Friday, December 06, 2013
Thought of the Day
Bet Your Bottom Dollar
He has his reasons.
1) Young people are not actually invincible, he writes, and when they get really sick, like someone he knows in the White House, they'll sign up (and they'll be able to because of the rule for no turn downs for pre-existing conditions). The problem with only signing up once you're really sick is that you instantly become a burden on the system rather than being a benefit to it by paying for insurance you may not actually need. To the extent that Obamacare transfers wealth, it depends on transferring it from young, generally poorer people to old, generally richer people. That doesn't seem very fair. So it only helps if the young people paying more than their fair share are healthy and rarely use the actual health care. So this 'vincibility' is no help to the train wreck legislation. Obamacare needs the under-utilizers of health care to pay a lot into the system. That's what makes it work, at least in theory.
2) Going without insurance is morally wrong. OK, let me stop laughing. That's not going to persuade a lot of millennials, who are pretty much shameless and proud of it. They won't sign up if they can't afford it, even with federal deficit spending to help pay for it. And if they can't go out drinking etc., and afford health insurance, they'll skip the insurance That's why a lot of them don't get health care now. In a second of clarity, Cooper writes:
This one doesn’t carry much weight yet...
Gee. Ya' think? But then he immediately resorts to magical thinking again:
Getting insurance will be part of living in a decent society where everyone chips in when they can afford it, and free-riding is frowned upon — and over time, young people will come to see this as part of being a responsible citizen.Kind of important caveat--"when they can afford it." Free-riding is frowned upon? Does Ryan even know any 20 somethings? They don't frown on free-riding; they want to learn how they can get in on the free-riding. They really don't want to be responsible citizens, for that is the death of being cool (or whatever term they use for cool now). OK, don't have any liquid in your mouth when you read the next reason.
3) It’s the law. Law of the Land! But that and 10 pennies will get you about a dime these days. I'm not saying that young hipster types disobey the law for kicks (or whatever term they use for kicks now). Nor do I think they are stupid. But if the punishment is less than the cost of getting health insurance which they can't afford and don't really feel is all that necessary, they'll risk the punishment; and the punishment under the law of the land is pitifully small and difficult to administer. This argument, such that it is, will convince very few millennials.
4) People haven’t grasped how the subsidies work yet. But, goshdarn it, as soon as the morally upstanding, law abiding young adults learn that other people are partially paying for their insurance, they'll just come a-runnin'. They gotta'. Maybe? But, probably not. Of course deficit spending subsidies are all going on the millennials' national debt bar bill, so this might not be too persuasive to the politically savvy youngsters. However, the price the poor but healthy young will have to pay to subsidize the rich but decrepit seniors will be so high that even generous stipends will not reduce the cost to a generally affordable range; and we're back to hoping, with starry-eyed Mr. Cooper, that a general ability for the young to afford it will somehow magically show up. Since the 18-27 age group suffers 38% underemployment, this magical thinking seems a particular stretch of imagination.
5) Pressure from mom and dad. I'm laughing again, but only because I am a parent of three millennials. I am sure Mr. Cooper has never seen the interplay between normal college grad children and their parents, otherwise he would not have dared to write such drivel. Moral authority, legal authority, parental authority--yeah, these are Obamacare's aces in the hole. And when you're young and asset-less, bankruptcy isn't as scary as it is to those with something actually to lose.
6) Being uninsured sucks! This guy should write for Portlandia or something! Maybe It's Always Sunny... (which has a more realistic portrayal of older millenials than Cooper has here). Come on, guys, goshdarn it, you just gotta get health insurance! Listen, if the 20 somethings can withstand their parent's constant nagging, they can probably withstand the tiny Jiminy Cricket* voice they don't really hear. It only sucks, however, if you get hurt or sick and then it's not so bad if you're, like most of them, pretty freakin' poor. What really sucks is paying a lot for something you may never need or use. It's rare you see so long a period of unabashed, magical thinking as Mr. Cooper displays her.
Then Mr. Cooper reveals why he is capable of such self-delusion; he tells us he's only 27. And the pieces of the puzzle all fall into place and we older readers know the source of his wishing and hoping. He's too young to know any better (not stupid, inexperienced). Now, how can I say I know more about 20 somethings than a 20 something? Because I'm outside looking in and Mr. Cooper is stuck in the kaleidoscope of the group and I have first hand knowledge of history Mr. Cooper only seems dimly aware of. But he's not done yet--the big finish:
Finally, the White House has a long time to bring about this change. As Ezra Klein usefully details, Obamacare has many fail-safes built in to keep the system going for a couple years at least even if young people stay away en masse at first. Eventually, young people will forget they ever worried about Obamacare, and buying health insurance (if you don’t get it through work) will be part of becoming a full-fledged adult.They just gotta grow up! If this is its best case scenario, Obamacare is doomed indeed.
