"On a separate, but slightly related topic, it seems Dayton/dfl policies here lead to better economic results than Walker/conservative policies in Wisc. NYT MN vs WI " LaurieOf course my first thought is that the opinion writer must be smoking something... Then again let's look at his bio. "Lawrence R. Jacobs is a professor of political science at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota and the author, with Theda Skocpol, of “Health Care Reform and American Politics.”" I think that about says it all, no pot involved... just some serious wishful thinking.
Giving the Liberal policies of the "last 6 months" credit for the strength of MN's economy has to be one of the silliest things I have ever heard... Come back in a couple of years and maybe there will be something to discuss...
MPR MN vs WI
54 comments:
Weren't Dayton and Walker elected in 2010? Hasn't the GOP been in control in Wisconsin for several years? Maybe it is too soon to give the dfl legislative branch much credit in MN, but their libersl policies don't seem to be hurting anything.
Apparently this one has a lot of third party logistics companies looking to Wisconsin...
B2B Taxes
Star Tribune Business Group Petitions
Well, our first mistake is assuming that government, and particularly one branch of government, is instantly responsible for the economy and has some control over it. Us free market types believe that the only effect government can have on the economy is to depress it or distort it in one segment or another, and those are usually gradual effects. On the other hand, greatly raising the cigarette tax, as near as I am able to ascertain, has actually caused total cigarette tax collections to go DOWN, because people buy their cigarettes elsewhere or they quit. Liberals never expect that people will change their behavior in response to taxes, unless they are TRYING to alter behavior through the tax code.
What I find most laughable is this notion that spending more money on education somehow makes education better. It's simply not true and even if it were, more money on pre-K and K schooling would not "pay off" for at least 12 years.
Despite our left-wing professor's blinkered statistics, a little common sense tells you that what you tax you get less of, and spending on farm equipment, warehouses, (taxable) cigarettes and high-income jobs will be less if you tax them. Period. Look at it another way: Every nickel that government takes OUT of the economy through taxes (or overregulation) is one nickel less that some individual or business can spend on what he/she/it finds most valuable, and that is the only "economy" that matters. If government keeps taxing, eventually there will be no private economy left to tax and the whole thing collapses.
Jerry, how did our economy grow in the 1950s with a top marginal tax rate of 91%?
Did you notice that high tax MN is rated 8th best for business?
Also, maybe you should quit dismissing facts / views from every person you label a liberal.
Sean,
Please review this and share your thoughts.
Tax Rates Rhetoric vs Reality
Jerry,
Actually it should start paying off in ~3 yrs. Children should start coming to school better prepared to learn. Which should yield fewer disruptions and higher quality learning...
Of course, this only works if the pre-K kids have enough hours to combat any poor influences they have in their home and community... Environment has a big influence in those early years...
Here is an interesting list. Kindergarten Prep List
Yes, it's certainly true that the just the top rate today affects more folks than it did back then. But it's not just the top rates that were high. For instance, the income tax in 1960 charged at least a 43% marginal tax rate on all income over $12,000 (for a single person). That's the equivalent of $91,000 in 2012 dollars.
Too many conservatives have convinced themselves that tax policy is the only lever the government has to impact economic growth. That just ain't true. If that were the case, the George W. Bush years would have been economic nirvana.
Personally the Bush years were great for the company I worked for and myself... It is too bad the home owners and bankers got so greedy... But it was great while it lasted... WSJ Bush Years
In fact the tax cuts were so popular that the Democrats kept most of them in place just recently. Here is an interesting perspective. Forbes Obama Economy worse than Bush's
More opinions on the "high" tax rates...
WSJ 91% Fantasy
MI Revisiting High Tax Rates
Conversable Economist
I'm glad that the Bush years were great for you. They were not for most Americans.
Unfortunately, one of the things that has fundamentally changed in the Obama years is that the party that doesn't control the White House has chosen to take a purely obstructionist position. They were all for "stimulus" when their guy was in the Oval Office. Not so much since 1/20/09, though.
Stimulus... How much more do you want? The budget jumped in 08/09 and has just started stabilizing.
Did you see how low unemployment was during most of the 2000's?
