has about the same prestige as a bachelor’s did a generation ago – among other things are increasingly problematic for the poor-graded, as we continue to ignore this issue. One may shortsightedly see this plight as reflecting embarrassingly on both the educational system and on the students themselves.
But this view ignores a much larger and long term issue at stake. This is the impact of grades on the student’s economic future. Before we discuss that, however, we must detour in another (related) problem.
As the student moves upwards through the educational system, he will find it easier to acquire higher education if he has the high grades sought after by educators. This can be seen in the areas of scholarships, college offers, graduate work, honors societies and others. High grade students are given continuous opportunities to succeed. Lower graded students are not. Is it any wonder that this is the case? Those who run institutions of higher learning are generally PhD’s themselves and are likely biased toward those of their own education level, as well as maintaining the prestige of their degrees.
Let us go back now to the economic futures of students. As we have just seen, low grades will, in all likelihood, result in a lack of high education for the student. High education is inarguably linked to high-paying jobs. We find exactly what we expect: that, in Detroit, for example, the education level is low; the income level is as well.
This brings us to a related problem: that of “grade inequality”, the fact that not only do some students have high grades and some low, but that there is much in equality in the distribution of grades. This occurs along geographical boundaries and also within individual classrooms. It exacerbates the problem when 100% correct assignments receive a 4.0 grade while 50% receives 0. A correction of this system will hardly solve the problem at hand, however. College admissions and employers will soon adjust to this new arrangement. It is simply that this, along with the fact that high grades result in more educational opportunities, aggravates the issue of grade inequality. Something more pervasive must be enacted.
As we continue to think about this problem, we must also remember that grades tend to be hereditary. Children of higher graded parents often receive high grades themselves, and the same inheritance trends from lower graded parents to their children (unfairly, of course – these children did not receive this poor inheritance by their own choice, but acquired it through no fault of their own). This only serves to worsen situation for a poor grade neighborhood. Poor grade parents with low incomes will likely have poor grade children, who will likely receive low incomes, making them no more able to support their parents than their parents were able to support them. This, as anyone can see, will almost certainly keep lower grade communities low grade and high grade communities high grade. The economic results, I need not redundantly state.
Finally, there are some people who charge that students with low grades are just lazy, but that ignores many hard-working students that are simply unable to get ahead of the piles of homework stacked in front of them. We must not allow these unfortunate students to get lost in the fray.
What solutions might exist? So called “grade curves” might be used, but this can only be effective to an extent, as it is currently not mandated to employ them. Even if it were, this would only possibly solve part of the problem. It could help in the area of inequality across school lines, but it does nothing to promote equality within the classroom, since they simply raise the grades of all the students in a classroom with generally low test scores.
My solution would be this: Tax high grade students and give those grades to students with poorer grades. We cannot simply give everyone the same grade, as that would nullify anything the higher grade students have done. However, we can redistribute some grades. It is unnecessary for a student – we will call him Johnny – with a 100%-correct assignment to keep all 100%. 95% will suffice, as it is above the 4.0 line in any classroom. The 5% taken off the top could then be redistributed to Johnny’s friend, Tommy, who is struggling to stay afloat. Tommy, with his 66% on his assignment, will receive 5% on top of that and then achieve a passing 71%, and little Johnny will not have to go on to the next grade without his best friend.
This solution helps out the students at the bottom by relieving the top students only of the grades they do not really need. Not only that, but it will result in more equal distribution of grades. In the case of Johnny and Tommy, the difference is cut from 34% to 24%.
Of course, there would be a cut-off point. Not all higher grade students would have their grades taxed. This would be ridiculous. It would not even be necessary for middle-high students to give as much as the high grade students. The higher graded students can afford it; the middle-high cannot as much.
In order to solve inequality across geographical lines, it would be necessary to institute this plan at the national level. The total students who could be taxed would likely be enough to alleviate the plight of their fellow, less-fortunate students.
