Category Archives: Politics

What happens when even the schools in well-off sububs don’t meet the NCLB standards?

Posted on by

With the increasing standards in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the Department of Education recently suggested that the number of schools that are not meeting standards is likely to dramatically increase:

The Department of Education estimates the percentage of schools not meeting yearly targets for their students’ proficiency in in math and reading could jump from 37 to 82 percent as states raise standards in attempts to satisfy the law’s mandates.

According to this “Fact Check,” schools are not labeled as “failing.” Rather, there is a process such schools would go through if they do not meet the NCLB increasing standards:

Obama’s terminology wasn’t quite right, though. There is no “failing” label in the No Child Left Behind Act. And schools that do not meet growth targets — aimed at getting 100 percent of students proficient in math, reading and science by 2014 — for one year are not subject to any intervention.

Those unable to do so for two or more consecutive years are considered “in need of improvement.” The consequences then become stiffer each year, starting with offering students an opportunity to attend another school, and escalating if the targets remain unmet.

As more schools are unable to meet these standards, what happens when suburban school districts in fairly well-off suburbs don’t meet the standards? Many of these communities use their well-performing schools as a selling point. Suburban home buyers and businesses are influenced by school performance and perceptions about school districts.

Having schools labeled as “not meeting standards” (or in possible public jargon, “failing”) would be a blow to the idyllic image and high status of a number of suburban communities. Beyond schools, suburbs are supposed to be places where Americans can be safe and at least their children can get ahead. Suburbs could try to give a more technical explanation for the NCLB data but this could prove tedious or difficult to understand.

One possible outcome  of all of this (suggested to me by a colleague outside my department) might be that this is when NCLB will truly be done: when monied suburbs realize that the legislation says their good schools are not making adequate progress.

IP enforcement, spying, and reasonableness

Posted on by

Today’s posts have touched on who should enforce IP rights and what that that enforcement should look like.  Recent comments by Ed Black, President & CEO of the Computer & Communication Industry Association (CCIA — Wikipedia backgrounder), address both of these issues in the context of the White House’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator’s recent white paper:

The government has shown how its zeal leads to carelessness [previously covered here] in its unprecedented efforts to widely seize domain names for IP enforcement, which ICE undertook this year. Sites were wrongfully shut down based on allegations the user was engaged in criminal conduct deemed lawful by their courts. We are concerned the same low threshold will be used in making decisions to spy on U.S. citizens.

Some in Congress and the White House have apparently decided that no price is too high to pay to kowtow to Big Content’s every desire, including curtailing civil liberties by expanding wiretapping of electronic communications. Even the controversial USA PATRIOT Act exists because of extraordinary national security circumstances involving an attack on our country.  Does Hollywood deserve its own PATRIOT Act?

This new punitive IP agenda follows just weeks after dictators spying on citizens online was the lead story in every major newspaper.  Perhaps the obvious hypocrisy caused someone to decide to wait to announce the U.S. goal of expanding our government’s powers to spy online.   A screenwriter could almost market this plot as a comedy – if it weren’t so serious.

Maybe we should be grateful our government only wants to make streaming a song or movie a felony with potential prison time as punishment.  What’s next corporal punishment?

This is the latest indication of the extent to which the content industry has infiltrated this administration and managed to turn the Administration’s IP agenda into a policy which protects old business models at the expense of consumers, citizens’ rights and our most innovative job creating industries.

To be sure, Mr. Black speaks as the head of a trade group, advocating for his clients’ interests.  Nonetheless, we’ve covered advocates for the content industry and the broadband industry before.  I think it is important to remember (1) that both sides of the IP debate can make sweeping — sometime unprovable — assertions and (2) there are usually two sides to every story.

Broadly speaking, I have to agree with Mr. Black’s concern with the disconnect between official condemnations of “dictators spying on citizens online” and “the U.S. goal of expanding our government’s powers to spy online.”  As illustrated only a few months ago, the line between vigorous copyright enforcement and totalitarianism can be a thin one indeed.  As Harold Feld of Public Knowledge put it recently over on the LA Times:

In the virtual world, the real but mundane problem of shoplifting undergoes a Hollywood-esque transformation into “piracy,” causing the entertainment industry and folks in Washington to lose all perspective. Consider that Rep. Howard Berman (D-Valley Village) proposed a bill in 2002 to allow record companies to hack into your computer to search for illegal downloads. And how did Berman justify the equivalent of an electronic strip search? “There is no difference between pocketing a CD in a Tower Records and downloading copyrighted songs from Morpheus,” Berman told the crowd of aghast tech executives. “Theft is theft.” True, theft is theft. But I suspect Berman would have objected to an amendment allowing Tower Records to break into your home to recover a stolen CD.

