Is This What We Are?

Those who had once simpered: “I don’t want to destroy the rich, I only want to seize a little bit of their surplus to help the poor, just a little, they’ll never miss it!” – Then, later, had snapped: “The tycoons can stand being squeezed, they’ve amassed enough to last them for three generations” – then, later, had yelled: “Why should the people suffer while businessmen have reserves to last a year?” – now were screaming: “Why should we starve while some people have reserves to last a week?” What were they counting on?

Ayn Rand – Atlas Shrugged

Is this what we really are? What we’re really becoming?

Another question: what did we expect?

For the second time this year, this story has hit the headlines: some employees of big companies are on taxpayer-funded health care.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Wisconsin's Medicaid program spends an estimated $46 million a year to provide health care coverage to workers for some of the state's largest employers, including the University of Wisconsin System, according to a report to be released today by a Madison consumer advocacy group.

The list of employers also includes Aurora Health Care and, naturally, Wal-Mart. No corporation-bashing exercise is complete without Wal-Mart.

Later in the story:

Big companies such as Wal-Mart of Bentonville, Ark., have come under criticism in the past for not providing adequate benefits to employees.

The report's author said it is disturbing to see more businesses, especially those close to home, appearing to scale back employee benefits.

Health care in Wisconsin "is a full-fledged disaster spiraling out of control because industry leaders are shirking their health care responsibility and others are following their bad example," said Darcy Haber, health care campaign director for Wisconsin Citizen Action.

So it’s not just that big, rich companies don’t provide “adequate benefits,” it’s that they’re scaling back those benefits.

If they’re still managing to hire enough people, it makes me wonder whether they were overcompensating their employees before. Maybe they could have charged me less for that last package of socks I bought.

I know: it’s just downright dirty for big corporations not to offer their employees health insurance. They make all those millions!

But, I’ll ask again, what did we expect?

We did this, you know. We created these taxpayer-paid, bureaucracy-run health care plans. Us. Through our elected representatives. Medicaid, Medicare, BadgerCare, SeniorCare.

Where’s the report decrying Wal-Mart for using taxpayer-funded roads to transport their merchandise? Or for calling the taxpayer-paid police when they catch a shoplifter?

They’re rich, after all. Millions upon millions in profits. Why should the rest of us pay to help them make those profits? Let them build their own roads, hire their own security.

Yeah, I know. That’s ridiculous. Those services are for all of us to use. We all pay for them. All of us, including those big corporations. Because we all need them, and it’s more efficient for us to provide them as a community.

Like it or not, that’s what Medicaid and BadgerCare are. Because we, as a community, decided it was important to provide some level of health insurance for low-income people.

We all pay for it. Including those big companies.

If companies are purposely scaling back on benefits because they know that we, a community of which they are a part, are providing tax-funded health insurance…is that dishonesty?

Or is it simple adapting to circumstances?

We created these programs. We kept making them better. Adding to them. Expanding them. Urging people to make use of them. So people are, and we don’t like it.

Of course, it’s not the people who are using the programs. It’s the big companies – the rich people – who no longer have to pay directly for their employees’ health insurance because of the programs we created.

That is the crux of the argument. They’re rich. Never mind that they already pay the lion’s share of income taxes. They can afford more, so they should pay more.

Consider whether the programs are too generous? No, we’d never do that. Look sternly at the individuals who haven’t pulled themselves up to a point where they don’t need to rely on the taxpayers? No, we’d never do that either.

But we’ll scream and cry and stamp our feet when somebody has more money than us. We’ll excoriate them for not paying more of our expenses for us, or for somebody else.

That’s how it looks to me. That’s what we’re becoming. Is that really what we want?

Republicans are Evil, Voters are Stupid

Photo ID. The issue that never wears out.

Just look what’s happened this week: a Republican legislator traded blows with the ACLU over a Georgia photo ID law; a Congressional panel convened in Milwaukee to listen and discuss Wisconsin’s voting reform needs; Scott Walker released his plan to reform voting in Wisconsin.

Photo ID. It’ll never go away. Not without a Republican governor.

That fact isn’t lost on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s editorial board, which weighed in on the subject. To paraphrase their position: Photo ID is a selfish and evil Republican plot.

