Campus Conservatives
The New York Times Magazine has a profile of campus conservatives. As might be expected, the article is both interesting and not entirely accurate. For example, it mentions that conservative groups such as the Intercollegiate Studies Institute "spend money in various ways to push a right-wing agenda on campuses." True enough. What is unsaid is that PIRG (a group founded by Ralph Nader) spends money to push a left-wing agenda on campuses--by extracting payment from unwilling students.

At least there is some consistency here. Conservatism, especially of the kind that emphasizes free markets, advocates the advantages of free exchanges, while "liberalism" as commonly understood, is funded through involuntary exchanges: taxes and mandatory student fees that go to groups such as PIRG.

The article also emphasizes the role of Republican Party operatives. Well, the GOP officeholders are often friends of conservative ideas, but sometimes not (see Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, and the former Republican, Jim Jeffords). And of course, many "conservatives" look to the Republican Party only as the best available political tool (dismissing Libertarians as too small and insignificant) to advance their ideas, not as something valuable in its own right.

A few other points worth noting: public opinion polls find that students today are more likely to favor "casual sex," which could be explained away as a reaction to AIDS--yet how then to explain a decline in support for abortion-on-demand but a shift in sexual ethics? Also on the downswing: belief in progressive taxation and arms control. This does not mean that the student body of your nearest state U is likely to resemble the ideological profile of delegates to the Republican National Convention, but in a place where "progressive" ideas are the institutional norm, these changes are significant.

If, as the author says, "It can be disorienting to hear conservatism advanced as the ideology that frees women," maybe she needs to get out more. I detect the spirit of the Manhattan-based arts critic--perhaps she worked for the Times as well?--who could not understand how Nixon was elected, since no one in her social or professional circle voted for him.

The convictions of the conservative students mentioned in the article are explained away as "something that someone told them," talking points from outside groups. There's no denying that outside groups help conservatives explain conservative themes, but again, there is a lack of balance here: no indication that PR-spinning is a tool of right AND left, which leaves the sloppily-reasoned conclusion--implied, not spoken--that these students are mere rubes and fools, the conservative version of the "useful idiot."

One other interesting tidbit is the fact that the group profiled in the article seeks to portrary itself, in terms of style, not as conservative, but as rebellious--in rebellion against the (to use a buzz phrase) dominant paradigm of the campus. "Rebellion" attracts youth as honey attracts flies. Some things never change.

UPDATE
Over on National Review, Jonah Goldberg takes an especially critical look at the NYT piece. Clearly, he's annoyed, finding the report filled with condescension.

The Times has kept alive its tradition of undermining any text flattering to conservatives — should there be any — by depicting conservatives as joyless jerks or psychos.

There's still this condescending sense that what makes them [conservatives] tick, let alone what makes them successful, has to be based in either their ignorance or their iniquity. Sure, Colapinto is honestly conveying his astonishment that young conservatives are people, but that astonishment is still insulting and old news.

What Does Google Say About You?
Though this Boston Globe article on the social implications of Google--A Nation of Voyeurs--is now several months old, it's worth pointing out to those who have not seen it. I was pointed to it at the time by National Review, but something prompted me to look it up again today. I found it, of course, through Google. It's a fascinating, if haunting read about how information on the Web by and about a person can come back and bite in a big way. Judicial and government executive appointments are sometimes deep-sixed due to a controversial or embarassing "paper trail" of law school review articles and the like. Now we will have a "google trail."
(permalink)

Are Schools Underfunded? No, but the Pentagon May Be.
The old cliche is that the Pentagon should have to hold bake sales to purchase bombers, but that schools should have all the money they need. Writing in National Review, education scholar Dr. Jay Greene asks, more or less, for the opposite.

According to a widely-held, but incorrect sentiment, schools never have enough money. But, Greene points out, government-run schools spent $8,830 per child nationwide during the 2000-1 school year, almost double the amount ($4,626, in 2001 dollars) spent 30 years ago. Almost double! If money alone were the answer, we would all be living in Lake Woebegone, where all the students are "above average."

Greene notes that we spend more money on education than on national defense. He ends with this thought:

The hard reality is that we spend a large amount of money on education and have every reason to expect something in return. We spend considerably less on national defense and yet reasonably expect our armed forces to protect all of our lives and fortunes from foreign dangers. And the armed forces do this difficult job without soliciting donations and without an army of apologists blaming their shortcoming on a lack of funds. It will be nice when educators adopt a similar "can-do" attitude.