Listen, there are a lot of college age people out there who can't wait to quit the shallow, sybaritic lifestyle and start making real money through hard work and rational risk taking. Unfortunately, those people think like Rush Limbaugh and won't support Obamacare on principle. The vast majority, however, who are prolonging their adolescence into their thirties, who are putting off careers, marriage, responsibility and all the other trappings of "full-fledged" adulthood, and who really like the shallow sybaritic lifestyle, they're just not going to be able to afford Obamacare. End of story.
*Disney character in Pinocchio who was the conscience of the wooden boy. I doubt Mr. Cooper has seen it.
UPDATE: James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal on line takes on the less than formidable arguments of young Ryan Cooper here. Money quotes:
But "It's the law" overstates the case. "People hate paying fines and generally prefer to follow the rules, even if it would be cheaper to do [sic] pay the fine rather than pick up insurance," Cooper writes. But the Supreme Court held, in NFIB v. Sebelius, that the "fine" is actually only a tax. It is no more a violation of the rules to forgo insurance and pay the tax than it is to rent a home or buy one with cash and forgo the mortgage-interest deduction.[...]
It's also true that people with "lower" incomes--i.e., up to four times the poverty line--are eligible for subsidies, which will make buying insurance more attractive for some young adults than it would be if they were paying the full price-controlled cost. But to the extent that subsidies induce young people to become insured, that just shifts the burden to future taxpayers by requiring the federal government to borrow money. Some will also enroll in Medicaid, which won't improve the insurance pool at all and will actually worsen it if the new welfare cases previously had private insurance.
We mean....merely to observe that the habits of responsibility are often poorly developed in the young. They also are less likely to have the financial wherewithal to support responsible habits. They have less income to pay for insurance as well as less wealth to worry about losing should catastrophe strike.One final objection. Read over Cooper's list again and ask yourself: Is that kind of stern exhortation what they signed up for when they voted for Obama in such large numbers? No, they were attracted by his glamour and his vague idealism. To the extent that they favored ObamaCare in concept, it was because they liked the idea of "helping people," not punishing them. Much less submitting themselves to be punished.
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Thought of the Day
To put it bluntly, Occam’s Razor has moved. Things that were once possibilities now seem almost certainties to me.
Principal among those is that Obama’s academic records are perpetually unavailable for a reason — and that reason is most likely that they reveal he received financial preferences, scholarships and/or loans, as a foreign student. They probably also reveal academic mediocrity, but that’s par for the course for many of our politicians (except it becomes embarrassing in Obama’s case where he has the reputation of being brilliant).
Labels: Roger Simon quote
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Missing the Point Entirely
No, it's not. It is one of the least consequential facts of the real world. Here is the central paragraph:
And, crucially, Obama described the overall problem as the result of the rich pulling away from the rest. He noted that the share of the country’s wealth is increasingly going to the top while tax cuts for the wealthiest have cut into investments that benefit the rest, emphasizing that this has made it harder for poor children to escape poverty. Meanwhile middle class incomes have stagnated thanks to technological advances and declining unions. Result: The “basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed.”
What a crock. The rich generally have the ability and the means to earn more money. They work hard, they take calculated risks, they get things done and they make money. Duh! But the real world is not a zero sum game, that is, it is not a place where one can only gain wealth by taking it away from someone else. I buy something from someone else. He makes money. I use the product to improve my life or perhaps to make money too. If I didn't get a benefit from what I buy, I wouldn't buy it. The idea that the richer the rich get the worse everyone else is has to be one the stupidest lefty talking point out there. It is merely critical theory, lefty cant.
Tax cuts for the wealthy? Talk about failing to see the forest for the trees! The Bush tax cuts, which President Obama has seen fit to make permanent for most of us, were across the board. Everyone who paid federal income taxes got a tax cut. Why can't the left be honest about history that anyone can look up? It does them no good to say things we know are false.