Whatever you think of Mr. Black’s rhetoric — even hyperbole — I think most people would agree that truly draconian IP enforcement is not worth the terrible price it exacts.  Now we just need to reach a consensus on exactly how much is too much…

Chicago newspaper reaction to Mayor Daley in Wheaton

Posted on by

After attending Mayor Daley’s speech on campus yesterday (my thoughts here), I was intrigued to see how the local newspapers portrayed the talk. Here are the headlines:

1. Daley: We’re a ‘country of whiners’ – Chicago Tribune with the story on the Clout Street blog.

2. Together, we’re strong, Daley tells suburbs – Daily Herald.

3. Daley: U.S. is a nation of “whiners” – Chicago Sun-Times (just repeating an AP story).

4. Daley reviews tenure as mayor during event at Wheaton College – mysuburbanlife.com.

The fourth headline seems most accurate to me while it is not surprising that the Daily Herald would emphasize the suburban angle. If you do a quick search on Google News, it appears that the “country of whiners” line seems to dominate the headlines.

This is interesting: Daley’s quote about being a “country of whiners” was in response to a question at the end about how America could get back on the right track. Throughout his talk, he said Americans needed confidence, we needed to push ahead in new directions (like Chicago has in the past), and that we need to continue to compete, particularly in the field of education. But the “country of whiners” quote seemed to a less-guarded comment.

In my opinion, the primary message of the talk was about education and Daley’s role in trying to reform it. The Daily Herald ran a separate story about this emphasis on education. While the “country of whiners” line might be a good soundbite, the bigger question we could be asking is whether the Chicago Public Schools have improved in Daley’s 22 years as mayor.

And I still haven’t seen any mention of Daley’s final line of the day when asked by a student what he thought of Jay Cutler. Daley said something like (paraphrase here), “Both Jay and I get beat around by the media.”

Mayor Daley on campus

Posted on by

Influenced by his connection to former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was on the Wheaton College campus today for a lecture and fundraiser. Daley gave the kind of speech you might expect at the end of a politician’s career: he highlighted his successes and how much he enjoyed being a public servant. Here are a few things that he said:

1. Chicago is a world class city. He cited a few recent publications (Standard and Poors, Foreign Policy) that have called Chicago a top ten world city.

2. Chicago has been successful because it was “never afraid of changing” and “never lived in the past.”

3. About government spending: the federal government doesn’t have to balance its budget while other forms of government (state, counties, municipalities) do. Government spending has to level off. To help America move forward: we “need confidence,” we need to move away from being “a country of whiners,” and we can compete if we all sacrifice a bit for the common good.

4. Daley said his biggest issue to face was the education system and he hopes the improvement of this system is his enduring legacy. When he first became mayor, he helped stop social promotion. The Chicago schools today teach Chinese, Russian, and Arabic to compete on the world stage. Teacher’s unions have a responsibility to give more (he cited their 6 hour contractual work day while also saying he knows lots of good teachers and he is not blaming them). He said, “education is the cure of all the social ills we have.”

5. The success of Chicago has always been a public-private partnership. He cited Millennium Park as an example. This is what is behind his efforts to make connections with China so that Chinese businesses will see Chicago as the friendliest American city to them.

6. He said he had worked with mayors in the Chicago region, throughout the state, and around the world to discuss common issues. He said numerous times that the common issues they face are not partisan issues.

7. When asked what advice he would give to Rahm Emanuel, he said something to the effect of don’t give advice to people if they don’t ask for it.

Seeing him in person, I was reminded that he can be quite funny, personable, and can connect with a crowd as an “everyman.” He consistently illustrated his larger points with personal stories and interactions he had. His policy recommendations seemed fairly centrist: better education, government has to add value or other contract out or privatize certain services, working together across the region is necessary, government has to work with business leaders to get things done, elected officials and all government workers (teachers, police/fire, etc.) have to work for the people. He told a number of jokes and also several times mentioned advice he had received from his father.

Some other issues were not addressed: the population loss in Chicago in the 2000s, the perception that the city has a crime problem (even though crime has been down – I thought he might highlight this as a success), budget problems in Chicago and where the money from privatization has gone (parking meter deal, the Skyway), corruption in city government, persistent segregation and inequality, the limited number of public housing and affordable housing units (even with the notorious projects, such as Cabrini-Green, being closed), Daley’s legacy of building (outside of mention of Millennium Park and Chicago as a world leader in “green roofs”), whether Chicago’s educationally system has improved dramatically or significantly, and regional issues that need attention such as congestion and expanding O’Hare.

