Massachusetts Ballot Questions: Question Two

Question Two on the Massachusetts ballot concerns lifting the current limit on the number of charter schools that can be opened in Massachusetts in a given year.  According to the summary the cap would rise to twelve or a maximum of 1% of total student enrollment.  I'm voting no.

I spent four years as a member of the Leicester School Committee.  I have a number of reasons to oppose this question.

First, the current cap allows for the Department of Education to actually take time to review individual applications.  Everyone likes to complain that the government is horrible and can't do anything right, but we're expected to believe that in this case they can effectively review twelve or more applications per year and only approve the qualified ones.  I find that doubtful.  The Department of Education is going to be swarmed with applications and they won't have time to properly review them all and they'll be under political pressure  to approve new schools.  Quality is going to suffer.  Bad charters are going to get approved.  How many years will go by before these bad charters are then identified and closed?  How often are charters in Massachusetts closed?  If it was just a matter of  the fact that it takes time it wouldn't be so bad, but each year is a year of a child's education.  Children don't get those years back.  The current cap allows for the Board of Education to review a small number and approve only the best of those number.  Towns don't open new schools very often, sometimes they replace existing schools, but they don't open truly new schools often and when they do they staff them with teachers and administrators from other schools.  In this case a new charter is truly a new thing in Massachusetts.  We owe it to the kids to make sure each and everyone of those charters is fully vetted and reviewed prior to being approved.  I do not trust the Massachusetts Board of Education to make a truly professional and thorough review when they will be approving so many at one time.  They just can't do it.  Bad schools will get approved and kids will pay the price.

Then there's the funding.  In Massachusetts the state sets a minimum budget number that school districts need to be provided.  The minimum budget is basically broken into two parts. One part is the amount that the local community is expected to raise through local taxes to support the school.  The difference between the local funding requirement and the minimum required budget is given by the state in the form of Chapter 70 funding.  When a charter opens in a district and students from that district enroll the state deducts a portion from that district's Chapter 70 and gives it to the charter.  The state uses an average per student spending number.  The average doesn't differentiate between elementary students and high school students.  The fact is that high school students are more expensive to educate than elementary schools students, so a k-8 charter gets some very impressive funding and the sending district loses more per student than it would take to educate those k-8 students (the way it works is that since high school students are more expensive to educate and k-8 are cheaper it balances out at the district level).  So charters get preferential funding.  There is bridge funding that the state provides for a couple years, but it's less than the amount the district loses and goes away fast.  I've read some disingenuous articles suggesting that local communities could just raise taxes to make up the difference, but that because of Proposition 2 1/2 (the property tax cap law in Massachusetts which limits how much local property tax can increase in a given year without an override vote by the community) it is nearly impossible to get such an increase in local taxes.  The fact is that most district schools are dependent on Chapter 70 funding because the towns can't raise taxes and when they lose the Chapter 70 funding they lose they just can't make it up.

And local schools can't cut costs.  Because of the property tax cap the schools are already running tight budgets.  The towns keep a wary eye on school budgets because the Boards of Selectmen and City Councils have to balance school funding against municipal funding knowing that they have a tax increase limit to work against.  Towns in Massachusetts run tight budgets.  And lets be honest there's only so much overhead that can be cut when a kid leaves a school.  If you have a school with 500 kids and 50 leave you can't close the school.  You can save some money by not needing one or two teachers and then money on supplies.  You still need that building.  You still need maintenance staff.  You still need administrators. You still need heat.  You still need all the other teachers.  You still have 450 kids needing an education.  So thinking you can just cut costs to make up the loss is simple minded.  It's an argument made by someone who hasn't actually thought through what they are saying or who has thought it through and decided to lie about it.

Which brings me to the advertisements by the "yes crowd."  I've seen a lot of these and oh my word are they full of lies.  I won't even go into them.  Basically my previous two paragraphs rebut most of the points that I hear in the ads.  Look at the funding behind those ads and you'll find that most of it is coming from out of state sources.  The people backing this don't even live in this state.  Outsiders want to change education in a state in which their kids will never have to live.  I have an issue with that.

You'll notice I haven't mentioned in this my personal view on charters.  I won't.  Charters are part of Massachusetts life.  The question is currently should we lift the cap on the number.  I think the current cap and the current process works for Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has the best schools in the country and if Massachusetts were it's own nation it would rank high on the list of best countries.  Massachusetts has technology companies specifically opening in the state because we produce well educated kids.  I don't see threatening that because a group of people who don't live here want to see their agenda advanced.  What I want is to see that kids in Massachusetts receive a quality education.  Public schools in Massachusetts have been under pressure to improve test scores and graduation rates since the 1990s and have achieved remarkable success as evidenced by the number of technology companies filling the office buildings in the Eastern part of the state.  The charters that have been opened have gone through a rigorous process of review and only a few can open per year which means that only best make it through.  I consider this law a danger to what's already been accomplished and what has been shown to work and I can not in good conscience support a law that I consider reckless.

