Thursday, February 26, 2009

Schools, Governments, and Wasteful Spending

We got (yet another) a plea from my daughter's middle school principal in the mail today, this time begging for money for the school's "I.T. Funds." I'm frankly so sick of school fundraisers I could scream, but their plea was laying here on the desk, and as a freelance software developer I'm actually in that business, so I decided to take a quick look at it.

What I saw was a good example of why government ought to be small; not large, as President Obama prefers. This particular flyer lists a number of things the school "needs" in the I.T. area, with the caveat that (as usual), "budget cuts are making acquiring the technology students and teachers require very difficult. Please help us rectify this situation." {Emphasis mine}

Next are the 4 big things they need. First, the "computer lab needs updating...There are 40 old computers tha need to be replaced." Now a computer lab actually is the one area of the school, besides maybe Admin, where spending money on computer equipment probably makes sense and must be done. These youngsters are learning specifically how to use computers, doing things like photoshopping pictures, editing videos, etc. Programming? Not so sure about that one. Still, you can make a living in these areas so I'm willing to cut them some slack here.

Below this is where it gets sketchy, though. Second on the list is "our students need to have access to computers in all classrooms," and they don't. Now hang on a minute. Do they really need to have access to computers in all classrooms? What are they doing on these computers? Are they on the net? Taking quizzes? Whatever it is, in your run-of-the-mill classroom I'm betting they don't need high-end PC's (or Mac's) to get the job done. I have a 10-year-old desktop sitting in my office that I still use in my business today. I don't rely on it for cutting-edge applications, but for Internet usage, storing files, word processing, etc., it works just fine. I use the high-end PC for the most important work (i.e. like the computer lab) but I can get by with the old box for the standard back-office stuff (i.e. like most classrooms). Conclusion: Live with the old PC's until they die.

As you go down the school's list, the items get progressively more ridiculous. The third item is "Document Cameras Required." It states, "document cameras, or digital overheads, in conjunction with projectors are used daily by teachers. Lessons and vital information are put on a large screen that students can view from anywhere in the classroom." They want to get these things into - that's right - all classrooms. Now I was in a meeting in one of the classrooms that actually has one of these things in there, and as a techie myself I was taking a good look at it as the teacher used it to run through a packet of materials she had handed out to us. It was kind of impressive, though distracting as the camera would auto-focus and auto-adjust the lighting any time a document was placed there or moved around. But my thought here was, "why, back in my day, sonny..." we used overhead projectors, those things that roll around from classroom to classroom with nothing but a flat panel with a bright light under it and a couple of mirrors to project it up onto a screen or chalkboard. Very effective, and very cheap. Document cameras and RGB projectors for each? Are you kidding me?

That reminds me, do your schools have chalkboards? Ours don't. Schools now all use these stupid "whiteboards" with their silly erasable magic markers. Now we use those in board rooms at my clients' sites, but it's always been considered a luxury by those of us who went to school before these boards started being used outside of business conference rooms. Again: chalk? Real cheap. Magic markers? Not so much. Not to mention those markers half the time don't even erase right. You have to spray on this special solution sometimes to make sure the eraser picks up everything. More money for the solution spray bottles in every room.

But I digress. The last birthday present the school is asking for - at least this one they say, "we would like them for all classrooms" - are wireless writing tablets. WIRELESS WRITING TABLETS! "A hand-held, mobile board that can be written on from anywhere in the [incredibly vast] classroom. Teachers have the freedom of walking around the room while using it. This allows them to monitor students' progress as they teach." Now tablet PC's are still pretty new. I've never seen one used in business. Yet my public school wants them in every classroom.

First off, why? A teacher should teach from the front of the classroom, not from the middle or the back. And what the heck are they going to be doing on it while they walk around the classroom? If they're walking around I presume they're looking at kids' schoolwork, in which case they don't need a tablet PC to help them, and where are they going to put it down when they need to help a student at his desk? If they need to present something to the entire class, something that occurs to them while they're way out in the sea of students in that 50' x 50' classroom, why on Earth would they think they could make a more effective presentation from where they're standing than from the front of the room? And why would they prefer to make such a presentation on a tablet PC, transmitted up to the front of the class, than on their overhead - sorry, "document camera" ?

So by now you hopefully are saying, "right on, Mike! That is one crazy fundraiser!" But my real point is a larger one. And that is that this is what happens when government runs things. It is inevitable, and thus is one reason why government should be kept smaller, not larger. Because where government gets involved, inefficiency creeps in.

