Educational Economics

Teachers often find themselves the objects of praise. Millionaires and movie stars are often quoted saying that their jobs and roles in life, pale in comparison to that of a teacher. Children are the future, according to the clique. Teachers represent the shepherds of that future toward the goal of preparing the next generation for the challenges to come. Films are made in remembrance of great teachers. All of us can look back to our childhood and remember at least one educator that had a profound impact on the clarity by which we see the world. Lessons learned in classrooms have direct impacts on who we are and how much money we make.
Does a teacher really have the impact and importance of a celebrity or business leader? Who shapes the world more: fifth grade teachers, or Paris Hilton? Does Warren Buffet owe his wealth to his lessons while in primary school? When Paris Hilton succeeded with her TV show Simple Life, she was rewarded with cash. When Mr. Buffet closes a factory and sells a stock, he is rewarded with cash. When a teacher is successful they are given a plaque thanking them for their dedication. A pat on the back is given to the teacher that reaches the unreachable student. A movie star goes back to his home town to shake the hand of a teacher that inspired him. Meanwhile that same teacher is spending money out of their own pockets for student activities. The teacher is paid to give assignments, but is rarely compensated for the late night grading done at home.
Teachers are paid too little for the service they perform in our society. This is a long standing truism that haunts anyone trying to address and illustrate social inequity. So what. Lots of people get paid less than what they are worth. Wal-Mart consistently pays their employees below a living wage and we don't seem to be bothered much. The savings, after all, are passed directly on to the customer or at the very least the shareholder. The amount we save by paying teachers so little is also quite substantial. Part of our reluctance in offering school systems more money comes from a disconnection between investment and the payoff. Property owners often feel singled out as sole supporters of the education of the populous. Some of these property owners don't even have children they argue. Furthermore, it is rare that anyone can relate the finger painting they did in first grade or the algebra they did in high school to the assets they possess today. These unhappy land owners continue to resist increased funding for education, not because they are against it, but because they don't feel a direct responsibility for it. Unfortunately, every way in which we have tried to structure the economic support of education has been less than successful. There is just too much time between the investment in education and the payoff to society.
With this in mind I suggest a new paradigm for school funding. Why not tie the future success of a school to the future success of the student. If a movie star credits a school or teacher with contributing to their success; isn't that school entitled to part of that economic achievement? If a retail clerk is able to run a cash register because of elementary math lessons from years ago; shouldn't part of that economic success be recouped by the school that generated that skill? The education system has been quietly generating the skills and inspiration to action that has driven our ever expanding economy. In all fairness to the industry of education, it is time we start paying for services rendered.
Because we don't let five year olds work in mines or sweat shops anymore we offer them education on credit. Once they are old enough to use the skills a school gives them to earn a living that credit needs to be repaid. Authors, singers, and movie makers all demand that their intellectual property be properly paid for. Why should the educator that created the infrastructure for their successes be any less compensated? Each of us owes a great deal of the money we make to the schools that taught us how to live in the world. Until we acknowledge public universal school systems as being part of free market economic success, we will never reach our full potential as an educated population.