Here’s what they actually wrote:

“…pet project for Republicans in Wisconsin and the nation is to toughen voting rules, which would disadvantage the needy more than the wealthy. The former tend to vote Democratic; the latter, Republican.”

Standard liberal rhetoric. Republicans are not just wrong, they are evil, willing to subvert democracy and defecate on the rights of individuals in order to gain and keep power.

This sticks in my craw for at least two reasons.

The first, and most obvious: it’s insulting. Appallingly so. If you’re a Republican, if you vote Republican, if you support Photo ID, then you want to actively disenfranchise voters because it helps your side. That’s what the MJS believes. Whatever malicious policy we can come up with to achieve that – that’s what we’ll do.

It’s a milder version of Florida mythology – the dogs, barricades, police cruisers, accosting black voters on Election Day 2000 to keep them from casting their votes.

As hateful as it is, I can stomach the accusation. That’s politics in America, like it or not. One side thinks the other is evil. And there’s no doubt the MJS editorial board has chosen a side.

The second reason may be worse. The MJS editorial board and other photo ID opponents believe the “needy” – the poor, the elderly, the ethnic minorities – are either incompetent, or ignorant, or lazy, or all three.

They must. If not, their arguments make no sense.

They believe that any additional requirements to vote – anything that makes our elections more secure, like proving who you are, that you have a right to vote in that election – will cause the “needy” to not vote.

Because they can’t go get a photo ID. Because they’re unable to make time to register in advance. Because it’s too hard. Because it requires planning. They won’t be able to do it.

Side note: odd, isn’t it, that the MJS doesn’t argue for even lighter voting requirements, like doing away with registration completely. Wouldn’t that make voting even easier, and thus bring more voters to the polls?

But they don’t. Odd, as I said.

I admit, I could argue their case for them. I believe in the laws of supply and demand. The more expensive a product is, the fewer people will buy that product.

In this case, the expense is the effort a voter has to give. Right now, voting is cheap in Wisconsin. There’s very little for a voter to do, other than show up at the polls.

Eliminating same-day registration and requiring photo ID will make it marginally more difficult – there will be more required of voters. Voting will become more expensive, so fewer people will vote.

But that’s only part of the story. Another economic theory – elasticity – applies.

Some goods are elastic, meaning price directly affects demand. Others are inelastic, meaning demand doesn’t change so much as the prices go up.

Gasoline is a good example. Gas prices were over $3 a gallon not so long ago, and we all wondered whether people – not us, of course, but people – would stop driving so much.

The answer was no. For the most part, we kept right on driving, and prices be damned.

Gas is an inelastic good. The MJS believes voting is much more elastic: as the price – effort – rises, fewer people will be willing to go through with it. Particularly the “needy.”

And why? Ignorance, incompetence, apathy. Because the “needy” don’t think voting is a priority. Doesn’t it have to be something like that? And so, voting reform helps Republicans.

Of course, that’s only if the poor, needy, minorities, and others who suffer under the boot of liberal compassion keep voting Democrat. If they start voting Republican – as most Republicans hope they will – that theory goes in the trash.

Funny, then, that Republicans spend so much effort on outreach.

Another Day, Another Plan for Universal Health Care

Another day, another plan. Another bad plan. Another plan that won’t do anything, other than make the authors more popular.

Which is, of course, the goal. Right?

The topic is health care. The adjective: universal. Meaning everybody gets it, but nobody has to pay for it.

Well, not nobody. At least, not until the doctors and nurses start working for free. But that’s just details, and universal health care isn’t about the details – it’s about the votes. The votes you win, by spouting popular, populist talk.

Which is all this is.

Last week, it was Senator Judy Robson (D-Beloit) with her proposal. Non-proposal, actually. A whole new level of meaninglessness in leadership.

I had a grand old time making fun of it, and of Senator Robson, and of her complete abandonment of anything resembling responsibility. Her bill calls for, but doesn’t do anything to achieve universal (defined as 98%) health care. It’s a punt, really. A punt on first down.

But, in a way, her bill is much better than this week’s version, introduced by Senator Mark Miller (D-Monona) and Rep. Chuck Benedict (D-Beloit).