Message to State Governments: Reform Yourselves
An article in today's Wall Street Journal [paid subscription required] notes that what Congress and the President give back in tax cuts, the states may take away in tax increases. The Journal cites economist Mark Zandi, who argues that a half-percentage point of economic growth will be surrendered in the name of balancing state government budgets.

The article also says that state budget officials are happy that the tax on dividends was not eliminated altogether; 37 states rely on the federal definition of income, so the elimination of federal taxes on dividends would mean the elimination of state taxes on dividends, too. (Hey, not a bad idea!)

With states facing a collective shortfall of $85-90 billion dollars, watch out for more tax increases. To date, the article notes, most states have met fiscal challenges through accounting gimmicks and dipping into reserves ("rainy day funds").

Half of the $20 billion bailout to states is to go to Medicaid spending in the states, which the Journal says is a "main driver" of state deficits. Left unsaid is that the states have expanded their Medicaid programs beyond reason, often offering coverage to families at 200 percent (or more) of the federal poverty level.

While state legislatures wrestle with current budget problems, they need to look beyond those and make systematic changes. Businesses across the country are shedding divisions to focus on core competencies. GE started this trend under the now-retireed CEO Jack Welch, who wanted each of the company's businesses to be either #1 or #2 in its field.

Clearly, government in the U.S. is competent at some things--raising and deploying military forces, and (at least by world standards) administering a system of law and justice. But it is less qualified, and has less of a moral claim, to undertake so many other tasks that it has now assumed. Earlier this year, I played a small part in a report issused by the Mackinac Center that outlined ways that the State of Michigan could focus on what should be its core competencies. States across the country need to engage in this kind of analysis--and then act on it--rather than call out to Washington for more cash, or raise taxes at home.
(permalink)

New Tax Bill: Good and Bad
It looks like President Bush will be able to claim--unlike his father--that he brought a tax cut to the American people. Good for him. And good for us. But as this AP story tells, the package is less impressive than it would at first appear.

No, the problem is not that the cut is less than half of what Bush asked for. Presumably, the original call for $725+ billion in tax cuts was a high bid that the Administration did not expect to see survive the Congressional process.

The figure $350 billion will soon be thrown around as a description of an "economic package." But not all of that package is good for the economy. Lost in that number is that fact that the actual tax cut is only $330 billion.

Where did the other $20 billion go? Well, it's going to, as the AP puts it, "fiscally strapped state and local governments." And how did they get into that condition? In large measure, by indulging in a spending binge during the "we have licked the business cycle" 1990s. As the American Legislative Exchange Council argues, this simply rewards profligate spending by states, whose spending was somehow able to grow faster even than the economy.
(permalink)

If it's Spring, it Must be Motorcycle Time
Should motorcyclists be required to wear helmets? The Detroit News reports on yet another attempt--the 20th, actually--to repeal or amend the Michigan law that requires all motorcycle riders and passengers to wear helmets. Proponents of the law cite the safety benefits of wearing helmets; opponents object to the idea of being told what to do. What helmetless riders increase insurance costs for the rest of us? Insurance companies are run by smart people; they can find ways to adjust premiums to reflect the increased risk of riding without a helmet.

It's hard to have much conviction on this matter, either way. When Americans must work until early April for Tax Freedom Day to arrive--the point after which they are working for themselves, not governments of various sorts--the fact that one is required to wear a helmet while on a motorcycle is a comparatively trivial complaint. Which is more a more significant government intrusion into personal freedom: dictating what motorcyclists wear on what is, in many states, only a seasonal hobby, or requiring people to turn more than three month's wages out of twelve to public programs, some useful, many destructive or simply unconstitutional?

Even so, ride on, bikers.
(permalink)

Too Many Ph.D.s
Writing in USA Today, Laura Vanderkam writes that there are too many Ph.D.s being turned out by universities.

The old joke is that a Ph.D. in history would qualify you for driving a taxi. Today, however, that person has been upgraded, if that's the word, to driving a school bus, as was the case of a woman with a Ph.D. in European history.

