A quick scan of recent news stories relating to this season’s supply of Flu Vaccine indicates that the mainstream media believes that Americans should know a) that there is a vaccine shortage and b) that the CDC has changed their recommendations regarding who should take the available doses of the vaccine. Based on the stories I have read, those two tidbits of information comprise basically the entire story. The balance of the stories' contents seem to focus on recounts of verbal hand wringing by medical professionals and polite interviews with potential vaccine users who are affected by the shortage.
This past Thursday my ears perked up when I heard Rush Limbaugh make brief mention of how we got into this situation in the first place. Since then, I’ve done a little research and now I’m here to tell you what you should really know about the vaccine shortage--and why you should be angry. More importantly, I believe that the realities of the flue vaccine shortage could give us all an ominous preview of “coming attractions” with regard to the unintended results of increased meddling by the imperial Federal Government in our nation’s healthcare business.
Remember shortly after Bill Clinton’s presidential inauguration in 1993 when he turned his lovely bride Hillary Rodham-Clinton loose on the task of reforming our national healthcare system? Remember how quickly the Newt Gingrich led US Congress and the American citizens tore the document from Hillary’s manicured fingertips and stomped it flat?
Well, what you might not remember is that Hillary and the Democrats didn’t take “no” as a final answer. They just had to find some way to ensure that this countries’ “beloved children” (not your children or my children—but “our” children) received adequate healthcare. “I know what we need,” she must have said, “from now on I’ll make the government give all of the kids free vaccines….that’s the ticket.”
And she did…with the “Vaccines for Children Program.” Here is how it works. The Federal government challenged the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to calculate how much of each vaccine (including vaccines for other childhood illnesses like mumps and measles) the US population would need each year, then the government would go on our behalf to the drug companies and purchase the necessary quantities of each medication in bulk--at a reduced price. The vaccines would then be made available to the public at a reduced price and in many cases, for free. Sounds good on paper, right? Well, it turned out to be a disaster in the making.
Since the government in general and the Democrats specifically refuse to understand the concept of supply and demand and how the free market affects product pricing, the politicians came stomping into the vaccine market like a five hundred pound gorilla and demanded to purchase major portions of vaccine inventory each year from the dozen or so existing vendors (in 1994) at bargain basement prices. In order to stay in business and in an effort to keep their drug licenses, the manufacturers were strong armed into going along with the deal. As the years went by, one by one the vendors of the flu vaccine (and many other vaccines) dropped out of the production business, citing the rising costs of product liability lawsuits and the reduced profits resulting from the government’s bulk purchasing program.
As a result, the number of Flu vaccine vendors has dropped over the past thirty years from over TWENTY down to only TWO! Aventis Pasteur manufactures vaccines here in the United States and expects to deliver over 48 million doses of flu vaccine later this fall. The only other US FDA approved supplier, Chiron Corporation which operates their manufacturing operation in Liverpool England, had its production license pulled last week by British regulators as the result of an error in the manufacturing process. Quality control issues in a few lots of vaccine expanded to the entire supply manufactured by the company for this flu season. We've been dealing with shortages on a regional and local basis for a number of years now. With only two suppliers, it was just a matter of time until a disaster of this kind struck.
Now that it is obvious that the government’s meddling in the free market system of supply and demand has caused the shortages, rather than admitting fault and getting the heck out of the way of the process, local and national officials are out running around trying to sue vaccine suppliers for the hated crime of “Price Gouging.” Individual states have set up 1-800 hotlines for consumers and healthcare providers to report offers of suspected…shush…..don’t tell anyone…overpriced vaccine….Gasp!! My attitude is that if you want and need a given product, get out your wallet and pay the asking price (see my earlier posting--Hurricane Recovery Price Gouging.) Can you get me two front row tickets to Cirque du Soleil for $10 each...quick call the cops...they're price gouging?!?!