Like Senator Robson’s, their bill doesn’t specify how universal health care will be achieved. It doesn’t address availability, or cost, or accessibility. It doesn’t provide incentives. It doesn’t promote awareness. It doesn’t create any jobs.

Well, okay – that last one, that’s wrong. It does provide jobs. Good, secure, lucrative government jobs. Hundreds of them, probably.

While Robson’s bill did nothing, and was proud to do nothing, the Miller/Benedict bill does much worse.

It creates a bureaucracy.

Oh yes. A double-level of bureaucracy. The Department of Health Planning and Finance (DHPF), with an 11-member board and two advisory committees. And six regional offices, each of which also gets an advisory committee.

The Board will be responsible for a health plan, “under which…each state resident, with certain specified exceptions, shall receive reasonable medical services necessary to maintain health, enable diagnosis, and prodide treatment or rehabilitation for an injury, disability,or disease.”

Among the Board’s powers: “…specifying the amounts and sources of funds to finance payment to providers…” That means they decide who pays, and how much.

We’ve been down this road before, with Medicaid and Medicare. Over the years, medical needs have become political footballs. Elected officials are only too willing to demand expanded services, because that’s the compassionate thing to do. People are hurting. We help by giving them free medical care.

It’s not free, of course, but we’ll come back to that.

As the services have expanded, so have the costs. You don’t go from offering a free oil change to an oil change and tire rotation without higher costs.

As costs have risen, government has been unable to pay them. Government-sponsored health care – Medicare, Medicaid, BadgerCare – is paying a smaller and smaller portion of the actual costs of the services they require every year.

That means one of two things: either the providers – doctors, dentists, hospitals – lose money, or they make up for it by charging everybody else more.

So, obviously, in the end, we’re all paying the cost.

Did anybody really think it was free?

Senator Miller does. “A comprehensive health care system will reduce costs to employers and will encourage entrepreneurs to start businesses in Wisconsin.”

The first part of that statement is obviously false: employers will bear the brunt of this through higher taxes, and higher cost of living. There may be some perverse truth in the second part – short term, a business will prefer a state where the taxpayers are picking up the cost of health care.

Long term, well, how is business in Europe these days?

Does anybody really think it will mean quality health care?

Rich Bogovich, from the Coalition for Wisconsin Health, does. “We support this bill because it guarantees comprehensive quality health care for everyone.”

That’s nothing but hyperbole. Bad, ignorant, misleading hyperbole. Either that, or he really believes a multi-level government bureaucracy is capable of that. That the government-sponsored health care we’ve already got is a model of efficiency.

Or…sure it’s not working now, but if we could only make it bigger!

None of this is to say that the rising cost of health care, and the lack of access to segments of our society, aren’t a problem. They are.

But there isn’t a blanket solution to every problem. And, even if there were, looking to the government to provide it – that’s not a solution. That’s a retreat.

Universal Health Care: Not What it Used To Be

One of the things that can frustrate about politics is this: politicians pretending to support something they really don’t support.

Usually, a press release is enough. Declare support, then do nothing. Nothing has to pass into law – just look like you’re trying, and you get credit for it.

It’s not exactly a new concept. Kids do it. Parents mad about the messy room? Make a start at cleaning it, just to take the edge off. Maybe play with the baby brother for a while. Then ask about going to the movies.

Now, State Senator Judy Robson (D-Beloit) has taken this concept to a whole new level.

Robson has drafted a bill calling for universal health care in Wisconsin. That’s universal health care, as in everybody gets it, but nobody has to pay for it.

At least, I assume that’s what it means. Maybe I shouldn’t, but she’s left the door open for speculation.

That’s because, you see, while she’s drafted a bill calling for universal health care, she hasn’t drafted a bill to create universal health care.

What’s the difference?

Robson’s bill doesn’t do anything. It doesn’t address availability, or cost, or accessibility. It doesn’t provide incentives for people to live healthier lives, or for more people to choose health care as a career. It doesn’t promote greater awareness of health care options. It doesn’t mandate health care for those who don’t have insurance already.

Nothing. Seriously.