How could it have not been good for most Americans?
I wanted enough to make a difference. Most estimates said that we lost at least $6 trillion in economic activity due to the Great Recession, yet did a fraction of that in stimulus. If we had done a package of, say $1.5-2 trillion, back when it counted the economy would have recovered more quickly and we'd be in better shape today.
"Too many conservatives have convinced themselves that tax policy is the only lever the government has to impact economic growth. That just ain't true."
Well, tax policy is the one Weapon of Mass (Wealth) Destruction at their disposal, but of course simple tax cuts don't necessarily cause wealth creation. Government regulation, much of which takes place through the tax code, has a depressing effect on the economy ($1-2 Trillion, by some estimates), and of course government spending-- what the tax revenue is spent ON-- matters. There is no such thing, despite liberal glossalalia, as government "investment." Money comes in and money goes out, and the BEST that can happen is if the money spent goes 100% towards those things the people who earned that money would have spent it on if left in their hands. That never happens, and the "overhead" is absolutely outrageous. Again, if government simply cut every welfare recipient a check, that family of three would be making $60,000 per year! They aren't, so much of it is being "lost" in the middle, even assuming that it was something needed, and that only government could do, in the first place.
That $60K figure is completely bogus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-misleading-chart-on-welfare-spending/2013/02/20/1b40bcde-7ba4-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_blog.html
But, I would also argue it's incorrect that government spending can't be classified as "investment". It most certainly can be. Building transportation systems (which wouldn't happen without government) is an investment. Civil courts for enforcement of contracts is an investment. And that's just for starters....
No, the $60K figure is mathematically exactly correct. What is bogus is trying to find a way around that terrible, eye-opening truth. That is, that government spending is horribly wasteful, on top of often being misdirected. If welfare, for example, does NOT go to those officially in poverty, then why not? Furthermore, how is that increased welfare spending over the last 50 years has resulted in MORE people in poverty, rather than fewer? LBJ's wonderful "war on poverty" is over, it seems, and poverty won.
Obviously, government can and probably should make capital expenditures, but you can't call them "investments" because there is no return on the investment to the investor! The closest government comes to that is building a toll road, where the tolls eventually return the cost and retire the bonds issued to build it. The amount spent by government on such things is a pretty small slice of the budget. The necessary and essential functions of government, like courts and police (also a small slice of the budget) are expenses, with the saving grace that most people would willingly pay for those things to exist. If government supplies those services efficiently (a big IF), it is government doing what it is supposed to do. Overcompensating teachers or overregulating private businesses aren't.
I like to look at it this way: The problem with taxes isn't the taxes, it is how the taxes are imposed and where the money goes. If we had a simple FAIR tax rather than the 72,000-page IRS code, economic decisions would be made based on economic reasons, rather than for the innumerable tax-code distortions of the marketplace. Moreover, our DFL friends seem to think the purpose of the tax code is to punish the rich and reward their friends, rather than fund the legitimate and necessary functions of government. They went so far as to raise taxes and THEN decide how to spend the extra money. That's not only backwards, but dangerously dumb. I like the "zero-based budgeting" idea Republicans proposed, but of course that sensible course is anathema to the DFL.
The $60K figure is bogus. For starters, it counts things that aren't "welfare" like Pell Grants as such and divides that inflated amount by a smaller number of people (people below the poverty line). Problem is, if you're going to inflate the top number, then you've got to increase the bottom number to reflect who's getting the money.
How can you say there's no return on investment to the investor on a regular road or bridge? How is a person going to move themselves or their product from point A to point B without said infrastructure?
J, Sources...
here is a question posed by my state representative in an email update recently:
IS IT WORTH AN EXTRA $584.76 TO LIVE IN MINNESOTA? The average American family pays 9.9% of their income in state and local taxes. The average Minnesota household pays 1% more than that to live here, or about $584.76/year. While the state is among the leaders in almost every quality of life ranking - from schools (#1) to health care (#1) to business climate (#8) - my question for you is this: is it worth an $584.76 per household to live in Minnesota?
For me the answer is yes, it is worth it. If it was up to me our taxes would be higher still, for even better schools.