There has been some discussion of looking at obtaining supplies of the Flu Vaccine from Canadian approved manufacturers but the US Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, indicated that “it was unlikely a drug maker without a license in the United States could supply that market.” Bureaucracy at it’s finest, ladies and gentlemen. I guess that if you don’t end every other sentence with a rhetorical “eh,” own four snowmobiles, and know the words of the Canadian National Anthem, the government believes that you might be somehow maimed or otherwise injured by a vaccine designed for Canadians. Worse yet, they might fear that if you actually took the Canadian vaccine you would give up on the Braves and Yankees in favor of watching and actually understanding the rules to hockey; or quit your bowling league in favor of curling (you know, the team sport using a broom and a big smooth stone that slides on ice.)
Since only about 50% of the normal US vaccine supply is available, officials are now making it a crime to inoculate someone who is not on the CDC’s hastily modified listing of “high risk” consumers. They are actually threatening to fine and jail medical providers who commit the heinous crime of inoculating non-high risk individuals. Penalties include:
* In Washington, the fine for such a violation is $1,000
* In Wisconsin, penalties include 30 days in jail and a $500 fine
* In Massachusetts, the penalty is a $200 fine per infraction and six months in jail
An article in the Charlotte Observer offered the following statement and quotation:
A new survey of more than 2,800 hospital pharmacy directors, by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, found that 55 percent of respondents had been contacted by vendors offering vaccine at inflated prices. Of those, more than 80 percent reported prices of more than four times the original market value.
"Shame on the people who are price gouging," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at a news conference this week. "This is a reprehensible thing to be doing, and I think an immoral thing. We need to pull together as a country to protect our vulnerable populations."
Can you believe this? After screwing around with the process and causing the shortage, the government know-it-alls have the unmitigated gall to refuse to look at alternate supply sources and actually threaten to jail a doctor for giving someone an unapproved shot?
I ask the question, why not jail and fine the government idiots that caused this situation in the first place?
You mark my words; this is just a preview of things to come in regard to government provided healthcare services. The veterans are already filling out reams of paperwork and standing in ridiculous lines at government operated VA hospitals to get their healthcare. I suggest that the government is not going to be satisfied until we are all paying through the nose and standing in one giant line, regardless of “class” or “income level,” trembling under the fear of fines or prison if we dare to take matters into our own greedy little hands and dare go somewhere "unapproved" or pay "extra" to get our health services.
I feel like Chicken Little…the sky is falling…the sky is falling...except I’M RIGHT.
Update: October 30,2004
The presidential race is currently trumping all other news, but I'm still paying attention.
Here are some links that further my case: Vaccine manufacturing process needs updating and the trial lawyers aren't through screwing up things yet...
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Living Wages--Part II
The Working Poor Families Project just released a series of reports on the condition of “working families” in America. The report is funded by the Anne E. Casey Foundation (AECF), the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation—all well financed “do-gooder” organizations.
Jim Casey, one of the founders of United Parcel Service, started the Anne E Casey Foundation in memory of his wife in 1948. A good example of a liberal putting his money where his mouth is. In their opening statement of the Executive Summary, they offer the following passage:
“The United States of America is often called the “Land of Opportunity,” a place where hard work and sacrifice lead to economic success. Across generations, countless families have been able to live out that promise.
However, more than one out of four American working families now earn wages so low that they have difficulty surviving financially. These are families with responsible, hard-working breadwinners who want to get ahead but hold down low-paying jobs with inadequate benefits and little hope for advancement. Many lack the skills and education they need to move into jobs that pay better, even while the economy demands more highly trained employees. And while our economy relies on the service jobs these low-paid workers fill—such as cashiers, janitors, security guards and home health aids—our society has not taken adequate steps to ensure that these workers can make ends meet and build a future for their families, no matter how determined they are to be self-sufficient.”
What lovely, sensitive words—on the surface. Only when you look deeper to do you see the true meaning that lies (no pun intended) within.
Once again, here we find a reference to “working families.” I demand to know what the term “working family” means. Can any one tell me? (See Living Wages—Part I.) I believe that the term is intended to refer to a person with a spouse and kids to support who is trying to live on the wages earned working every day for most of their lifetime in a near minimum wage (what I call entry level) job.