Well, okay, not nothing. It does require to pass another bill – this one giving us universal health care.

That’s right. It’s a bill to require a bill. Senator Robson has taken the ball squarely in both hands and thrown it blindly behind her, expecting someone else to catch it and run. She’s come down squarely in favor of “universal” health care, expects to get credit for it, but has no intention of getting down and dirty in the details. Not her. That’s somebody else’s job.

It’s a whole new level of meaninglessness in leadership.

Should Senator Robson’s “proposal” become law, (an unenforceable law, but let’s not quibble) then the Legislature will be required to pass a bill which:

Assures that at least 98 percent of Wisconsin residents get health care coverage; and

Reduces the costs of providing health care coverage by 15 percent; and

Has it all up and running smoothly by January 1, 2010. Because you know the government can always be counted on to keep a deadline.

How, exactly, she arrived at these figures is a matter for pure speculation – from us, and I’ll wager from her. Ninety-eight percent? Why not ninety-nine? Why not ninety-seven?

Heck if I know. And, probably, heck if she knows. “Universal” just doesn’t mean what it used to, I guess.

Details? That’s for somebody else to work out. Somebody else, namely the Republicans, who hold the majority in the Legislature. Robson, a Democrat, will watch from the sidelines and kibitz.

Except it will never come to that. This bill is insincerity, surrounded by hollowness, wrapped in futility. And she knows it.

Which, in a way, is fine with me. She is, after all, promoting socialized medicine. Centralized, government control of health care. Because we all know how centralized government control of anything tends to work out.

Oh, come on! It’ll work this time! Really!

Senator Robson and her legislative allies are not ignorant. Nor are they stupid. They must see that centralization and government control aren’t the answer. Mustn’t they?

One thing is certain: “universal health care” is a good populist issue. Whatever else they know or don’t know, they know that. It’s an issue that resonates with a lot of voters.

Health care is expensive. Medicine is expensive. Hospitals are expensive. People are going broke, and into bankruptcy. That, or they’re afraid one bad accident or illness will put them there.

There’s no doubt these are real problems, affecting real people. Senator Robson believes it’s government’s job to fix it.

I could argue the point philosophically, or historically, or economically. But, well, if she’s not going to do the heavy lifting, then why bother?

Barry Goldwater said it best, anyway: "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."

Missing the Point on Campaign Finance Reform

Am I missing the point?

Last week, a former major political figure pleaded guilty to charges of illegal campaigning and fundraising. The story produced the expected bout of hand-wringing over our feeble and pathetic campaign finance laws.

For example, the Racine Journal Times:

We would like to think that the Milwaukee Democrat's conviction - and hopefully more convictions to follow - will send a message that resonates throughout the Capitol and the state that lawmakers should not tie their votes to campaign contributions and they should not use legislative staff to campaign on state time.

Sadly, we don't think that's going to be the case.

They don’t think that aggressive and public prosecution of real crimes will deter others from committing the similar crimes. In a way, they’re right. We prosecute theft, murder, fraud, and there’s always more of those.

What the Journal Times really wants is a new political culture in Wisconsin. Public prosecution and humiliation of formerly powerful legislators aside, they believe today’s political culture attracts and rewards those willing to “whore” themselves for campaign cash.

I’ll come back to that word in a moment.

Rather than proving the need for new laws, I believe this is an example of our system working. A powerful state legislator broke the law. He was investigated and prosecuted. Now he’ll be punished, and everybody who works in politics sees it.

We’ve got laws on the books. As long as they’re enforced, and as long as the news media covers allegations of misconduct without bias or preference, our system is working.

That’s what I think. Others disagree.

Others, like Jay Bullock, the Left Cheddarsphere denizen known as Folkbum. He says some system of public financing is just the thing, and tells me I’ve missed the point (excerpt from the comments):

The difference with public financing will be that those who command big money will be the exception, not the norm, and will stand out--in a bad way--because of their wanton spending and self-whoring…

Good candidates don't go into Wisconsin politics because they can't afford it or have too much self-respect to become a Jim Doyle or John Gard. Public financing will bring those people in, and leave high and dry the whores.