I'm voting no on question two and I would suggest that you vote no too.

Massachusetts Ballot Questions: Question One

In past blogs I've typically written about how I'm planning to vote on the upcoming ballot questions.  I'll post each individually.

Question One on the Massachusetts ballot is about expanded slot machine gaming.  I'm voting no on this one.  

When the last gambling question came up I was in favor of it.  I have no particular issue with gambling.  I personally don't engage in it.  I've been to a casino a couple of times and don't find it of any particular interest.  My reason for voting in favor of gambling then was that people were leaving the state to engage in gambling in Connecticut and I didn't see why Massachusetts should forgo that tax revenue.  Yes, some people may engage in self destructive behavior with gambling, but I'm not a fan of telling adults what they can and can not do.  I'm very much in favor of personal liberty and letting people do what they want so long as they don't cause harm to others and if they do cause harm to others we have plenty of laws to deal with that.  

Why am I not voting in favor this time?  I have a problem with this particular referendum.  This was ywritten in such a way that only one location could possible be suitable for the new slot parlor.  I'm just not a fan of this type of targeted agenda in the referendum process.  It won't hurt me or pretty much anyone that I can think of it passes, but this type of referendum just doesn't fit what I consider to be a good purpose of the process.  It sets a standard that anyone with a personal agenda can push to get a law passed that fits their desires.  I just don't agree with that approach.  

Background Reading

I haven't posted in a while, but I don't think between March and now there was much need for another round of analysis.  I'm not certain that there's a need now.

Here's some background reading.

George Lakoff on "Understanding Trump".  George Lakoff is a linguist who works from a neurological perspective.  His works focus on how language impacts the brain and how the brain impacts language.  He focuses on how the framing of a narrative or comment impacts how people react to it.  I would also suggest reading his book "The Political Mind."  I think most journalists do a horrible job of framing and political journalists are the worst.

"The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer.  The title explains it all and I've posted this link previously.

2nd Amendment Rights and the Republican National Convention

Word is that the Republican Party doesn't want firearms at the Republican National Convention. There's a movement afoot in conservative circles to petition for the Republican Party to allow them. The Republican Party states openly that teachers should be allowed to carry firearms at schools. Republicans argue and push for open carry laws across the country at the state level.  Republicans argue for stand your ground laws.  The Republican Party claims to support the 2nd Amendment rights of the populace and publicly calls for laws just about everywhere except where actual officials of the Republican Party will be present.  I do hope the Republican National Committee stands by it's open statements in support of the 2nd Amendment and support the rights of Republican delegates to the Convention to carry their firearms.  I would like to know where the NRA is in supporting the fundamental rights of the Republican delegates.  This seems like just another case where the Republican establishment is spinning a story for the Republican base and they don't actually give a damn what the base supports.  Just like everything else they've ever told the base.

Protesting Donald Trump

Activists in Chicago protested a Donald Trump rally and shut it down. I don't entirely understand the point. Yes, you can rally and shut down a Trump event.  But what's the end game?

Donald Trump is running as an authoritarian leader over a group that is afraid of change and also feels that it's been attacked by outsiders.  So protesters are now showing up and providing the evidence that Trump's followers are indeed under attack.  The protesters have shut down what he had to say and to his followers that just proves that his enemies don't want his voice heard.  Trump is under attack in reality the way his followers have always known they are under attack. They aren't allowed to say the things that they believe and now the same people who silence them are trying to silence Trump.

So what' the point of protesting Trump and shutting down his rally? Is it to make a point that his politics are toxic? Because we know that.  Those of us who aren't voting for him know this already. Is it peal off his support?  The support that feels under attack and now has proof that their leader is under attack?

I get that protesting is a form of First Amendment action. I just don't understand the goal in this one. This sort of protest against Donald Trump is just the wrong strategy. You want to stop Trump?  Vote for someone who isn't Donald Trump. My preference is that you vote for a Democrat.  You think Trump is bad?  Trump is vocal.  Cruz scares the piss out of me.  Voting is the strategy to trip Trump. Confrontation isn't the approach that will work.  Trump and his supporters want confrontation and it only serves to firm up their beliefs and support.  Responding to anger with anger is not a solution. You respond to anger with reason.

Rubio We Hardly Knew Ye

Marco Rubio is not doing well.  Just for the record I had figured that Rubio would end up the nominee.  My thinking was that Jeb! Bush was weak from the get go and that the establishment and elites in the Republican Party would flood Rubio's way and with their money and connections he would get bullied into the nomination, but that hasn't happened.  Trump and Cruz have really over achieved in this campaign cycle.