What are they thinking? Sure they may be “responsible and hard-working” but the best paid sanitation engineer (garbage man) still earns garbage man’s pay. At least the report seems to acknowledge that the economy has good jobs available, but unfortunately there aren’t many employment want-ads for buggy whip makers and blacksmiths in The Atlanta Journal/Constitution newspaper. Times are a changin’, and we have to change also.
Where I come from, the incentive of “hav(ing) difficulty surviving financially" was both an everyday reality and acted as a powerful incentive to get off of your ass and make some serious changes. I think that you would agree that most Americans have considered themselves to be squeezed financially for part of their working career, so what is so evil with this situation that government intervention should be mandated?
“Many lack,” they say, “the skills and education they need to move into jobs that pay better…” Well boo hoo hoo, did they have to quit school before graduation to go to work to support themselves and their family like both of my Grandfathers did in pre-depression era America? Probably not. Most likely they slept through and played hooky through twelve years of free government education because they either didn’t care or didn't know any better. The girls likely were certain that they were going to get married to a rich man and the boys were sure that they were going “Pro” in the NFL or the NBA. Once they hit the big time they figured that they could pay someone else to do their ‘ritin, readin’, and ‘rithmatic. “Let me ax you, do you know a good accountant? “
And then we are admonished that our “society has not taken adequate steps to ensure that these workers can make ends meet.” Upon utterance of this statement, my head starts spinning around uncontrollably. How about asking these workers to take some steps on their own to ensure that they can make ends meet? What else should we be required to continue to pay for without seeing some tangible improvement and/or actual results?
I mean, after providing twelve years of free education and handing out additional financial support in the form of welfare and public housing, haven’t we done about enough? No, they say. We need to somehow do whatever it takes to ensure these miserable, underprivileged souls move out of the ghetto and enjoy a lifetime of success.
And God forbid that we attempt to tell our benefactors how to lead their lives in areas that are highly predictive of future outcome. We can’t, for instance, criticize their lifestyle decisions like the company they keep, the way they speak, the way they dress, or their propensity to adopt expensive, self-destructive habits like alcohol and drug abuse. No way, Jose. And we can’t intervene in areas of intimate personal behavioral like sex which inevitably result in the expensive side affects like producing unwanted/un-afforded children or the acquisition of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS. We are, as a society, supposed to close our eyes, toss our money at the problem, and hope for the best outcome. Ab-rah Kadab-rah, poof.....success!
In looking into the AEC Foundation, I found this statement from the current president, Doug Nelson:
“Applying Lessons Learned. The generation of American children born in the last two decades of the 20th century has been blessed by a period of unprecedented national prosperity. For most of these children and their families, this has been among the best of times.
Yet for fully one-fifth of this nation's kids, the economic boom has quite simply passed them by. In small towns, many suburbs, and especially in large cities, millions of children remain largely untouched by the good times, with little prospect for connecting with the benefits of a soaring economy. Our most recent KIDS COUNT data report a significant increase since 1990 in the number of children—5.6 million—in families of the working poor. In all, more than 14 million, or 21 percent of all kids under 18, still live in poverty-a higher proportion than in 1975.“
IF the data supporting these statistics are accurate, we are as a society guilty of a great failure. But I say that the government hasn’t failed; the recipiants have—in spite of a large amount of public financial support. Remember that President Johnson’s series of economic initiatives announced in his 1964 Presidential campaign, called “The Great Society,” was largely implemented by the “Fabulous Eight-Ninth” congress. Among their mandates were:
1. Achieved the goals of the Fair Deal.
2. Achieved the goals of the New Frontier.
3. Introduced Medicare programs.
4. Passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
5. Legislated a Housing and Urban Development program.
6. Ratified the highway beautification act, a pet project of Lady Bird Johnson, the First Lady.
7. Installed clean air and water regulations.
8. Ended the immigration quota system of the 1920s.
9. Set forth new city planning programs.
"New Deal," "Fair Frontier," Education, housing, environment, healthcare—do these topics sound familiar? Same old same old. Just throw some more money at the perceived problems and implement government mandated solutions and everything will be ok, right? That’s what they say.