What is your rationale that you would rather live here than in Wisconsin?
I have never lived there, however it seems like a great state. And many of the kids I know are attending U of W Madison and other WI schools.
And after looking at the satelite image a bit more, I am guessing that much of MN's economic advantage of late has been thanks to our Agriculure segment. We should be thankful for all of the tillable acres in the state. Whereas it looks like much of WI is more like Northern MN... Imagine if our whole State looked like North of 94...
You just had to throw that "more money equals better education" thought in there... Didn't you...
For your amusement...
MinnPost WI / MN
PolitiFact MN vs Wisc
Star Tribune MN vs WI
MN2020 MN vs WI
WI would not be a bad place to live, btw taxes are higher there than in MN. I prefer our quality of life to a that of a state like Mississippi (though I have never been there, maybe it is a great place)
About greater funding helping schools improve I think you would be more likely to agree with me after spending a week teaching in my school, though after one day in certain classrooms, I don't think you would be back.
We have found something we can agree on. My time as a Sunday school teacher was enough classroom time for me...
Also, I agree that the deep South would not be for me. I like 4 seasons and not having to worry about poisonous critters...
oops
America is the Stingiest Rich Country in the World
after I fixed the link I removed my comment, here it is again:
Here is another off topic link, though I don't think it will lead to any insight or mind changing, as views on reducing inequality through govt policy seem quite entrenched.
"I prefer our quality of life to a that of a state like Mississippi (though I have never been there, maybe it is a great place)" -- Laurie
Laurie, I used to live in Mississippi. They had a balanced state budget, their income tax topped out at 4%, there was a 3% sales tax, property taxes were 1/2 or less of what they are here, and state parks were free. The cost of living was 20% higher here. Most importantly, we moved in mid-year, and my kids found themselves 1/2 to 1 year AHEAD of the Minnesota kids in school. Liberals seem to think Minnesota is a good place to live because of its liberal government, but it is equally possible to do it without a liberal, spendthrift government. The [incredibly false] presumption is that if government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done. Not so.
"About greater funding helping schools improve..." -- Laurie
Laurie, I have to dissuade you (and hopefully our spendthrift DFL) from this absolutely false assumption that spending money begets student performance. I have done the analysis, and there is only a slight correlation here in MN, and it is NEGATIVE. That is, the more money per pupil, the WORSE the student achievement! Not only that, the variation in achievement between schools that spend the same amount is very nearly 2:1. You can't tell me that spending doubling spending on the lower-achieving school will get them to where the lower-spending school already is. I keep saying that the only way to improve student achievement is to demand, work for, measure and reward student achievent.
Jerry,
Sources, sources, sources...
Unless everything else is similar, your correlation is as fraught with errors and misleading as those of the Liberals you critique.
G2A C vs C
It would be like saying that US military commanders in Afganistan were much more incompetent than their peers in Japan because they spent more money and their results were worse. Of course this ignoring the fact that one country is an incredible challenge and the other has been at peace for decades make no sense.
Yet here again you act like the most illogical Liberal that you disdain by ignoring the realities of Edina vs N Mpls.
I am not able to post the exhaustive data processing and regression analysis here. But I took the data directly from the MN DOE's own charts (of all MN school districts' required reporting), after consulting with them to make certain I was interpreting the data correctly (and it isn't possible otherwise). The results are exactly as I stated but you don't have to take my word for it; do it yourself. It only takes about a week if you know how.
So how did you adjust / normalize your data for the factors noted in the above link?
Primarily poverty, english language learners, single family households, cultural issues, school readiness, etc.
Since we know that these factors vary greatly between Edina and N Mpls, I am certain you would not have ignored them in your analysis...
Matt here think Mpls is underfunded due to the factors.
It was not necessary to ignore those factors, since the wizards in St. Paul have already FULLY ACCOUNTED for those factors in the State Aid formula. That is no doubt WHY the spending figures are skewed as they are. By the way, if you really want an exercise in mathematical frustration and futility, try computing your district's state aid from the formula.
The State Aid formula isn't a scientific accounting of the factors that go into achievement; it's a political exercise. To say that it comprehensively accounts for all the factors that go into student achievement would be either severely misinformed or dishonest.