For the record, I once thought like that. I thought fundraising – asking people for money – was degrading. Like panhandling.

Maybe it is, if you’re doing it for the wrong reason. But if you’re raising money to promote a deeply held belief, to support something you believe is important…is that panhandling? Degrading? Corrupt?

If so, somebody tell public radio.

That aside, I think Jay’s position misses two important things.

First: public financing won’t work unless it also forbids individuals – you, me, Jay, George Soros – from spending our own money to promote a candidate or an issue. Unless it prevents us from pooling our money to promote a candidate or issue.

My twenty, or Moore’s millions. A church group, Euchre club, WMC or WEAC. If you draw the line somewhere – let’s say a hundred bucks – why do you draw the line there? And what’s included? The money I spend on printing, the stamps I use for letters to newspapers, my monthly Internet bill?

Unless all independent spending is stopped, then you haven’t taken the money out of politics: you’ve just re-directed it. You’ve closed off one avenue – direct contributions to a candidate’s campaign – but left another one open.

We’ve already seen that this will happen. McCain-Feingold became law, and suddenly independent interest groups were spending all the money.

Except, they may not really be independent. And they don’t have to report what they spend, and where their money came from, the way official candidates do.

The second thing Jay is missing is this: money is only a means to an end. It’s not the end itself.

The end is power. Political power. Whatever the system of gaining it, power will always attract those willing to get down and dirty to achieve it. That’s the nature of power. And it’s human nature, too.

Am I being defeatist? Maybe. I deny that the perfect system, resulting in corruption-free politics, exists. I think aggressive reporting, investigation, prosecution, and the active participation of voters is our best, albeit imperfect, bet.

At least, it will be until we have some other choice for leadership. Something better than our fellow human beings, as imperfect, fallible, and prone to temptation as we are.

Let the Researchers Profit

The University of Wisconsin System hasn’t done itself many favors lately. At least, not as far as the public is concerned.

First it was a high-ranking administrator going on paid leave for seven months. Then it was other administrators defending the policies that let him do it. Then it was the revelation that high-ranking administrators (and others with connections) had “backup jobs” – good-paying jobs standing by, in case they lost their current positions for some – or any – reason.

Bureaucrats, whose value the taxpayers already consider to be nebulous at best, taking advantage of benefits that look shady. To the average guy, it all looks like insiders taking care of each other at taxpayer expense.

And now, the UW wants to let researchers start private companies with the taxpayer-funded research they do at the University. And the Governor and four legislators – an odd mix of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats – want to help them.

…a state law barring public employees who start private companies from signing contracts worth more than $15,000 with the university has slowed the company's development, he said.

Gov. Jim Doyle and several state lawmakers want to change that by exempting UW System researchers from that law, which is designed to discourage state workers from privately benefiting at taxpayers' expense.

Doyle said the law has become an obstacle to economic development as more researchers start companies based on UW research, which he considers central to improving Wisconsin's economy.

If successful, the law will completely exempt start-up companies, owned by researchers at UW. They’ll be able to contract for limitless use of the university’s facilities for the purposes of capitalist gain.

At first, this looks like a conflict of interest, and indeed that potential exists. UW researchers will be able to use UW facilities to make a profit from the fruits of their own UW-sponsored, taxpayer-funded research.

It’s tempting to write this off as just another generous perk overzealously championed by an out-of-touch University, where the bureaucrats are already spoiled rotten at taxpayer expense.

After all, can a DNR worker use a state truck for his weekend landscaping business? Can a state accountant run a tax filing business on his state computer?

Nope. Nor should they be able to. That’s taxpayer property, to be used for the benefit of the taxpayer.

Whether the taxpayer is actually getting any benefit might be another question, but that’s another column. Or another hundred.

But let’s not be hasty. Let’s resist the temptation, and give this idea another look. I think it makes sense. I think it’s only fair.

As distasteful as some (not me) may find it, we want research to turn into new inventions, new methods, new products that will benefit us all. And it does. And those products can be incredibly lucrative.

Somebody has to take things from original research to useful product. Somebody will take it there, whether it’s the researcher or not. And somebody will make money from it.