“To do that (improve the chances for all to advance,) we must effectively invest our public resources so that low-income working families have far better access to education, training, healthcare, parental leave, and other benefits. People earning higher salaries typically have access to those things; those who are paid less need the same…In the long run we will maintain stable communities and keep our businesses competitive.”
Let me dissect this paragraph for you. “We must invest our public resources”…that’s government terminology for spending other people’s tax money. Our “investment” will give low-income “working families” all the things (education, training, healthcare, parental leave, and other benefits) that my parents and I have already paid dearly for in time and money in order for me to be able to work somewhere other than the McDonalds’ drive through window. And this parental leave thing—where do they get off telling a business owner that when he hires a walking set of ovaries or testicles with no restraint that he has to hand out unlimited (or at least ridiculous) amounts of “parental leave” in order to take care of five or six children that were neither planned for nor can be afforded financially?
Then they actually have the guts to come out and say that, regardless of your personal effort or commitment to your education and employment efforts, you “need” (and by default and government mandate you deserve) the same compensation rewards provided to better educated and more productive employees. Well, I NEED a vacation home on a Caribbean island and a 100 foot yacht and Lear Jet to get there—can someone in Washington help me please?
“In the long run we will maintain stable communities and keep our businesses competitive.” Is this a threat that if we don’t hand over funding, anarchy will result and the stock market will crash? Me and my Smith and Wesson don't think so...
I have every compassion for the children identified to be in these situations living in poverty. It’s not their fault, but the problem I have is that the government doesn’t cut checks to minor children. They do cut checks to adults who consciously make crappy life decisions, reproduce without conscience and V-O-T-E. For forty years “Great Society” politics has yielded little improvement and constant demands for increased funding. Enough is Enough...just call me insensitive.
UPDATE October 14, 2004 5:30AM
The implied solution to the problems of the "working poor" is to raise the minimum wage. You might ask, who is actually paid minimum wage? This link gives the answer better than I ever could.
Jim Casey, one of the founders of United Parcel Service, started the Anne E Casey Foundation in memory of his wife in 1948. A good example of a liberal putting his money where his mouth is. In their opening statement of the Executive Summary, they offer the following passage:
“The United States of America is often called the “Land of Opportunity,” a place where hard work and sacrifice lead to economic success. Across generations, countless families have been able to live out that promise.
However, more than one out of four American working families now earn wages so low that they have difficulty surviving financially. These are families with responsible, hard-working breadwinners who want to get ahead but hold down low-paying jobs with inadequate benefits and little hope for advancement. Many lack the skills and education they need to move into jobs that pay better, even while the economy demands more highly trained employees. And while our economy relies on the service jobs these low-paid workers fill—such as cashiers, janitors, security guards and home health aids—our society has not taken adequate steps to ensure that these workers can make ends meet and build a future for their families, no matter how determined they are to be self-sufficient.”
What lovely, sensitive words—on the surface. Only when you look deeper to do you see the true meaning that lies (no pun intended) within.
Once again, here we find a reference to “working families.” I demand to know what the term “working family” means. Can any one tell me? (See Living Wages—Part I.) I believe that the term is intended to refer to a person with a spouse and kids to support who is trying to live on the wages earned working every day for most of their lifetime in a near minimum wage (what I call entry level) job.
What are they thinking? Sure they may be “responsible and hard-working” but the best paid sanitation engineer (garbage man) still earns garbage man’s pay. At least the report seems to acknowledge that the economy has good jobs available, but unfortunately there aren’t many employment want-ads for buggy whip makers and blacksmiths in The Atlanta Journal/Constitution newspaper. Times are a changin’, and we have to change also.