Federal budget issue: increased fuel effiency, reduced revenues from the gasoline tax

Posted on by

Amidst discussions about infrastructure and the price of gasoline, Obama’s administration has called for an increase in transportation spending. But where exactly the money will come from to fund this increase is unclear:

[Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood] said Obama is not in favor of raising the gas tax in a “lousy economy.”

The new tax would be necessary, in part, because the gasoline tax used to fund the highway trust fund is collecting less revenue than projected due to increasing fuel efficiency.

The exchange between Sessions and LaHood degenerated into a shouting match, with the Transportation secretary emphasizing that infrastructure can be improved and jobs created while paying down the debt.

This is one negative consequence of increased fuel efficiency: less gasoline will be purchased so without a gas tax increase, revenue from this source falls. This might call for some new ways to derive tax revenue from driving. How about more tolls? Or taxing drivers per mile driven?

Claim: Obama wants higher gas prices. Is this necessarily bad?

Posted on by

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (a rumored Republican presidential candidate) suggested today that Obama wants higher gas prices:

Barbour…accused the Obama administration Wednesday of favoring a run-up in gas prices to prod consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars…

Barbour cited 2008 comments from Steven Chu, now President Barack Obama’s energy secretary, that a gradual increase in gasoline taxes could coax consumers into dumping their gas-guzzlers and finding homes closer to where they work. Chu, then a Nobel Prize-winning professor, argued that higher costs per gallon could force investments in alternative fuels and spur cleaner energy sources.

Barbour said Obama’s energy team wouldn’t be happy until gas prices reached $9 a gallon.

Barbour goes on to say that there are two primary negative consequences of higher gas prices: it hurts workers and it hurts the larger economy. In a troubled economic period, Barbour is suggesting that Obama is willing to risk a prolonged economic crisis in order to promote things like electric cars and clean energy.

But this is really a larger issue and affects multiple dimensions of American life. Let’s assume that raising gas prices cuts down on driving and gas consumption overall – and there is evidence to back this up. There could be some benefits to this:

1. This would limit our dependence on foreign nations for  oil. What has happened in the Middle East in recent weeks can have an impact on our economy because we import so much oil. Some have gone so far as to say that this is a “national security issue.”

2. Using less gasoline would lead to lower levels of pollution.

3. Having more expensive gasoline may reign in sprawl, or at least make living in denser areas (cities or denser suburbs) more attractive. (See an example of this argument here.) In the long run, higher gas prices could be viewed by some as a threat (or by some as a welcome deterrent) to the sprawling suburban lifestyle that many Americans have adopted  since the end of World War II. Higher fuel prices would likely impact driving trips, fast-food restaurants, and trucking costs, all key pieces to the typical suburban lifestyle. One could argue that the American lifestyle of the last 65 years has been made possible by relatively cheap gasoline – and life would change if it was consistently at European price levels.

There could be other impacts as well including more walking and bicycling (cheaper, less pollution, better for health) and less time wasted due to traffic and congestion.

It bears watching how this rhetoric over gas prices continues. Is it simply a matter of a short-term (lower prices to help the economy) vs. a long-term perspective (higher prices help limit some negative consequences of driving) or could this turn into a debate about how driving (and cheap gasoline) is closely linked to the essence of American life?

Telling graphs about American infrastructure spending

Posted on by

A number of commentators in recent years have pointed out the relatively small amount of spending on infrastructure by the American government. Here is another take on this, complete with some handy graphs. Additionally, here is some interpretation about government spending on education and technology:

Productivity-enhancing spending, according to Meeker, comes from three main sources: infrastructure, education and research and development investment. We’ve seen infrastructure spending collapse as a share of the budget since the 1960s. What about education and R&D?

In 1970, the U.S. (at the federal, state and local level) spent twice as much on education as health care. Twenty years later, health care closed the gap, and today, total government spending on health care is about 33 percent higher than education spending, which is more or less even with its 1970s levels.

Second, look at technology. R&D spending exploded in the late 1950s and 1960s on the back of government investments in aeronautics and science. Fifty years later, federal R&D has fallen below 1950s levels as a share of GDP, while the private sector has picked up the slack.

So after looking at figures like this, I want to ask what kind of strategies could be utilized to tackle the issue of infrastructure spending, particularly with budget issues looming all over the country?