Roughly 45,000 new Ph.D.s will be graduating this year, Vanderkam notes, a number that is up 100 percent 35 years ago. Frequently, these folks will end up being something other than what they had hoped for, a tenured professor. One survey found that 10 years after earning the Ph.D., a mere 8 percent of English majors were tenured professors at Ph.D.-granting universities.

Given the rigors of graduate school, I can't help but admire the tenacity and intelligence of someone who had earned the Ph.D.

But what to do with this glut? To the extent that would-be professors know the odds, it's their problem. But as Vanderkam points out, universities should offer their grad students a more realistic picture of what awaits them.

What Vanderkam does not point out, though, is that this paucity of work is mostly a problem for students in the social sciences and humanities. It is abetted by an academic culture that over-emphasizes research and publishing, and places too little value on teaching. Many departments simply need an excess number of graduate students to staff undergraduate courses.

I don't know what the answer is, but the use of market-based incentives in the university is probably part of the solution. Socialism has a strong hold in higher education, not only in the ideology of professors, but in the business model.
(permalink)

Price Controls on Pharmaceuticals: The Problem
In its decision, the Supreme Court mentions (in a footnote) and then brushes aside one problem with the Maine Rx problem: moral hazard. That is, individuals (or more likely, employers who administer most private-sector health insurance plans) could (if state law allows) save a few bucks from insurance premiums by dropping prescription drug coverage and then turning to the public program.

A more serious problem with prior authorization and formularies is that it is yet another step down the road towards smothering a vital industry through government ownership. Already, roughly half of all health care is paid for through government dollars, and remember that in politics, the golden rule applies: he who has the gold makes the rules. Formularies, bulk purchases, and the like are another step towards nationalized medicine.

By the way, here's a press release from a ready-reference guide on the whole topic of prescription drug pricing and government programs, courtesy of the Institute for Policy Innovation.
(permalink)

Price Controls on Pharmaceuticals: Reviewing the Court Opinion
So what did the Supreme Court say in PhRMA v. Walsh? Keeping in mind that I am not an attorney, here is my take on the decision, which is available through the Supreme Court decision. My comments are [in brackets.]

Section 1:
As a joint federal-state program, any changes that states make to their Medicaid program must be approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). In the 1980s, states started creating formularies--lists of drugs that they would buy for Medicaid." They also started using "prior authorization" (PA) requirements for Medicaid and other programs. Under PA, a doctor who wishes to prescribe a drug for a patient must consult the formulary. If the drug is there, fine. If not, he must petition the government for approval. [Medicine by bureaucracy!]. HHS started approving these programs because they lower Medicaid costs, by design and practice. Congress subsequently gave its approval to these programs. It went further, and required that drug companies wishing to sell to Medicaid rebate a portion of the price. It also ratified prior authorization.

Section 2:
Maine enacts a law requiring any company that sells drugs to any publicly financed program in the state to give rebates to the State Commissioner of Human Services. The products of companies that do not comply will be subject to prior authorization. A "Drug Utilization Review Committee" will be created to determine what drugs are suitable for prior authorization, and which can be purchased only after a case-by-case review by government officials.

Section 3:
PhRMA, the trade group, filed suit. In affidavits the group presented, company officials state that prior authorization requirements for any particular severely curtails sales of that drug, and shifts physician and patient loyalty to other drugs, or even other companies. [Naturally!]

Section 4:
The district court granted an injunction, keeping the program from operating. It said that federal law prevented the program from going forward, since it could end up hurting Medicaid recipients. And prior authorization requirements could hurt someone on Medicaid, the district court said.

The Court of Appeals disagreed. It said, first, that federal law explicitly permits prior authorization requirements. It also said that a prior authorization program actually furthers the goal of Medicaid--furthering the provision of medical services--by helping those with insufficient means. [Hmm. I guess anything that makes medicine cheaper is ok, then, by this reasoning.] Further, the Appeals Court said, this program [through rebated prices for non-Medicaid people] may benefit Medicaid by keeping people off of Medicaid who might otherwise be driven there by high drug prices.

Section 4
The question at hand is whether the District Court overstepped its bounds by issuing the injunction, not whether the Maine Rx program is valid.

It is possible that HHS could approve the Maine program as an amendment to its Medicaid program. In fact, the amicus brief we received from the US government makes us think that HHS may endorse this program.