If the UW rejected this, it would mean researchers having to do the groundwork for somebody else’s fortune. As a meritocracy-loving capitalist, that rubs me entirely the wrong way.

Somebody’s going to make the money. It ought to be the guys doing the grunt work.

But there’s more.

The University already complains, steadily, about losing talented researchers to other institutions because of low pay, fewer opportunities, and knuckle-dragging social conservatives holding government power.

I mean, really. Sanctity of life? Please. Bring me another embryo!

So allowing researchers to start companies and make some money off their discoveries will help in that regard, too. How’s this for the next official state bumper sticker: Come to Wisconsin and Get Rich!

And yet, there’s even more, and even better.

What’s at the core of this idea?

Capitalism. And not just capitalism, but an Ayn Randian form of capitalism. The idea that I should benefit from that which I produce.

That runs entirely counter to the sort of philosophy one normally associates with our public universities. One would expect a university, particularly one as famously liberal as the UW, to extol the virtues of research for the sake of research. To condemn competition and profit in favor of collaboration, and “the common good.”

That they’re not doing this, that they want to allow their researchers to be the first to profit from their research, means the UW is tacitly embracing competition, ownership, profit, capitalism.

And, boy, it’s worth seeing this happen just because of that.

Campaign Finance Laws: Never Enough

For everything, there must be a law. If there isn’t one already, there should be.

And if there is - well, that doesn't matter. We should pass another. And not just “should.” It’s imperative that we do.

Thus say advocates of campaign finance reform.

Brian Burke, former State Senator and (also former) potential candidate for Attorney General, pleaded guilty Wednesday to two counts – one felony and one misdemeanor. Not a bad deal, considering he’d been charged with 12 felonies and 6 misdemeanors for various and sundry infractions like using capitol staff to run his campaign, and soliciting campaign contributions in the Capitol.

Let’s make sure that’s clear: while a State Senator, Burke misused his taxpayer-funded staff and resources to campaign and solicit contributions to that campaign.

That’s illegal. He was found out, charged, and will finally be sentenced. It’s very likely he’ll face jail time. His political career is over. Probably his legal career, too.

That’s because we’ve got laws on the books that frown on such activities. We’ve got laws against using taxpayer-funded resources for campaigns. We’ve got laws that limit when and where politicians can solicit campaign contributions. Burke broke those laws. Now he’ll pay the price.

But not so fast. We need more laws. New ones. At least, some people think so.

From the Green Bay Press Gazette:

What Wisconsin desperately needs is a Legislature that approves tough campaign-finance and lobbying laws and a governor that signs them.

And from Common Cause, a campaign finance reform group:

Common Cause in Wisconsin calls on the Governor and the Wisconsin Legislature to move now to clean up Wisconsin politics and state government in order to begin the long and overdue process of restoring citizen trust in our democratic institutions.

We’ve already got laws on the books, and in this case, those laws did their job. But never mind that. A pittance. A trifle. Not worth mentioning. No. We need more laws.

True, there may be episodes like Burke’s that go unprosecuted and unpunished. For example, this dreadfully underreported story: Wisconsin’s state government gave a travel contract worth $750,000 to a company that didn’t earn it, after the company’s owner gave $10,000 to Governor Doyle’s campaign.

Chicken feed, compared to the $700,000 the Indian casinos spent on Doyle’s 2002 campaign. But then, their payoff was supposed to be bigger.

Was pay-to-play involved? It sure looks that way. According to Madison’s Channel 27, at least 5 out of 7 members of the committee responsible for choosing a bidder preferred another company – the one that gave them the lowest bid.

But, when the smoke cleared, the state gave the contract to the Governor’s contributor.

It’s not likely we’ll ever prove pay-for-play. Linking a criminal act back to Governor Doyle and his administration would be next to impossible. So: that’s proof that the laws we’ve got aren’t enough. Right?

I suppose you could make that argument, but consider: in Burke’s case, a District Attorney aggressively pursued allegations of wrongdoing, which resulted in serious consequences for a powerful State Senator.

In the Governor’s case, a news team is aggressively pursuing a story. A story that looks dirty, even if all involved are really as clean and white as a Christmas Day snowfall. A story the voters deserve to hear.