Why does this happen? It's simple and obvious. In the "real world," where capitalism reigns, a business like this middle school, and a CEO like this principal, have to compete not just to be the best, but also to survive. When they start a year they get a budget, one that is set for them based on their revenues. They cannot spend more than this because their business will become unprofitable and die. They also cannot spend within their means on things that are not critical needs that will increase revenues or decrease other expenses. If they do, their business will become unprofitable and die. This is laissez-faire; survival of the fittest. The businesses and professionals that run a tight and effective business survive and thrive, while those that make mistakes or spend wastefully die off. It's the basis of capitalism and as awesome to ponder as the workings of a natural ecosystem.

A government, and in this case a public school, doesn't operate under these constraints. If they spend wastefully, there is often no reckoning. There is no market self-correction; no automatic penalty of (figurative) death for wasteful spending or ineffective teachers or administrators. What happens, instead, is that the spending continues, regardless of whether it has been effective or not, and when the money runs out the powers-that-be beg for, or demand, more. They never have to account for what they spent last year or the year before because it's not relevant presently. When the money dries up, rather than tighten their belts and look for ways to do more with less, they beg directly to the parents of the children they teach for cash handouts, and they pay for full-time professional lobbyists to go to the state and federal legislatures and demand more money. Since there is no accountability, there is no end to their needs.

In California, public school teachers who work from the time they graduate college are able to retire at age 55 with a full pension. Why? For the reasons I just stated. Not because it's cost-effective, because it clearly is not. No other industries outside of government have such a generous retirement benefit (other examples are aerospace, a pseudo-gov't industry, and the military, whose "double dipper" retirees are well-known). They don't have such benefits because such benefits would bankrupt them very quickly. Imagine letting your most skilled and experienced professionals leave your company well before they are too old to do their jobs, and you are going to pay them their full salary for the rest of their lives, even though they're not doing anything productive for your business any more. The very idea is ludicrous. Again: no accountability = wastefulness.

This is true throughout government, federal and state. I'm picking on the public schools because we, the public, have more direct contact with them than any other government entity, and so the wastefulness and lack of accountability are right in front of us on a daily basis. But as we're seeing right now with this so-called "stimulus" package that just breezed through Congress, there is virtually no limit to this concept. At the federal level, even the "speed bump" of having to beg for more money from taxpayers is gone, because the federal government can physically print currency. They can manufacture money. So now all the stops are off and nothing is slowing this train down if the engineer doesn't do it himself. And until someone makes him, he won't. Without some level of self-control (i.e. the engineer and his brake), eventually the train is going to fly off the tracks and the whole thing will come crashing down.

Liberals are great at emoting and feeling people's pain, but they are dangerous when it comes to proposing solutions because they are lousy at understanding how the economy works (laissez-faire), why government should be limited (because politicians won't voluntarily limit themselves), and why the private sector should be unregulated as much as possible (freedom promotes innovation which breeds success, etc.).

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Obama Liberalizing USA with Breathtaking Speed

I did not watch President Obama's State of the Union speech last night.  Honestly I just didn't care what he had to say, and didn't feel the need to get aggravated.  Plenty of time for that in the next four years.  I did hear a couple of sound bites and a few brief reviews.  The reviews all said, "he gave a great speech, as usual.  Next?"


What amazes me is the amazing speed with which the new president is getting so much of his insane liberal agenda passed through Congress.  It's all they can do to give him whatever he wants, as quickly as possible.  The whole thing is sickening.  For the first time, in the last day or two, I've actually started seriously wondering whether this is the beginning of the end of the country I grew up in and love so much.  I don't mean to sound overly dramatic, but I just don't see any serious conservative opposition to any of the insanity the liberals in power are pushing through right now.  And this stuff is not here-today-gone-tomorrow.  This will last for generations.

Here you have a guy who has never run a single thing in his entire life, and he gets elected President of the United States and says he has a mandate to "remake America."  His Congress is majority liberal, happy to pass whatever he wants.  The Supreme Court clings to balance by the thinnest of grips, half-full of liberal activist justices who not only won't stand in the way of any new liberal legislation, but will happily, it seems, permit obviously unconstitutional behavior, enshrining it in "opinions" that give it the legitimacy of law just as strongly (probably more so) as if Congress had passed it themselves.  So I ask:  Where does this end?