As to other solutions: a minimum grade law is something that we need to look into more. It would take some form opposite to the current grade system. Instead of 50% being graded at a 0 GPA, 25% percent – or another number determined by experts – would receive a minimum of 1.0 – or, once again, another appropriate number determined by experts. This could help keep students from falling through the cracks, but, again, more research should be done.
I see no realistic way of enacting an educational version of an estate tax – taxing parents’ grades when they die, and this does nothing to deal with the issue of the unfair inheritance of better grades by some children than by others. I do not see any point in pursuing that idea any further.
At this point, grade redistribution through taxation seems to be the best solution.
But this view ignores a much larger and long term issue at stake. This is the impact of grades on the student’s economic future. Before we discuss that, however, we must detour in another (related) problem.
As the student moves upwards through the educational system, he will find it easier to acquire higher education if he has the high grades sought after by educators. This can be seen in the areas of scholarships, college offers, graduate work, honors societies and others. High grade students are given continuous opportunities to succeed. Lower graded students are not. Is it any wonder that this is the case? Those who run institutions of higher learning are generally PhD’s themselves and are likely biased toward those of their own education level, as well as maintaining the prestige of their degrees.
Let us go back now to the economic futures of students. As we have just seen, low grades will, in all likelihood, result in a lack of high education for the student. High education is inarguably linked to high-paying jobs. We find exactly what we expect: that, in Detroit, for example, the education level is low; the income level is as well.
This brings us to a related problem: that of “grade inequality”, the fact that not only do some students have high grades and some low, but that there is much in equality in the distribution of grades. This occurs along geographical boundaries and also within individual classrooms. It exacerbates the problem when 100% correct assignments receive a 4.0 grade while 50% receives 0. A correction of this system will hardly solve the problem at hand, however. College admissions and employers will soon adjust to this new arrangement. It is simply that this, along with the fact that high grades result in more educational opportunities, aggravates the issue of grade inequality. Something more pervasive must be enacted.
As we continue to think about this problem, we must also remember that grades tend to be hereditary. Children of higher graded parents often receive high grades themselves, and the same inheritance trends from lower graded parents to their children (unfairly, of course – these children did not receive this poor inheritance by their own choice, but acquired it through no fault of their own). This only serves to worsen situation for a poor grade neighborhood. Poor grade parents with low incomes will likely have poor grade children, who will likely receive low incomes, making them no more able to support their parents than their parents were able to support them. This, as anyone can see, will almost certainly keep lower grade communities low grade and high grade communities high grade. The economic results, I need not redundantly state.
Finally, there are some people who charge that students with low grades are just lazy, but that ignores many hard-working students that are simply unable to get ahead of the piles of homework stacked in front of them. We must not allow these unfortunate students to get lost in the fray.
What solutions might exist? So called “grade curves” might be used, but this can only be effective to an extent, as it is currently not mandated to employ them. Even if it were, this would only possibly solve part of the problem. It could help in the area of inequality across school lines, but it does nothing to promote equality within the classroom, since they simply raise the grades of all the students in a classroom with generally low test scores.
My solution would be this: Tax high grade students and give those grades to students with poorer grades. We cannot simply give everyone the same grade, as that would nullify anything the higher grade students have done. However, we can redistribute some grades. It is unnecessary for a student – we will call him Johnny – with a 100%-correct assignment to keep all 100%. 95% will suffice, as it is above the 4.0 line in any classroom. The 5% taken off the top could then be redistributed to Johnny’s friend, Tommy, who is struggling to stay afloat. Tommy, with his 66% on his assignment, will receive 5% on top of that and then achieve a passing 71%, and little Johnny will not have to go on to the next grade without his best friend.
This solution helps out the students at the bottom by relieving the top students only of the grades they do not really need. Not only that, but it will result in more equal distribution of grades. In the case of Johnny and Tommy, the difference is cut from 34% to 24%.
Of course, there would be a cut-off point. Not all higher grade students would have their grades taxed. This would be ridiculous. It would not even be necessary for middle-high students to give as much as the high grade students. The higher graded students can afford it; the middle-high cannot as much.