The tax cuts have cut into investments (federal spending) that benefit the rest? No one is helped with waste and fraud. The reason we're in an L-shaped recovery falls solely on the current administration and the Democrat controlled Senate. The policies they have implemented have reduced job creation by the private sector. What's made it harder for poor children to rise above poverty is the lack of family support and the horrible schools the Democrats produce wherever they are in control. It is the lack of growth both in the number of jobs and the wages paid for the ones still extant that has stagnated wages for the middle class. Robots and unions have so little to do with it that even mentioning them is a waste of breath. The cause of the "fraying" of the social fabric is in part because the federal leadership has reached abysmal depths of competency. One more paragraph.
Obama discussed the need to prioritize growth; for universal pre-K education; to raise the minimum wage; tax and trade policies that encourage companies to grow here; more investments in worker retraining; proposals to reduce the cost of going to college; and other ideas.
This is a veritable parade of the wrong things to do. Pre-school, including head start, has no effect on an individual's success in the upper grades. None. It's a complete wast of money and near the bottom of things it would be good to do.
Raising the minimum wage costs the economy jobs. It puts people out of work or it keeps the unemployed from finding a job. There is a mutually agreeable wage which the employer will pay and the employee will work for. It is based on the skill level of the worker and the rigors of the job. Artificially raising the floor for the wages of entry level jobs by legislative fiat does not make the worker more valuable to the employer. It costs jobs. That's precisely the wrong thing to do to jump start a moribund economy.
It is also our tax and regulation policies, inter alia, which cause business to seek out more favorable wage rates overseas. The President has done not one thing to make America more hospitable to the kind of jobs he claims to want to increase (manufacturing jobs, for example) In fact, the Democrats have done the opposite. Result--stagnate to anemic growth.
We wouldn't have to "retrain" workers if we had "trained" them in the first place, during the 12 years of public education. But the product of that broken system, where more money is paid per student than in any other industrialized country of size int he world, is so lacking in common sense and valuable skills, the students cannot get jobs that pay what they could reasonably desire. Many of the federal jobs programs are total failures as well.
If you work hard at college and learn things that can actually be a help to businesses, then you may well find a career that is satisfying and lucrative. But colleges are failing to educate their students almost as much as K-12 is failing too many of its students. So making more poli sci majors, or gender studies majors, might not translate into more jobs for those college grads.
Other ideas? yeah, the ones so cool and exciting that we don't bother to mention them. Why even write that? Nothing the President discussed would lead to growth, prioritized or not. If you have no idea what the problem even is, there is very little hope you can successfully engage the problem. Income inequality is not the problem, it's not even a problem.
This is Marxism (which always fails spectacularly) and wealth envy (a mortal sin) disguised as compassion for the poor. Under Obama, the poor have indeed grown in numbers and lost economic ground but it wasn't the rich doing well that caused it.
UPDATE: I see I'm not the only person not at all concerned with this so called defining issue of our time. According to Gallup polls, only 1% of Americans think the "gap between rich and poor" is the most important issue facing the country today. But what do those idiots know? The President and syncophant Greg Sargent know better than them.
Wringing a Ton of Outrage Out of an Ounce of Offense
Here's the tweet which accompanied a photo of Ms. Parks at the time (as opposed to the President's photo of himself accompanying his praise of Ms. Parks: "today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism."
Who could be incensed at that? one might reasonably ask. Hint: it's the last two words. Only knuckle-dragging Neanderthals like the Republicans could be so stupid as to think that racism has ended. Fine, racism is today universally hated by the enlightened people, a super-majority of America, but it has not been completely eradicated.
The tweet lacks a modifier for the word racism. James Taranto thinks it should have said 'ended Jim Crow laws'. I'm not sure adding "institutional" or "Democrat-enforced" would have placated Prof. Cooper. Let's go to the tape. Ms. Cooper tells us what the real problem is.
If they really cared about Rosa Parks’ memory, Republicans would attempt to emulate her courage in challenging the white male entitlement that demanded she give up the seat that she paid for. That kind of white male entitlement still dominates both the GOP and the American political scene today.I'm not sure what "white male entitlement" is to Ms. Cooper and her ilk, but I'm pretty sure it is not pursuing happiness through the fruits of one's labor. But let's be clear, the law that required Ms. Parks to sit in the back of the bus was solely, completely the product of Democrats. The Republicans opposed such laws and tried, for the near century after they passed the 13th through 15th Amendments, to make political freedom and equality a reality for black people in America with Civil Rights bill after Civil Rights bill, right through the 1964 version. And I can assure Prof. Cooper that no Republican would insist she give up her seat on the bus. Moving on. She points out the political reality of black voters and the Republicans.