Section 5
The District Court ruled that the Rx program hindered Medicaid and had no Medicaid benefit, which makes it contrary to federal law. But Maine never said outright that Rx lacked a benefit to Medicaid, it just never mentioned one.

But we believe that Rx is indeed meant to benefit Medicaid. First, it does provide medical benefits to the "medically needy." Second, "there is the possibility [!] that, by enabling some borderline aged and infirm persons better access to prescription drugs earlier, Medicaid expenses will be reduced." [Ah yes. Anything that might reduce public spending is justified.] Third, prior authorization requirements do save money--we know that from the testimony of the drug makers themselves that spending on their drugs goes down under PA.

Now, does PA curtail Medicaid recipient's access to prescription drugs? That would be enough to overturn the program. Or would it? A prior decision (Alexander v. Choate) gives states great latitude in deciding what medical care is in the best interest of recipients. In that case, Tennessee was allowed to reduce the amount of days it pays for inpatient care from 20 to 14 days, and that doing so did not reduce "meaningful access" to medical services. [Reducing hospital stays by one-third is not "meaningful"?]

The prior authorization requirement "is assumed [!] to have only a minimal impact on Medicaid recipient's access to prescription drugs." Hillsborough County. v. Automated Medical Laboratories established that federal law does not pre-empt state laws designed to foster public health. So "the mere fact that prior authorization may impose a modest impediment to access to prescription drugs provided at government expense does not provide a sufficient basis for preemption of the entire Maine Rx program."

At this point, the degree to which any Medicaid patient would suffer from a PA requirement is "a matter of conjecture," and in fact, we can't say that even one person will suffer.

Does this affect drug companies? We have affidavits that such requirements affect their sale of specific drugs, but that's irrelevant, since, hey, it saves money for Medicaid.

Does this affect physicians? Not really. They have learned to deal with PA requirements imposed by HMOs. This is just more of the same.

Should HHS approve this program as a modification of Medicaid in Maine? We offer no opinion. Should HHS refuse Medicaid money if Maine does not seek that approval? Again, it is not for us to say.

Section 6
We do not buy the claim that the Rx program violates the Commerce Clause. It makes no effort to regulate the price of a transaction that occurs outside of Maine. This does affect drug companies, to be sure, and if it affected only out of state drug companies but not in-state drug companies, it would be an unfair tax, and that would be a different matter. But it "will not impose a disparate burden on any [outside] competitors"--because there are no drug manufacturers in Maine.

Section 7
PhRMA has failed to establish its case.
(permalink)

Price Controls on Pharmaceuticals: Supremes Turn Back Challenge
Thanks to advances in science, prescription drugs are playing an ever-larger role in health care. Even though increased use of drugs can lower overall health care spending, their rising costs pose problems for three groups: senior citizens who depend on Medicare (which does not pay for prescription drugs), the uninsured (who, obviously, don't have insurance to pay for the drugs), and state politicians (who must not only find ways to pay the drug bills incurred by Medicaid, but respond to clamoring constituents.)

In 2000, the State of Maine enacted Maine Rx, a program which officials claim would cut drug prices by 25 percent. The Associated Press and Washington Post review a recently issued Supreme Court opinion on a legal challenge to the program.

Under the plan, which attempts to use the state's bulk purchases of drugs for the Medicaid program as a bargaining chip, the state would buy even more drugs, at discounted Medicaid prices, for people who are not on government assistance. As the Post summarizes it, "Maine Rx empowers the state to require that drugmakers who want to sell to the state's Medicaid patients also finance a rebate on medicines for non-Medicaid patients. Drugs made by companies that refuse can be sold to Medicaid only if a state official gives 'prior authorization'--a significant handicap."

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group, filed suit, arguing that the program (again, quoting the Post) "amounted to regulation of interstate commece by one state and that it conflicted with the federal government's authority to se the rules of Medicaid." The AP story adds this kicker: "If prices don't drop in three years, the state could impose price controls."

(permalink)

No Income Taxes for Senior Citizens?
Talk about your senior discount.

The Oklahoma House recently approved, in a unanimous voice vote, a proposal to exempt all senior citizens from the state’s income tax. (Currently only income under $25,000 per person is exampt.) Said a supporter of the measure, "This would help all of our senior citizens within the state.”