In order to solve inequality across geographical lines, it would be necessary to institute this plan at the national level. The total students who could be taxed would likely be enough to alleviate the plight of their fellow, less-fortunate students.
As to other solutions: a minimum grade law is something that we need to look into more. It would take some form opposite to the current grade system. Instead of 50% being graded at a 0 GPA, 25% percent – or another number determined by experts – would receive a minimum of 1.0 – or, once again, another appropriate number determined by experts. This could help keep students from falling through the cracks, but, again, more research should be done.
I see no realistic way of enacting an educational version of an estate tax – taxing parents’ grades when they die, and this does nothing to deal with the issue of the unfair inheritance of better grades by some children than by others. I do not see any point in pursuing that idea any further.
At this point, grade redistribution through taxation seems to be the best solution.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Bauer-ize Them
To many, the policy of reading Miranda rights to terrorists and making them aware of the legal right to remain silent, as well as the right to an attorney, is inexplicable. If the captured terrorist is part of a multi-target plot, like those involved in the 9/11 attack, why would we informationally handcuff those entrusted with the public safety by “Mirandizing” the terrorist who may be a source of crucial intelligence? The response is generally something along the lines of “It’s their right. That’s the cost of freedom.”
So the cost of freedom is that we do not allow those whose job it is to protect that freedom (or another basic right we in America hold dear – the right to life) to do that job effectively. Certainly we can all agree that when two things we want cannot exist at the same time, we must make a trade-off. We may sacrifice expediency in one area to protect freedom in another. But since when does the freedom of a person who intends to make war on our country and destroy us trump the protection of many law-abiding citizens?
Modern liberalism has some roots in what Thomas Sowell calls the unconstrained view of human nature . The unconstrained vision, which sees human nature as malleable and perfectible, finds the suspension of legal rights in the case of public safety a barbaric nod to warlike sentiments. Instead of “beating” the information out of him, we can convince him of the error of his ways with the humanity we extend through the legal system. This in turn will convert him into a man able to fit into civilized society; it will rehabilitate him, and eventually end the war. Rehabilitation is the solution offered for the problem, the crime of terrorism, as it is the solution offered by those who hold the unconstrained view for all other crimes.
The problem is that the terrorist is warring against us. He may be committing crimes while he conducts the war, but fundamentally he does not simply want to avoid the rules of our society, he wants to destroy the society and its people. He cannot be punished, deterred or rehabilitated. He, and his cohorts, can only be stopped, and our legal system is not adequate to wage a war against these enemy combatants, most of whom never possessed legal rights in the first place.
Instead, we “Bauer-ize” them.
So the cost of freedom is that we do not allow those whose job it is to protect that freedom (or another basic right we in America hold dear – the right to life) to do that job effectively. Certainly we can all agree that when two things we want cannot exist at the same time, we must make a trade-off. We may sacrifice expediency in one area to protect freedom in another. But since when does the freedom of a person who intends to make war on our country and destroy us trump the protection of many law-abiding citizens?
Modern liberalism has some roots in what Thomas Sowell calls the unconstrained view of human nature . The unconstrained vision, which sees human nature as malleable and perfectible, finds the suspension of legal rights in the case of public safety a barbaric nod to warlike sentiments. Instead of “beating” the information out of him, we can convince him of the error of his ways with the humanity we extend through the legal system. This in turn will convert him into a man able to fit into civilized society; it will rehabilitate him, and eventually end the war. Rehabilitation is the solution offered for the problem, the crime of terrorism, as it is the solution offered by those who hold the unconstrained view for all other crimes.
The problem is that the terrorist is warring against us. He may be committing crimes while he conducts the war, but fundamentally he does not simply want to avoid the rules of our society, he wants to destroy the society and its people. He cannot be punished, deterred or rehabilitated. He, and his cohorts, can only be stopped, and our legal system is not adequate to wage a war against these enemy combatants, most of whom never possessed legal rights in the first place.
Instead, we “Bauer-ize” them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)