The fact that an overwhelming number of blacks have abandoned the party that fought so for their emancipation and equality is sad and slightly mystifying. It's not like the Democrats have done actual good for them. But I'll skip over my pitiful lack of understanding here and go back to Ms. Cooper's grand umbrage.
In contemporary elections, it is routine that more than 90 percent of black America votes for anyone but the GOP.
GOP cronies and conservatives masquerading as moderates (Arne Duncan, here’s looking at you) would stop the kind of union busting in places like Chicago that continue to erode the school system and disadvantage the predominantly black and brown students that attend Chicago public schools. Old school civil rights figures would decry the school reform movement and see clearly that it places black children back in the very kinds of conditions that Brown v. Board of Education was meant to rectify.
It is completely unclear what teacher "union busting" has to do with the horrible public school system that exists in too many of our large cities, like Chicago. I think teacher unions are the largest impediment to improvement (along with insufficient security and discipline and lack of tracking). I note that the worst performing schools with the greatest amount of money per student are nearly all in Democrat run cities, mostly by black Democrat mayors and city councils, but perhaps that is an inconvenient truth which Prof. Cooper would be unwilling to credit. I'm not sure about the reform movement wanting to place black children back into separate but unequal schools, certainly the DC voucher program, which the Democrats defunded a few years back, served mostly poor black students in horrible schools (with about the highest dollars per student spent in America) and allowed them the freedom to attend, largely on the taxpayers dime, schools they chose, believing they were better. Who's being anti-freedom, anti-choice here? Not the Republicans.
Companies like Wal-Mart would pay their workers a living wage and acknowledge that they could do so and still remain profitable each year to the tune of billions of dollars.
Are the workers at Wal-Mart exclusively black? I didn't know that. I believe they are paid the market clearing price for what their abilities are worth. Wal-Mart has a small retail profit margin of 3.8%. Higher wages just for the sake of higher wages at Wal-Mart would necessarily cause prices there to rise and hurt the millions who depend on the low prices to be able to buy things. If the ratio of shopper to worker at Wal-Mart is as low as 100 to 1 (and I have no idea) how is artificially increasing wages creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people? But wait, weren't we talking about civil rights and schools? How did Wal-Mart enter a discussion of Rosa Parks and Republicans?
Moreover, Parks, who began attempting to register to vote and encouraged others to do so in Alabama in the 1940s, would balk at the brazen voter suppression efforts that the GOP continues to lead under the guise of implementing voter identification laws and gerrymandering voting districts to dilute the power of the black and Democratic vote.
Since Ms. Parks worked at the NAACP, her efforts at enrolling black voters doesn't shock me. Nor am I shocked by the mindless repetition of the Big Lie that perfectly rational, and constitutional, laws requiring photo IDs to vote is "brazen voter suppression". This past election in Texas, a whopping .2% of voters had to cast a provisional ballot because they could not present a valid photo ID on or before election day. They voted, but they still had to prove who they were within a week to get it counted. Not the scale of of "brazen voter suppression" I would waste time worrying about. It was less than .1% (about 750 provisional votes) the cycle before. I'm glad those who are not eligible to vote could not vote. Their illegal votes did not cancel out legal votes. And regarding redistricting after the Census. The Democrats are notorious for Gerrymandering. Pot, kettle, black, etc.
Most of all, if Republicans cared about Rosa Parks’ legacy, they would stop their war on women.
If anyone tells you that someone is waging war against someone or something else and there are no soldiers, bombs and machine-guns involved, that person is lying to you. And what a dreary, illogical lie this is. OK, professor, I'll bite. How are the Republicans waging war against women? She talks about Rosa Parks' anti-rape activism but apparently that is a head fake as this is her evidence of a Republican "war on women":
Yet the GOP persists in passing draconian anti-choice legislation in locales around the country, and the blatantly right-wing Supreme Court is poised to hear yet another case, arguing for a religious exemption to businesses that don’t want to provide free birth control to their employees under the Affordable Care Act.