Where I come from, the incentive of “hav(ing) difficulty surviving financially" was both an everyday reality and acted as a powerful incentive to get off of your ass and make some serious changes. I think that you would agree that most Americans have considered themselves to be squeezed financially for part of their working career, so what is so evil with this situation that government intervention should be mandated?
“Many lack,” they say, “the skills and education they need to move into jobs that pay better…” Well boo hoo hoo, did they have to quit school before graduation to go to work to support themselves and their family like both of my Grandfathers did in pre-depression era America? Probably not. Most likely they slept through and played hooky through twelve years of free government education because they either didn’t care or didn't know any better. The girls likely were certain that they were going to get married to a rich man and the boys were sure that they were going “Pro” in the NFL or the NBA. Once they hit the big time they figured that they could pay someone else to do their ‘ritin, readin’, and ‘rithmatic. “Let me ax you, do you know a good accountant? “
And then we are admonished that our “society has not taken adequate steps to ensure that these workers can make ends meet.” Upon utterance of this statement, my head starts spinning around uncontrollably. How about asking these workers to take some steps on their own to ensure that they can make ends meet? What else should we be required to continue to pay for without seeing some tangible improvement and/or actual results?
I mean, after providing twelve years of free education and handing out additional financial support in the form of welfare and public housing, haven’t we done about enough? No, they say. We need to somehow do whatever it takes to ensure these miserable, underprivileged souls move out of the ghetto and enjoy a lifetime of success.
And God forbid that we attempt to tell our benefactors how to lead their lives in areas that are highly predictive of future outcome. We can’t, for instance, criticize their lifestyle decisions like the company they keep, the way they speak, the way they dress, or their propensity to adopt expensive, self-destructive habits like alcohol and drug abuse. No way, Jose. And we can’t intervene in areas of intimate personal behavioral like sex which inevitably result in the expensive side affects like producing unwanted/un-afforded children or the acquisition of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS. We are, as a society, supposed to close our eyes, toss our money at the problem, and hope for the best outcome. Ab-rah Kadab-rah, poof.....success!
In looking into the AEC Foundation, I found this statement from the current president, Doug Nelson:
“Applying Lessons Learned. The generation of American children born in the last two decades of the 20th century has been blessed by a period of unprecedented national prosperity. For most of these children and their families, this has been among the best of times.
Yet for fully one-fifth of this nation's kids, the economic boom has quite simply passed them by. In small towns, many suburbs, and especially in large cities, millions of children remain largely untouched by the good times, with little prospect for connecting with the benefits of a soaring economy. Our most recent KIDS COUNT data report a significant increase since 1990 in the number of children—5.6 million—in families of the working poor. In all, more than 14 million, or 21 percent of all kids under 18, still live in poverty-a higher proportion than in 1975.“
IF the data supporting these statistics are accurate, we are as a society guilty of a great failure. But I say that the government hasn’t failed; the recipiants have—in spite of a large amount of public financial support. Remember that President Johnson’s series of economic initiatives announced in his 1964 Presidential campaign, called “The Great Society,” was largely implemented by the “Fabulous Eight-Ninth” congress. Among their mandates were:
1. Achieved the goals of the Fair Deal.
2. Achieved the goals of the New Frontier.
3. Introduced Medicare programs.
4. Passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
5. Legislated a Housing and Urban Development program.
6. Ratified the highway beautification act, a pet project of Lady Bird Johnson, the First Lady.
7. Installed clean air and water regulations.
8. Ended the immigration quota system of the 1920s.
9. Set forth new city planning programs.
"New Deal," "Fair Frontier," Education, housing, environment, healthcare—do these topics sound familiar? Same old same old. Just throw some more money at the perceived problems and implement government mandated solutions and everything will be ok, right? That’s what they say.
“To do that (improve the chances for all to advance,) we must effectively invest our public resources so that low-income working families have far better access to education, training, healthcare, parental leave, and other benefits. People earning higher salaries typically have access to those things; those who are paid less need the same…In the long run we will maintain stable communities and keep our businesses competitive.”