Rubio has just never taken off as a candidate.  Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.com posits that Rubio never had a base to build off.  That could certainly be true.  He could be a boutique candidate.  On March 8th Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, and Mississippi had primaries and that's a pretty diverse group of states.  Rubio didn't land a single delegate out of the four.  Since the start of the primaries we've had caucuses or primaries in twenty-four states and territories.  These states swing from liberal leaning northern states to ultra-conservative southern states and Rubio has only won Minnesota and Puerto Rico.

Nate Silver feels that Rubio's core supporters are educated conservatives and to be honest that is more or less the definition of the Republican establishment.  Educated conservatives, politicians and political operatives are basically the establishment group.  The elites are really the billionaire class funding it all.  But what it looks to me is that Rubio has the establishment vote and only the establishment vote and that should scare the hell out of the Republican establishment.  The Republican establishment doesn't even have the sway in their own party to drive their chosen candidate to the nomination.

Rubio's strategy seems to be to hold out to the convention and then try to be the consensus candidate.  He may also be hoping that as more liberal states have their primaries that he seems to do better with those states, but he is running as a conservative so he's not going to pick up many moderate voters except as a protest against Cruz and Trump.  Right now Rubio is trailing Trump in Florida polls by double digits and Rubio is from Florida.  The one thing that he does offer is a block on Cruz and Trump in gaining the necessary delegates to go into the convention as the outright winner.  But if he's hoping to get to the convention and win the nomination win a brokered fashion there's the phantom of the backlash that will occur if Trump goes into the convention with the lead and loses the nomination.

#NeverTrump

Last week the Republican Establishment went full bore into it's anti-Trump attacks.  They rolled out Mitt Romney in an anti-Trump speech on March 3rd.  The New York Times published the text of the speech and you can read it yourself. Mitt Romney as you remember was the Republican Nominee in 2012 who lost the election to President Barack Obama. After Romney's loss one of the critiques was that he was insufficiently conservative. So who does the establishment roll out, but Mr Establishment himself who was dismissed by many conservatives for failing to be sufficiently orthodox. There was also some discussion and I don't know how serious it was of drafting Mitt for a dark horse run as a last ditch attempt to counter Trump. Somewhere over the last week the hashtag #NeverTrump was spun up on the web.

I don't know who started #NeverTrump, but I really have no clue what that means. A few strategies to get there have been floated.  The one that is currently underway has been to support a candidate and try to get voters to support that person.  As mentioned previously the establishment backed Marco Rubio once Jeb! Bush dropped out. Since then we've had two batches of primaries with Rubio doing poorly in both.  He finished second or third on Super Tuesday and then on Semi-Super Saturday he finished third across the board. Rubio made a big splash in Florida when he ran for Senate and he was a Tea Party darling in those days. Ted Cruz did really well on Semi-Super Saturday coming in first in two caucuses and second in two others. So I'm wondering how much the establishment label is hurting Rubio, but if you were holding out for Rubio to be the #NeverTrump solution you probably need to look elsewhere.

There's Ted Cruz as the #NeverTrump candidate and based on Semi-Super Saturday it may be that some people are voting for him, but the establishment and elites in the Republican Party hate Cruz with a passion. They view him as an opportunist who will do anything to get to advance his career. So from an establishment point of view Cruz like going from the fire into the frying pan; you won't get burned, but you are still cooked. Cruz is however a palatable alternative for authoritarian evangelicals with an anti-establishment bent. The two states Cruz won are Kansas and Maine and I'm not going to put much weight on either of those states with states with much higher populations that do actual primary elections and not caucuses coming up.

Another option for the #NeverTrump faction is the concept of the contested election.  In this strategy you don't have to win the nomination in the primaries, but you just have to make sure that Trump doesn't.  When you get to the convention you won't have a clear winner and then the wheeling and dealing can begin and the establishment can engineer someone else to be the nominee.  There's a huge danger here. Imagine what Trump's followers are going to think. They are angry because they feel that they've been screwed by just about everyone and they are incredibly anti-establishment.  They are going to view this as the establishment stealing the election and invalidating them and their votes. And then who gets the nomination?  The establishment doesn't like Trump, but it also doesn't like Cruz.  If Cruz has the second highest number of delegates what happens?  The establishment is pretty much screwed here.  They could get #NeverTrump, but end up with Cruz or an emasculated Rubio or Kasich and an open civil war in the party.

The last option I can see is that Trump wins and the establishment runs a third party option in the general election. I don't see this happening, but it is an option. This is where Mitt Romney might come back into the picture or maybe Michael Bloomberg.  There's really only a couple people who could fill the role, but basically it's splitting the Republican vote.

My opinion is that the people who say #NeverTrump are either not thinking things to the end of simply throwing a tantrum. #NeverTrump means finding another candidate to beat Trump out right in the primary or splitting the Republican vote in the general election.  If you split the Republican vote in the general election you are giving the election to the Democratic Party.  So win the primary outright or throw the election to Hillary Clinton.  That's really what #NeverTrump means and I bet most people are either not thinking it out or are simply locking onto a catch phrase and lying to themselves.