Oh, abortion and birth control. Not rape. Abortion and free birth control. That's the whole of women's worth to the Democrats? They're just a vagina to Democrats. Women are not concerned with jobs, taxes, security, crime... just those two things? Thought I speak with the tongues of angels, and know all things, if I'm a woman, the Democrats think all I care about is abortion and free birth control. Draconian? The professor has absolutely no sense of proportion to call recent legislation draconian; and if she thinks the Supreme Court is "blatantly right-wing" she must be so far left she's already across the international date line. Democrats pretend to support the First Amendment, but they are the ones pushing speech codes, making up a right not to be offended, and shutting down the free exercise of Christianity wherever possible.
Affixed to the picture of Rosa Parks that the RNC tweeted is a quote that reads: “You must never be fearful about what you are doing when it is right.”
Unfortunately, this means that the GOP should be afraid. Very afraid. Continuing to support policies that redistribute wealth upward, continuing to gut public education, refusing to regulate guns, doubling down against healthcare reform, and policing the bodies of women is a potent and heady chemical mix that might just make the GOP implode from the inside out.
What policies redistribute wealth upward, whatever that means? 47% of American workers pay no federal income tax and those not in the labor force (a percentage way up under the Obama Administration) suck tax revenue up and pay nothing. The top 10% pays 71% of income taxes and takes barely a thing from the federal government. Ms. Cooper has it 180 degrees wrong. How are Republicans "gutting" public education? No clue from the professor. Regulating guns. So from 2009 to 2011 the Democrats controlled the White House and the House and had a 60 vote advantage in the Senate but it's the Republicans alone who refuse to pass new and generally unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. Yeah, right. And in what way are we "policing" the bodies of women? Again only the dreary and fatuous talking points repeated with not a jot of evidence in support. And wasn't this supposed to be about race? It's merely the same sham parade of alleged Republican horribles, yet again.
Moreover, the GOP’s refusal to grapple with the persistent and enduring problem of racism will find them on the wrong side of history just a couple of generations hence. For instance, though Marissa Alexander is now free on bond in Florida, awaiting a second trial for firing a warning shot at her abusive ex-husband, by all indications conservative prosecutor Angela Corey insists on using taxpayer money to try her again and to lock her up for 20 years based on Alexander’s attempt to defend herself.How are we refusing to grapple with racism by praising the courage of Rosa Parks? If even that sort of embrace and praise of one of the heroes of the civil rights movement is met with vitriolic derision and scorn, how are we ever to have a serious discussion of what role racism plays in the present state of most black Americans? Ah, the current cause célèbre, Ms. Alexander. The key question in her prosecution was whether it was a warning shot form a woman who rationally felt threatened or a missed shot from a vengeful woman. Guess which way the mixed race jury went after 12 minutes of deliberation? But Ms. Cooper knows more than they who listened to all the testimony. It's straight up racism ever to prosecute a black perpetrator, I guess. The big finish, with a gymnastics conceit, is even more tedious. I'll skip over it and end with this observation. There's more wisdom in a paragraph of Thomas Sowell's or Walter Williams' writing than in the entirety of this hissy fit.
And I didn't even have to mention the problem of black racism against whites.
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Thought of the Day (Psycopath Edition)
Ernesto "Che Guevara" Lynch, who apparently was not a big fan of the First Amendment
Monday, December 02, 2013
Thought of the Day
P. J. O'Rourke, on the persistent narcissism of the Baby Boomers
Labels: P. J. O'Rourke quote
Sunday, December 01, 2013
Thought of the Day (Psycopath Edition)
Ernesto "Che Guevara" Lynch
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Responding to the Liberal Challenge
1) The liberals protest Republican redistricting and the requirement of a photo ID (free ones available to the indigent) in order to vote. The liberals are also not happy about repealing laws that made voter fraud easier to accomplish.
Redistricting is a political spoil to the party in power just after the census. This is not about any individual right and both Democrats and Republicans try to redistrict to their political advantage. The courts are now deeply involved in the process, more's the pity. This is like complaining that when the sun is up it's sometimes more difficult to sleep.
Does anyone not know that the Supreme Court said that laws requiring photo IDs to vote were constitutionally OK? It was in all the papers. Read it here. It was Justice Stevens writing the opinion for Pete's sake. The law also requires that the DMV etc. provide indigents with photo IDs for free. I am completely missing the assault on individual rights and freedoms in this law. Is not the voter who's vote is cancelled by someone's second vote (or by a vote by one ineligible to vote) as completely disenfranchised as the eligible voter who is not allowed to vote? So there is a compelling state interest in preventing voter fraud. Is there a less onerous way to effect that interest than by requiring some proof of identity, residency and ability to vote, especially where the proof of identity is so easily obtained? I can't think of one. This cry that requiring photo IDs to vote is Republican racism or disenfranchisement of the poor or an assault on the right to vote, is baseless and, well, stupid. No such thing is happening. It's more a difference between just laws (Republicans) and cheating lawlessness (Democrats). Next.