Let me dissect this paragraph for you. “We must invest our public resources”…that’s government terminology for spending other people’s tax money. Our “investment” will give low-income “working families” all the things (education, training, healthcare, parental leave, and other benefits) that my parents and I have already paid dearly for in time and money in order for me to be able to work somewhere other than the McDonalds’ drive through window. And this parental leave thing—where do they get off telling a business owner that when he hires a walking set of ovaries or testicles with no restraint that he has to hand out unlimited (or at least ridiculous) amounts of “parental leave” in order to take care of five or six children that were neither planned for nor can be afforded financially?
Then they actually have the guts to come out and say that, regardless of your personal effort or commitment to your education and employment efforts, you “need” (and by default and government mandate you deserve) the same compensation rewards provided to better educated and more productive employees. Well, I NEED a vacation home on a Caribbean island and a 100 foot yacht and Lear Jet to get there—can someone in Washington help me please?
“In the long run we will maintain stable communities and keep our businesses competitive.” Is this a threat that if we don’t hand over funding, anarchy will result and the stock market will crash? Me and my Smith and Wesson don't think so...
I have every compassion for the children identified to be in these situations living in poverty. It’s not their fault, but the problem I have is that the government doesn’t cut checks to minor children. They do cut checks to adults who consciously make crappy life decisions, reproduce without conscience and V-O-T-E. For forty years “Great Society” politics has yielded little improvement and constant demands for increased funding. Enough is Enough...just call me insensitive.
UPDATE October 14, 2004 5:30AM
The implied solution to the problems of the "working poor" is to raise the minimum wage. You might ask, who is actually paid minimum wage? This link gives the answer better than I ever could.
Monday, October 11, 2004
No Child Left Behind?
I’ve had a love hate relationship with formal education—both the mandatory 12 years of primary/secondary school and my dual experiences as an undergraduate Mechanical Engineering student.
You see, I consider myself to be smart, and I was a good student in school. I just disliked many of my (government) school teachers and many of my (government) school teachers barely tolerated me. I say many because there were actually a few instructors that liked my work and I liked them, but these were the exceptions rather than the rule.
I had a problem with the educational process in that I found it to be tedious and overly bureaucratic. I guess that my mind didn’t fit the model of the student that they were trained to teach. My primary failure was my belief that I was actually there to learn something and that there was too much crap and politics that had to be dealt with in order to get your daily dose of readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic.
In post World War II America, the government has bought (or possibly sold ) the general public’s simplistic belief that a high school diploma automatically guarantees quality employment and economic success.
To this end, the public (government) school system has made every effort to hand a high school diploma to every person (read that so-called student) that can show up in a classroom for some minimum number of days over a twelve year period. Rather (but not Dan Rather) than supporting and maintaining the quality while increasing access to a primary and secondary education, the end result has been the degradation of standards and the output of basically the same number of qualified graduates as were produced before government intervention. The key word is qualified. You heard me right, everyone is required to go, but the number of successful high school students is quantitatively the same. It’s a matter of supply and demand.
In spite of this increased availability of educational programs, here in Georgia over 40% of high school students drop out before graduation. Do you get this? They are virtually giving away high school diplomas based on attendance and nearly half of the students don’t have enough sense and discipline to hang around long enough to get one. And the sad reality is that the diploma has no real market value in its current form. It’s become basically a certificate of (non)attendance
The imperial federal government of the United States made their first foray into higher education with the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (all 499 pages in PDF format,) and the next target of the Federal Government’s newly formed Department of Education was a college diploma. Since the high school diplomas weren’t getting enough people a country club membership and a new Caddy Seville every three years, the belief was that adding four more years of education with the obligatory government meddling would certainly do the trick. Of course the Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale wouldn’t in theory have to participate, but the state colleges and Universities were in for an onslaught of ill prepared “High School” graduates with government backing.
Lewis Grizzard, a famous southern humorist, newspaper columnist, and staunch University of Georgia fan and alumni was quoted as saying (paraphrasing): “they say if you drive through the UGA campus, they will throw a diploma through your open car window…taint true…you got to stop your car.” How true that has become, Lewis.