Mayors united

Posted on by

It’s not just suburban Chicago mayors excited to work with Rahm Emanuel.  The Hill is reporting that basically every mayor in the U.S. is looking to Chicago right now:

The Chicago mayoral election results Tuesday weren’t just a triumph for Rahm Emanuel; they were also a victory for mayors across the country.

Many mayors have been critical of cuts in President Obama’s proposed budget, and some of them are hoping his former chief of staff will lobby the White House on the needs of local communities.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, which consists of mayors of cities with populations of 30,000 or more, is eager to work with Emanuel as soon as he is sworn in as Chicago mayor on May 16. With budget battles looming, the group hopes that Emanuel’s influence on the White House and Capitol Hill will significantly advance its agenda.

I’m not sure what to make of this.  On the one hand, I’m all for empowering state and city governments.  On the other, I’m not sure that the best way to do that is to further expand federal control over local governments via an increase in restrictive federal funding grants.

Discussing the mortgage interest deduction and how pricy (and large) a McMansion is

Posted on by

One common use of the term McMansion is simply a large home. In this blog post about the mortgage interest deduction, the writer contrasts the price of McMansions to more normal-sized homes:

That means average homeowners with modest Capes and fixer-uppers are helping subsidize others stretching to keep up with the Jones and their million-dollar McMansions.

The measuring stick of a McMansion in this post is how large the mortgage is:

A close look at the interest rate deduction reveals much of its benefits go to homeowners with mortgages far larger than most in the middle of the housing pack. Check out this Forbes piece, which nicely lays out the argument for taking away this perk from the homeowners with outsized mortgages – incredibly the limit is currently $1 million…

The president’s deficit commission recommended capping the deduction’s use at $500,000 in mortgage debt, down from $1 million now, while nixing its use for vacation homes and converting what’s left to a 12.5 percent tax credit.

OK, I vote for keeping it simple and just lowering the mortgage cap to $500,000 or $600,000, while making second homes ineligible as well.

So a McMansion here would start with homes that cost $500,000 to $600,000. In most suburban communities, this buys a large home. In denser areas, not necessarily. What about older homes that cost this much – are these McMansions? It wouldn’t take too much searching online of real estate listings to translate these prices into square footage in particular areas.

Overall, this use of the term McMansion seems to refer to any large house beyond “modest Capes and fixer-uppers.” This use of the term seems quite vague: a McMansion is any (presumably larger) house above a certain price point.

Chicago population loss among challenges for new Chicago mayor

Posted on by

As Chicago votes today, the Chicago Tribune pointed out the issues the new mayor faces, including a declining population and financial issues:

The U.S. Census Bureau gave Chicago a reality check last week. New data showed the city lost 200,000 residents in the last decade, a 6.9 percent decline. Chicago’s lost more than the entire population of Illinois’ second largest city, Aurora.

A Mexican immigration wave that fueled growth in the 1990s has subsided. Researchers expected those immigrants to bring more growth as they had children. Instead, immigrants are moving from Chicago to the suburbs or bypassing the city entirely. That 1990s influx looks like the exception to a long and steady rule. Chicago has lost population in five of the last six decades. It has fewer people now than it did in 1920.

The city government faces a yawning debt and unfunded pension obligations. It is spending beyond its means. A city that has fewer citizens has fewer potential wage-earners available to support it.

This is a big set of issues to face. But the Tribune seems to be fairly optimistic:

The good news: Chicago is far better positioned for the future than it was during its wrenching Rust Belt days of 1980. The city’s economy is more diverse, and its urban environment richer in the amenities that attract a talented work force, from parks to culture. As corporate headquarters scaled down across the country, Chicago became a global center for back-office operations and business services such as corporate law firms. Its central location and status as a transportation hub give it a crucial advantage going forward. That’s why we need to get the expansion of O’Hare International Airport back on track, pronto.

The city will need some new ideas as well as dealing with existing projects. This airport expansion idea has been in the works for years now and is a move that could bring in new business and opportunities.

And I wonder with an election like this, where there is no incumbent and we seem to have a cleaner break with the past, whether the new mayor really has to introduce massive projects or ideas at the start. Perhaps the first goal could be to improve how Chicagoans and those in the region feel about and view their city. For example, take a look at the crime rate: it has dropped and yet there is perception problem. A dose of optimism, trumpeting what is good about the city rather than what is going wrong, could be a good starting point. And then, something has to be done with the larger issues that the Tribune enumerates.