2) The liberals are protesting cuts in social programs. The problem with social programs is that eventually the do-gooders run out of other people's money. Almost every state budgets must be balanced. Sometimes the soul stealing, not-that-helpful programs to transfer wealth from some citizens to others under pain of law are still funded but just not as generously as before (or, as I strongly suspect, have ever more funding but it did not increase as fast as the do-gooders wanted). In the L-shaped Obama "recovery," perhaps that's a sad but necessary thing. Since charity should not even be the government's role in society, much less a central role, social programs are in no way a right or freedom. On the contrary they are restrictions on the rights of property owners (assuming savings and investments are property). And I call this redistribution soul stealing mainly because of the well known effect on the recipients. In a larger sense, however, the love we have for our fellow man, charity, when made manifest by force, does about as much good for society as erotic love made manifest through force does. Next.
3) The liberals are protesting the Governor's decision to opt out of expanded Medicaid. This ability to opt out (might we refer to that as freedom? too much?) was only created by the slim majority of the Supreme Court only partially striking down the ACA. Most governors say that the ever increasing onus of Medicaid is the most difficult thing to pay for and does most of the damage to state budgets. I don't know North Carolina's long term prospect for increased tax revenue, perhaps the state government, and the Governor might know a little more about that. However, it could well be a rational decision to not undertake a permanent expansion in the medical ghetto called Medicaid when the feds will only pay partially for it for two to three years. Perhaps the Governor decided that having more money in the budget for normal state expenses (the most good for the most people?) was a better use for state tax revenue than spending it on even more Medicaid. In any event, not expanding Medicaid in no way involves an assault on rights or freedom, as my old friend and his ilk in North Carolina allege. Moving on.
4) The liberals are protesting the majority legislator's alleged "rollback" on abortion rights. It is not possible to roll back the individual woman's right to an early abortion as the Supreme Court said in Roe and in Casey that abortion in the first trimester was somehow a right established by the Constitution although the Constitution makes no mention of it (hint: It's in the umbras and penumbras). But just as liberals like to point out that it's OK to make reasonable restrictions on a right clearly laid out in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, certainly one could just as easily point out restrictions on the made-up-out-of-whole-cloth right to abortion are just as proper. And what are those restrictions here? The new North Carolina law prohibits government funds being spent on abortions. No real right causes the government to fund the individual exercise of the right. I'll OK the right to have abortions funded by the government when the left OKs the government's buying me the gun of my choice. The law also prohibits abortions for sex selection. (Knowing that it's not boys being aborted for sex selection, tell me, old friend, that you are OK with sex selection abortions. Tell me your feminine, feminist household is OK with sex selection abortions). Finally, the law requires that abortion clinics have the same safety standards as other-than-abortion surgery sites. I believe that abortion is a moral outrage but legal, but the negligent homicide of a pregnant woman during abortion is a flat out crime. So equal safety regulation is an assault on rights and freedom? Yeah the freedom not to die in a filthy abortion clinic from sub-standard medical care. Now to the cause near and dear to your heart.
5) The liberals are protesting the majority legislator's laws concerning teachers. The law did not increase teacher's pay. Sad, I guess, but there is no right to have a salary increase, is there? The law also ended tenure (which I think is a good thing--since when was merely avoiding being fired in the past a good reason to make firing in the future impossible?) ended the salary bonus merely for having a higher degree (another good thing as a bonus for another degree is not merit pay--a second diploma does not mean the recipient is therefore a better teacher) and created a program remarkably like a voucher system (if vouchers increase students' ability to choose which school to attend, wouldn't that necessarily increase freedom?) The law also cut funding for teacher assistants. Where is the right here? Tenure? Teacher pay at a certain rate? Ability to go only to the school the government chooses for you? I'm not seeing any rights, nor am I seeing any assault on freedom. Just the opposite.
The aforementioned complaints of the liberals in North Carolina are certainly political differences regarding policy. A Republican assault on rights and freedom they are emphatically not.
Thought of the Day (Psychopath Edition)
"Che" Guevara aka Ernesto Lynch