The State of Georgia went as far as to use education as a basis for implementing a state lottery, the result being the HOPE Scholarship program and state funded pre-K and Kindergarten programs that were heralded as the end-all save-all solution for Georgia students.
The jury is still officially out, but after ten years the initial results are that the HOPE program has done very little to improve education in Georgia. The few good high school teachers that were out there have suffered under pressure to inflate grades to make students have the necessary “B” average to qualify for a Hope scholarship. The few good college professors are now pressured to hand out A’s and B’s in order to allow students to maintain HOPE Scholarship eligibility. And the reality is that a large percentage of the students entering college with Hope Scholarships are not really qualified and as a result, many have to take remedial classes in English (their native language) and math before they can even enter the normal curriculum.
As is usual with found money, the state government has had a spending spree of using HOPE funds to pay for non-scholarship expenses like computer technology that no one on the educational staff can fathom and for building new facilities all over the state that either aren't needed or are under-utilized.
In the ensuing financial crunch caused by low qualification standards, the state legislature has had to wrestle every year with potential changes to program requirements. The problems are not unique to HOPE, they are just amplified by the availability of public money. Racial leaders and activists claim that “rich people’s” kids get a disproportionate share of HOPE money—they want income limits on recipients. Inner city school proponents refuse to acknowledge the academic deficiencies of the current standards and oppose the use of SAT scores as part of the qualification process. The college remedial programs continue to bulge at seams.
Again, at the heart of the issue is the concept of supply and demand. Here is my simple (but accurate) redneck analysis for your enjoyment (and liberal disdain.) Suppose that by some miracle we actually managed to make the following changes in our society:
1. Every child was a willing and able student.
2. Every household provided a nourishing academic environment.
3.Every school has perfect teachers, perfect facilities, and adequate funding.
Given these improvements and assuming that the academic standards were ethically maintained, I guarantee you that the socialists and utopians would still be unhappy. Why?
Because there would still be students with B, C, and even failing grade averages. All students are not in fact created equal. Everyone can't be Valedictorian. Further, even if you could get every high school student up to a B performance level and handed them a HOPE scholarship, there are not enough seats in college classrooms to park their butts in every day for two to four years.
If you were to somehow carry this concept through to the college level and actually get every student a college sheepskin, then you will find that there are not enough jobs that require a college degree (even a degree in underwater basket weaving or god forbid—education) to use all of the applicants.
Only the top students would get the best jobs and attain the highest levels of success in the workplace. As I like to say, “everyone can’t be a rocket scientist.” Well, actually, you can be a “rocket scientist,” but you might be an unemployed rocket scientist unless you want to start your own company and work for yourself. (Kudos to Dick Rutan.)
“No Child left Behind?” Baah, Humbug...I say kick them (and their parents) in their behinds until the child has no behind left.
You see, I consider myself to be smart, and I was a good student in school. I just disliked many of my (government) school teachers and many of my (government) school teachers barely tolerated me. I say many because there were actually a few instructors that liked my work and I liked them, but these were the exceptions rather than the rule.
I had a problem with the educational process in that I found it to be tedious and overly bureaucratic. I guess that my mind didn’t fit the model of the student that they were trained to teach. My primary failure was my belief that I was actually there to learn something and that there was too much crap and politics that had to be dealt with in order to get your daily dose of readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic.
In post World War II America, the government has bought (or possibly sold ) the general public’s simplistic belief that a high school diploma automatically guarantees quality employment and economic success.
To this end, the public (government) school system has made every effort to hand a high school diploma to every person (read that so-called student) that can show up in a classroom for some minimum number of days over a twelve year period. Rather (but not Dan Rather) than supporting and maintaining the quality while increasing access to a primary and secondary education, the end result has been the degradation of standards and the output of basically the same number of qualified graduates as were produced before government intervention. The key word is qualified. You heard me right, everyone is required to go, but the number of successful high school students is quantitatively the same. It’s a matter of supply and demand.