End result? We – the voters – can make up our own minds when election time rolls around again.

Legal consequences in the first case. Potentially, political consequences in the second case. Because our legal system did its job, in the first case. Because our professional journalists did theirs, in the second.

For the system to really work, we – the voters – have to do our jobs. We have to use the information we’ve got, and decide whether this kind of sliminess is in our best interests.

None of that will be enough for the campaign finance reform lobby, of course. They’ll keep pushing for more, better, stronger laws that prevent us from fully engaging – financially – in the political process.

Perhaps there are improvements that could be made to our laws. Perhaps there are ways to improve the transparency of our government. So it’s easier for us to know how, when, how much money is changing hands. And most importantly, why it’s changing hands.

But if anything, these stories show that our system – not perfect, of course, because nothing is – works.

For Me, But Not For Thee

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -Princess Leia Organa

The Baraboo School District is $1,000 richer, thanks to one social studies teacher, his students, and a program called MoneySKILL, an online program that teaches about handling money.

His students used it in class, and outside it. That’s one of the benefits – it’s online, so they can access it anywhere. More Baraboo students did just that, and finished the program, than from any other school district. That’s why they won a $1000 prize for the district.

I love this story for two reasons: one, because handling money is an important, but too-often undertaught skill; two, because this teacher made use of technology that didn’t exist ten years ago to make learning easier and more interesting.

It was all virtual. Done via the Internet. Students didn’t have to set foot in a classroom. Didn’t even have to leave their homes to do it.

Does that make this teacher a hypocrite?

Of course not. How can I even ask? The world is changing. It’s growing. He found a way to make that work for him and his students.

I just find it funny. The reaction to it, that is. Governor Doyle, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), the superintendent and principal – they all praised him for the effort and achievement.

When they’re all so dead set against letting others make the same effort.

I’ve written before about the lawsuit against the Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA), the statewide virtual school based in Ozaukee County (click here and here for details). WEAC, the state teacher’s union, brought the suit against both the Ozaukee School District and DPI , claiming that the program breaks state law.

It lets the parents teach their own children, you see. We simply can’t allow that.

That WEAC would sue – that’s one thing. Understandable, in a way. They’re just defending their own turf. That DPI would take WEAC’s side – that’s another.

DPI, you see, signed off on the virtual academy when it got started in 2003. They approved of it. Then union leaders threw their little legal hissy fit and, like any good education leader, DPI fell right into line.

That DPI is a defendant in the suit doesn’t matter. WEAC said jump, and DPI did.

But…WIVA does largely the same thing MoneySKILL does: it uses technology – the Internet – to give students another educational option.

There are some rather glaring differences, of course. WIVA encompasses an entire curriculum. Students do all their learning outside a traditional classroom, with their parents – under a licensed teacher’s supervision – doing most of the work normally reserved for the teacher.

That’s the union’s beef. Think Jimmy Hoffa, facing down a scab.

Okay, not quite that bad.

Still, the whole thing reeks. This teacher is being lauded for taking advantage of educational opportunities that didn’t exist 20 years ago, or even ten. Those opportunities go beyond traditional education. They give more of us more prospects for improving ourselves and our futures.

How many adults today are using online classes to earn college credits, or to learn any number of skills from accounting to foreign language to political column writing? Would they be better off taking a class at the local university, or technical college (Lord knows we’ve got enough of them)?

Maybe. But nobody’s complaining about that, and well they shouldn’t. When adults make choices about their own futures, those are their rightful choices.

Once, we thought the same about adults making choices for their own families.

Not anymore. Not when it concerns K-12 education. Just let a family try to make an opportunity that doesn’t include public schools. Homeschooling, charter schools, school choice, virtual schools: WEAC opposes it all.

Why? Because they don’t have their fingers in it. That’s the biggest difference between WIVA and MoneySKILL – the latter is run entirely by one of WEAC’s members. The former is run, mostly, by the parents.

And for all their talk about “every child,” WEAC suffers no opportunities they don’t control. Not if it’s outside their own bloated monopoly.

That’s what this is really about: not what’s best for kids. Not opportunity. But the teacher’s union, and their power.

And DPI goes right along with it.