Sure, it would help the senior citizens of Oklahoma if they didn’t have to pay income taxes. It would help anyone to not have to pay income taxes. And as a rule, I think most people ought to pay fewer taxes than they do.

But if there is “no taxation without representation,” we ought to consider the reverse—“no representation without taxation.” No, I’m not proposing a poll tax, though that may not be such a bad idea. What is a bad idea is exempting people from paying taxes solely on age, rather than on their income or consumption. Like anyone who is spending over people's money, those who can enjoy the benefits of public spending without having to pay for them are likely to overbuy.

Unanimous votes by legislatures are usually symbolic, and the story above suggests that the proposal will quietly die in the Senate. I suspect, then, that this was merely an exercise in grandstanding by the members of the House. But what a bad symbol.
(permalink)

It's All the Lawyer's Fault
How representative is representative government? That's the question asked in the Daily Oklahoman (free registration required), which looks at the demographic and occupational characteristics of Oklahoma's General Assembly. Like perhaps most assemblies in the country, it is disproportionately made up of white men. Now, that's not necessarily an evil thing--what should be represented are ideas and policy preferences, not the color of one's skin.

But more interesting than sex or race are two other qualities: education and occupation. While lawyers make up only 1 percent of Oklahoma's population, they comprise 17 percent of its General Assembly. The assembly is also a very well-schooled bunch: 80 percent hold at least a bachelor's degee, but only 20 percent of the population does.

A similar pattern is probably found in most, if not all, states, and the U.S. Congress as well. And given the complexity of matters that policy makers deal with, the elevated levels of higher education and legal training are perhaps understandable. But I can't help but thinking of the quip from William F. Buckley, Jr. that he would rather be governed by the first 100 (or 500, or 2,000, numbers vary) people listed in the Cambridge phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

It's hard to say which approach is better. But perhaps if we had more non-lawyers involved, there be some legislative restraints (such as "loser pays" rules to discourage frivolous lawsuits) to combat the problems cataloged over at Overlawyered.Com
(permalink)

Does Lt. Governor Mean "Lightweight Governor?"
Every once in a while, you run into those jobs that make you think "Wow. How can I get that gig?" How about a job that pays a 6- figure salary, commands a staff of 30 and a budget of $3 million, and which lets you do ... whatever you decide to do.

The Daily Herald, of suburban Chicago, runs a profile of the lieutenant governor's office in the State of Illinois. Apparently, the job is light on the responsibility side. It's pretty much a "make of it what you will" job, responsible only to the governor. And it carries a $115,000 salary and a budget of $3 million to spend.

It is the only "constitutional" office in the state with no duties specified by the constitution. One occupant of the office was so bored that he quit. And no, he wasn't replaced--which makes the uselessness of the office even more obvious. (If the governor leaves office through death or some other reason, and there is no lieutenant governor in place, the attorney general takes over.)

Some state get more mileage out of the Lt. Governor's position than others. In Texas, it means being president of the Senate, a position with real, legislative authority. In Minnesota, the current Lt. Gov serves double duty as the Secretary of Transportation, saving the state a few bucks. But Arizona, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming all manage to get by without one.


(permalink)

Poverty Down
A new report from the Brookings Institution (generally a center/left group) finds that "The number of people living in high-poverty neighborhoods—where the poverty rate is 40 percent or higher—declined by a dramatic 24 percent, or 2.5 million people, in the 1990s."

Anecdotal evidence of this trend can be seen in a related story in the Minneapolis Start-Tribune. The story leads with the observation of a resident of a former ghetto: "This used to be a rough area," said Shirley Minor, standing in St. Paul's Central Village Park on a sunny spring morning. "You'd see guys sleeping on mattresses over in the corner of the park there. It was an outdoor homeless shelter." Now the spot is a bright and cheery playground for a day care center.

According to the story in the Star-Tribune, researchers credit job growth, and that old bugagoo of welfare-rights advocates, "gentrification," which is essentially tearing down substandard housing and replacing it with yuppie (or at least middle-class) housing.

It is no surprise that many a young family head from city to suburb in pursuit of better schools. The Buckeye Institute (Columbus, Ohio) offers a proposal for revitalizing urban neighborhoods through increased use of charter schools and school choice.

(permalink)