In spite of this increased availability of educational programs, here in Georgia over 40% of high school students drop out before graduation. Do you get this? They are virtually giving away high school diplomas based on attendance and nearly half of the students don’t have enough sense and discipline to hang around long enough to get one. And the sad reality is that the diploma has no real market value in its current form. It’s become basically a certificate of (non)attendance
The imperial federal government of the United States made their first foray into higher education with the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (all 499 pages in PDF format,) and the next target of the Federal Government’s newly formed Department of Education was a college diploma. Since the high school diplomas weren’t getting enough people a country club membership and a new Caddy Seville every three years, the belief was that adding four more years of education with the obligatory government meddling would certainly do the trick. Of course the Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale wouldn’t in theory have to participate, but the state colleges and Universities were in for an onslaught of ill prepared “High School” graduates with government backing.
Lewis Grizzard, a famous southern humorist, newspaper columnist, and staunch University of Georgia fan and alumni was quoted as saying (paraphrasing): “they say if you drive through the UGA campus, they will throw a diploma through your open car window…taint true…you got to stop your car.” How true that has become, Lewis.
The State of Georgia went as far as to use education as a basis for implementing a state lottery, the result being the HOPE Scholarship program and state funded pre-K and Kindergarten programs that were heralded as the end-all save-all solution for Georgia students.
The jury is still officially out, but after ten years the initial results are that the HOPE program has done very little to improve education in Georgia. The few good high school teachers that were out there have suffered under pressure to inflate grades to make students have the necessary “B” average to qualify for a Hope scholarship. The few good college professors are now pressured to hand out A’s and B’s in order to allow students to maintain HOPE Scholarship eligibility. And the reality is that a large percentage of the students entering college with Hope Scholarships are not really qualified and as a result, many have to take remedial classes in English (their native language) and math before they can even enter the normal curriculum.
As is usual with found money, the state government has had a spending spree of using HOPE funds to pay for non-scholarship expenses like computer technology that no one on the educational staff can fathom and for building new facilities all over the state that either aren't needed or are under-utilized.
In the ensuing financial crunch caused by low qualification standards, the state legislature has had to wrestle every year with potential changes to program requirements. The problems are not unique to HOPE, they are just amplified by the availability of public money. Racial leaders and activists claim that “rich people’s” kids get a disproportionate share of HOPE money—they want income limits on recipients. Inner city school proponents refuse to acknowledge the academic deficiencies of the current standards and oppose the use of SAT scores as part of the qualification process. The college remedial programs continue to bulge at seams.
Again, at the heart of the issue is the concept of supply and demand. Here is my simple (but accurate) redneck analysis for your enjoyment (and liberal disdain.) Suppose that by some miracle we actually managed to make the following changes in our society:
1. Every child was a willing and able student.
2. Every household provided a nourishing academic environment.
3.Every school has perfect teachers, perfect facilities, and adequate funding.
Given these improvements and assuming that the academic standards were ethically maintained, I guarantee you that the socialists and utopians would still be unhappy. Why?
Because there would still be students with B, C, and even failing grade averages. All students are not in fact created equal. Everyone can't be Valedictorian. Further, even if you could get every high school student up to a B performance level and handed them a HOPE scholarship, there are not enough seats in college classrooms to park their butts in every day for two to four years.
If you were to somehow carry this concept through to the college level and actually get every student a college sheepskin, then you will find that there are not enough jobs that require a college degree (even a degree in underwater basket weaving or god forbid—education) to use all of the applicants.
Only the top students would get the best jobs and attain the highest levels of success in the workplace. As I like to say, “everyone can’t be a rocket scientist.” Well, actually, you can be a “rocket scientist,” but you might be an unemployed rocket scientist unless you want to start your own company and work for yourself. (Kudos to Dick Rutan.)
“No Child left Behind?” Baah, Humbug...I say kick them (and their parents) in their behinds until the child has no behind left.