Obama has been in office for only 5 weeks.  Yet the amount of legislation and other orders that have been passed through already is amazing, and it's only the beginning.  He is being very aggressive, re-dedicating himself to even the most leftist causes he claimed to support on the campaign trail (before he pretended to move to the center).  
  • He already killed the "Mexico City Policy," which now means American taxpayers' money will go to other countries as aid, to be spent on abortions, which at least 50% of the population finds abhorrent.  And he clearly signalled during his campaign that he means to increase the number of abortions performed in this country by a lot.  FOCA is coming.
  • He is preparing to spend the remaining $350 billion of TARP money that President Bush got authorized (no fiscal conservative, our former president)
  • Congress just authorized over $800 billion in new spending, calling it "stimulus" but almost no one truly considers it that.  Much of this money won't even be spent for a few years, which proves all by itself that even the bill's authors don't consider it stimulating.  And by the way, we don't have this money.  It's all borrowed, jacking up the national debt that is already in the trillions.
  • There is $75 billion in there that is supposed to help people who are "underwater" with their mortgage loans actually stay in their homes.  This to me is beyond asinine:  Your house's value has dropped below the amount you owe on the loan you took out to buy it.  Therefore you're entitled to re-negotiate your loan?  Why?  Do you re-negotiate when the value of your home rises?  Why should the bank be penalized for the drop in value of your home?  You signed a contract to borrow money from them, buy a house with it, and pay it all back.  Period.
  • Obama has gone out of his way on several occasions to bad-mouth American businessmen.  He feels he has the right to do this because the government he's the head of is going to be shelling out all kinds of investment capital to keep these businesses afloat.  He has mandated that bank executives, for example, make no more than $500K/year.  He has also pressured companies to reneg on various business deals they had made that Obama thought looked sketchy, like a sponsorship deal for a stadium (can't have that); reservations for company outings; and trips on private jets.  Put aside the fact that Obama gets all of these for himself as POTUS (and Camp David, Marine One and Air Force One are a heckuva lot bigger and more costly than any of the executives' equivalents, I guarantee it).  Why is government investing money directly in the private sector?  This is a BAD idea.
  • Obama claims he is not for the "Fairness Doctrine," which will destroy conservative talk radio, but I don't believe him, and many members of Congress are starting to speak out on its behalf, not to mention Obama's pick for FCC chair, who is all for it.
  • The president keeps saying "universal health care" as though it's a given that everyone wants this.  Yet no one is standing up and saying, "I don't want this!!"  Well I don't!  I'm quite happy with the level of my medical care, and even if I wasn't, I would not want government trying to get into that business.  They're already screwing everything else up.  Already he is trying to put into place a system wherein doctors are "strongly encouraged" to start contributing patients' medical records into a government-controlled national database.  Again, why is this government's problem??  This is the job of the private sector.
  • Obama is talking about reforming Social Security as though no one has ever tried to do this before.  As I've said before, he's no student of history, that's for sure.  President Bush tried to do this during 2005 and got nowhere with it.  As a result, I'm paying money into a system I don't believe will be there for me when I retire.  So how is Obama going to do this?
  • He's still going forward with plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and to levy new taxes on people like me while giving cash to people who don't pay taxes.  The class warfare with him isn't bad enough; he's got to play Robin Hood and steal my money, too.
  • The stimulus bill is also reversing the one big success that President Clinton had in his presidency (thanks to Newt Gingrich's conservative Congress): Welfare reform.  The new bill put in all kinds of incentives for poor people to have children and stay on the public dole; incentives that had been removed in the 1990's, resulting in huge numbers of people dropping off welfare.
The list could go on.  And he's only been in office for about a month.  

The reality is that he can do this because he has a virtually filibuster-proof majority in Congress and they're almost as liberal and partisan as he is.  Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Reid have all said, in no uncertain terms, that they have zero interest in negotiating with the Republicans.  Reid said, "Republicans cannot hold the POTUS hostage.  If they want to work constructively [read: agree with us liberals], we will work with them...If they think they're going to rewrite this bill, Barack Obama is going to walk away."  Obama himself said, "we are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that...threw our economy into a tailspin."  He knows the liberals are guilty on this issue and yet he lies and says the GOP's policies caused the recession.  Amazingly dishonest.  And no one calls him on it.

The only question mark is, will we survive this?  If he can cause this much havoc in one month, what can he do in 4 or - God Forbid - 8 years?