Timely Pardon

It is about time that President Bush pardoned, excuse me, commuted Scooter Libby's felony sentence for obstruction of justice. Had he done this earlier, perhaps even extending Mr. Libby the courtesy of immunity from prosecution, we might have gotten to the truth of who compromised national security for political gain. President Bush claimed at the beginning of the Valerie Plame scandal that anyone found breaking the law within his administration would be held accountable. Scooter Libby was found by the prosecutor, jury, and judge to have done just that. However, Libby's role was only as a shield for those guilty of much greater crimes. The President will likely give Libby a last minute pardon as his term comes to an end. This will give Scooter Libby his emancipation and allow him to write his book. Libby will be free to tell the world what really went on behind closed doors, as the administration pushed for a war that they knew was unjustified by fact. However, by the time Libby is published, all the revelations will likely have no real meaning beyond a historical footnote.
Once the winder of 2009 comes, it won't matter to the general public what laws were broken by members of this administration. The compromises of the Justice department, in service of the political ambitions of Alberto Gonzales, will all seem like ancient history. Comedians will stop making Darth Vader jokes about Dick Cheney and move on to the absurdities of the new President. The publics lack of interest however does not mean that there is no reason to be concerned. The changes this administration has made in our system of government will live beyond our attention span. The tactics and precedents that have been employed by this Whitehouse and Vice President's office will surely be used to justify conduct in future administrations. Dick Cheney claims that his office is not part of the executive branch. If this view becomes accepted through common practice, common interpretation of the law and common thought, it will be established as fact for the rest of America's history. Think of a political position that you are personally opposed to. What do you think someone of that philosophy would do with the new executive powers created by the Bush administration?
It is well known, that once power is given it is very difficult to get it back. What executive powers the administration has taken and what power they have invented for themselves will be integrated into the way future federal governments will conduct themselves. The Bush administration has worked very hard to increase the power of the executive office. Those powers will be maintained by the next President and the President after that. Power is seductive. That seduction can easily lead to corruption. Even if you don't believe this Whitehouse has been corrupted by the powers it has given itself, how long before a administration of the future is left uncontrollable by the rule of law.
The President's pardon of Scooter Libby is absolutely necessary to the continued liberty of our nation. Only when he is free to speak about the failure of his friends and colleagues to live up to their oaths upholding the rule of law can balance be restored to the federal governmental system. Only when congress regains the courage to fulfill its role as oversight to the actions of the executive will the ability of the people be restored to navigate ourselves into the future. The President is giving Scooter Libby the chance to save this nation from its own disinterest in governing itself and from an executive branch more than willing to choose our future for us. I can only hope his has the courage needed for the task and that the President's political courage in giving this “pardon” will not be wasted.

The Bush Legacy

George Bush has been looking for a legacy of his years in office that he could point to with pride. The hope is that future historians will say: “The Bush administration had it's problems but there was at least this one thing that the President did that affected America for years to come.” These last years in office has taken much away from him that he could look back on with pride. He had hopes that it would be the war on terror. However, the debacle in Iraq has left his hopes of being remembered as a “war president” in shambles. The next president, whoever it is and no matter the party, will get credit for repairing what Bush has broken. Recently it was the President's hope, that immigration reform could be sited in history books as one of his legislative accomplishments. Unfortunately it was his own party that took that dream away from him. This week however, his legacy became clear in the actions of the Supreme Court.
The appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito will have repercussions within the lives of American's for years to come. The very structure of government and how each part relates to the other has been changed by this radical new court. The infringements of personal freedoms that came from wire taps and the Patriot Act can and will be modified by congress and overturned. The troops in Iraq will one day be called home. All the mistakes of the Bush administration can be undone except for the judges that congress allowed him to place into the Supreme Court.
Congress barely raised any concern at all when Roberts and Alito were nominated. Now that it is long past time to do anything about it these men are in a position to reshape the country towards Bushes own vision of the world. Of all the things Bush has done it is this expression of constitutional power that will live beyond his presidency.
Judge Roberts said this about the 5-4 ruling repealing parts of campaign finance reform; “Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.” This is a fine sentiment. One I would happily agree with. However, this same court has ruled against students in Alaska displaying a banner on public land censored by their principal. In this case the censor takes president over the speaker without any relation to the Constitution conclusion made for the other case. These decisions aren't free of political bias. To the contrary they are as full of bias and activism as anything that has ever come before. The fact that so many of the recent decisions including an essential repealing of educational desegregation have been split 5-4 points to the political motivation of these choices by the court.
The most unsettling part of the situation is that Bush sold the public on these judges pushing fear of activism in the courts. Meanwhile, the administration was stacking the Justice department with Bush and republican loyalist and using Alberto Gonzales as an arm of their political agenda. Our Constitutional government can not stand for long when those in power are so quick and willing to disregard the basic tenets on which it was founded. When the Supreme Court and the Justice department are so corrupted that they are willing to justify their actions using the Constitution with fluid irregularity the ideals that America stands on begin to crumble. The soul of our country is based on striving to apply the rule of law equally over all people. When those in power, especially those that are appointed for life without fear of removal fail to live up to this ideal, the promise of the Constitution is broken.
The Roberts court is the legacy of the Bush administration and this nation will be living with this fact for decades to come. With each 5-4 ruling that comes from the court we will see the full implications of this inheritance. Protesters and activist cannot be heard from within the chambers of the Supreme Court. Small huddled groups of concerned citizens do not sway judges appointed for life. The Constitution was designed in its way just for that purpose. Only a nation, calling with united voice despite our differences, for fair representation under the Constitution could possibly be heard by these judges acting out of personal ideal rather than consistent interpretation of the law.