Some material to study...
MN School Funding Handbook
I guess I am with Sean on this one, if they had fully accounted then the test scores would be much closer.
Of course, since you see the "Public School System" as the majority of the problem, I understand your perspective.
Can you name any charter schools in the downtown Twin Cities where the students perform as well academically as the students of Edina. If your rationale is sound that it is the "Status Quo Schools" that are failing the kids, then there should be many of them. Thoughts?
"The State Aid formula isn't a scientific accounting of the factors that go into achievement; it's a political exercise." -- Sean
Very well, then why not make the formula absolutely fair, so every district gets exactly the same in aid?
It is good, though, to hear a liberal (if I may call you that without offense?) admit that all of those factors in the formula, which are the ones that liberals say excuse the poor performance of urban public schools, are not scientific at all. But it goes a long ways towards explaining why throwing more money at urban schools doesn't produce any corresponding improvement-- there is simply no cause and effect relationship!
Once again I will say it: so long as we keep making excuses for the public schools, such as too little money being spent or too much poverty in the area, we're not holding them properly accountable for results. And it shows. Example: The GOP passed teacher and student accountability measures a few years ago. The DFL gutted both of them this year. Now, does that improve the quality of education in MN, under DFL control?
Before you ask for sources again, here is one example, from a "trusted" source.
http://e.startribune.com/Olive/ODE/StarTribune/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=TVNULzIwMTMvMTIvMDE.&pageno=MjU.&entity=QXIwMjUwNA..&view=ZW50aXR5
I think it's incredibly naive to suggest that we just need to hold urban school districts "accountable" in order to magically make them overcome the radically different set of challenges they face compared to most of the other districts in the state.
I'm not suggesting, by the way, that the various factors in the state aid formula are bogus. I think they are in most cases valid, but the formula itself is a political exercise. Take the integration dollars, for instance, which became a political punching bag. The reality is that you can't come up with a formula that is going to perfectly handle such situations.
We would be better served trying to simplify the funding model, into a base rate with additional funds provided for special ed and ESL, and an equalization based on property tax capacity.
Star Tribune Mpls/St Paul Gaps Vary Widely
Jerry,
So what was the point of the link?
Mpls spends a bit more per student and has better reading proficency and lower graduation rates. And the math proficiencies are close.
Now are you going to say that the school districts are responsible for keeping kids from dropping out?
I didn't see the two districts as being even remotely close in terms of educational deliverables per dollar spent. And these two districts were the "Twin Cities." I believe this proves the point that money doesn't correlate to educational outcomes, unless you want to admit to the NEGATIVE correlation so obvious in this example.
I'm going to agree with Sean. And to some extent with Laurie. The word "accountability" doesn't mean much without some specific reforms to increase educational achievement. By itself, it tends to fall on individual teachers who have little authority to change "the system." And financially penalizing whole districts tends to lay off individual teachers so that administrators can continue to fail. You are correct that we need something of a different approach in the urban schools, but they fail because they refuse to engage in well-known best practices. Call it stupidity or bureaucratic inertia or liberal incompetence or even "good people in a bad system produce bad results." I don't care, but I refuse to excuse the unacceptable destruction of human potential that is the status quo.
I also like the idea of going to a vastly simplified formula that includes a base rate plus an "equalization" based on the local property tax base and the "local effort" of the district. I would create accountability by making every nickel beyond that a matter of having the district request special funding from the legislature to fund SPECIFIC plans for a SPECIFIC improvement in educational achievement over a SPECIFIC time frame. The theory would be that if you failed it would be very difficult for you to get another such grant, though I have in mind several details that would make this plan more workable, on both sides. For example, I would allow an unlimited number of such grants, such as for a remedial reading program in third grade AND math tutoring in grade 6.
I guess I am not seeing anything conclusive here. (from article and DOE web site) Unless it is that poor Asian Parents value education more than some other poor Parents.
