Burnt Orange Report

Interesting article. What is particularly odious about the Republican State budgest is not just its callousness, but it's shortsightedness.

Just like other resources, human resources need investment. One of the hallmarks of Clintonomics was investment in human capital (e.g. earned income tax credit, etc). If we just "right off" so many of our citizens, after a while, we will have grossly inadequate human capital, which will spell doom for the economy at large.

Do you own a business? I do, and it is damn near impossible do find qualified people to hire. The reason? In general terms, a long term decline in human capital (education, etc.) If the trend continues, we will completely lose our middle class. Money spent in the public sector on education, health care and job training is not "Government as part of the problem" as Reaganomics teaches; rather, it is an investment in human capital, just as critical to macroecomomic success as investment in other forms of capital.

Whome?

Granted, the state of education in America is apalling, but there isn't much evidence to indicate that more government spending on public education is going to fix anything. I can't speak much about Texas schools, but in Michigan, we have drastically increased education spending over the past 12 years. Education spending went from about $3-4B a year, to over $9B a year now. Even after inflation and (minimal in MI) population growth, that is still a huge increase ... and yet, the quality of public schools hasn't increased. By any measure of progress, graduates who go to college, % of students who graduate in 4 years, standardized test scores, etc., education is no better today than in 1990. A lot of money has been spent, for very little, if any gain.

The same is true nationwide. Studies have shown than over something around $4 or $5K per student, increased spending on public schools has little to no effect on the quality of education. Diminishing marginal returns kicks in in a big way. Or, if you wish, increased spending hasn't solved the problems endemic to inner-city government schools. D.C., NY City public schools spend huge amounts on per-student, more than most suburban districts do (at least in MI). D.C. is at something like $10,000 a year per student, and yet most students are functionally illiterate in the 8th grade, according to the DC school system's own standards.

The point is, even if you aren't a huge voucher fan like I am (although that is an argument for another day, as I still have 3 finals to go, and don't have the time to seriously discuss/argue over the issue), it is simplistic and wrong to say that more spending on education is key to economic health. They money has to be spent effectively, and right now, in many cases, it isn't.

As a side note, for those of you more familiar with TX politics, why hasn't Perry pushed a voucher program? I vaguely remember him running in '98 on the issue, and I sort of assumed that with total GOP control of the state government it would get passed, but unless I heard wrong, it never came up. Did the budget crunch get in the way?

Sherk

Sherk,

To answer your question about vouchers in TX, all I can say is that it such a bad idea, that it cannot pass the legislature even with the Republicans in complete charge of State government.

Sherk,

I noticed from your web page that you and several of your fellow evangel members are either pursuing Phds or plan to. Out of curiosity, are any public funds being used to finance your education? I know of no Phds candidates whose education is not primarily funded with tax dollars.

WhoMe?

I can't speak to Dave's finances, I just haven't asked him about the issue, but you now know of at least one Ph.D. student who has accepted no public funds to pursue his education, in undergrad or now in grad school. There were several government scholarships I could have applied for, but I am philosophically and morally opposed, so I haven't. That said, the Univ. of Rochester has given me a nice scholarship, but they are a private institution.

Sherk

Sherk,

I am not privy to the University of Rochester's acounting ledgers (in fact I have never heard of the place), but if it is like most private schools, it likley receives a substantial part of its budget from government sources. E.g., the Ivy league is awash in federal funds.

WhoMe?

I don't know much about U of R's finances either, besides the fact that they have a huge grant from the Eastman estate, but I don't doubt that you are right. They probably do get a fair amount of money from the government, as well as what they make in tuition charges. However, it would be virtually impossible to get a Ph.D. in Economics in the U.S. from a school that recieved absolutely no federal funding. Pretty much every grad school takes federal dollars. I wish that weren't the case, but it is, and I think it would be unreasonable to insist that a conservative refrain from attending any school which accepts federal dollars. Heck, there are only four or five undergraduate institutions meet that criteria. I think it is enough, if you are concerned with consistently applying your principles, not to take any direct government aid.

Sherk

Shrek,

Thanks for drawing the line for me when principal meets pragmatism.