Minneapolis
$20,399/Student
Graduation Rate: 50.1%
Reading Proficiency: 41.6%
Math Proficiency: 37%
Native American: 5%,
Asian: 7%,
Hispanic: 15%,
Black: 36%,
White: 37%
ELL: 23%
Special Ed: 19%
Free and Reduced Lunch: 65%
St Paul
$18,149/Student
Graduation Rate: 66.3%
Reading Proficiency: 37.4%
Math Proficiency: 42.9%
Native American: 2%,
Asian: 31%,
Hispanic: 13%,
Black: 30%,
White: 24%
ELL: 26%
Special Ed: 19%
Free and Reduced Lunch: 73%
Well, Now that you have your numbers right I suppose it is time to try to extract some information from them. I see a district – St. Paul – that spends 10% less money but graduates 33% more students than does Minneapolis. I see academic outcomes in general that are about the same, but with substantially higher levels of ELL, special Ed and students in poverty – all the things that you and the state formula say require MORE money to teach well. I will readily concede that the bright, firstborn son of successful Chinese parents will graduate from Breck with a better education than the third daughter of a black, alcoholic single mother on welfare, who attends the St. Paul schools. But unless you are willing to say that this young girl should simply be denied an education altogether because she cannot possibly succeed due to her demographics, then I think you should be trying to overlook those demographics and figure out why the schools cannot do better for her than they do.
You can look for excuses for this abominable situation all you like, but nothing will change until we admit that the schools must and can do better. To your earlier point, the data simply do not support your theory that demography is destiny. The academic achievement difference between schools with similar demographics, or between schools with similar costs, says quite convincingly that the school matters more.
You sure you are looking at the same numbers???
I am not saying that Minneapolis shouldn't improve significantly. However to say that the above numbers are "conclusive"... Give me a break...
I'll give you a break. If the quiz on a math test asks if 66% is higher than 50% and you answer "no, they're the same," then you are going to fail math pretty "conclusively." Math and statistics, absent any plausible alternative explanations especially, are by nature conclusive. Why do you continue to defend and excuse the abominable status quo?
Why do you keep saying it is the schools fault?
Are schools responsible because children drop out and parents allow it?
How do ignore that student body culture is the main driver of the difference? (31/7 = 442%)
I keep saying that it is the schools' fault because that is their responsibility, and what they are paid to do. If I pay somebody to mow my lawn and the grass and weeds get hip deep, I don't blame the grass and weeds.
And yes, the schools ARE responsible for the dropout rate, because if the kids are learning and engaged, they don't drop out. The statistics show it-- that some schools do vastly better than others, and the difference isn't money or demographics.
I don't deny that cultural differences are important factors. It's even worse than I want to believe (anecdote on request). What I continue to insist on, however, is that schools CAN and MUST "counterprogram" to such cultural handicaps.
Oh come on now... They only have the kids 6.5 hrs/day 173 days/year, and they don't have input during the most critical first 5 years. AND you want the school to brainwash them away from their disfunctional parent/society mind set, to get them to show respect and value education... That is quite the challenge.
Oh, OK, have it your way. So let us just save $250,000 for every one of these kids and not bother sending them to school. They're just going to fail anyway. Give them a test when they're 5, look at their home life, and you know for certain there's nothing we can do for them. Maybe just shoot them so they don't become a burden on society?
How does one eat an elephant?
G2A Education Factors
One bite at a time...
And I am not saying that the Education system is blameless in this. Tenure, steps/lanes, minimal performance assessment/management, etc are definitely terrible for the students.
However I am not willing to deny that poverty, poor parenting, genetics / capabilities, cultures, language issues, etc are important factors.
Let us say for the moment that we are in agreement that there are dozens of factors that determine how any individual child will fare academically, but let us categorize them as just two: home and school. Now let us further assume that we find large numbers of children failing to achieve that which we not only believe they are capable of achieving, but MUST achieve to successfully participate in our civil society and our economy. Surely we must change something, and isn't that something that which we control, the schools? You may argue until you are blue in the face that some people are poor parents and I guarantee you those parents will not change one bit.. But if enough of us get good and angry and demand that schools improve, something positive CAN happen.
Besides, even if education reform must be done "one bite at a time," the schools have had decades to eat that elephant and it is still in the room, unable to read.
Post a Comment