WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks. This is the first of two wrap-ups for October 16.
National Center for Policy Analysis
(NCPA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization whose goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.)
DALLAS, Tex. -- Democrats' Answer for the Economy is to Raise Taxes
by Bruce Bartlett
Republicans are sanguine and Democrats are frustrated going into the mid-term elections, now just three weeks away. Detailed analyses by political professionals generally show Republicans keeping control of the House of Representatives and having a good shot at regaining control of the Senate as well.
The great unknown factor is how the economy will play. Historically, pocketbook issues dominate when people enter the voting booth. With the economy showing no signs of sustained growth and the stock market in the dumps, there is still a chance that voters will turn on Republicans -- as the party in power -- and blame them for the lost jobs, income and wealth they are suffering.
A number of new polls are consistent in showing that Americans are very apprehensive about economic conditions and dissatisfied with the Bush Administration's lack of concern.
On Oct. 11, the University of Michigan reported that its index consumer sentiment has fallen to the lowest level since 1993. It is now even below the level recorded after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
Also on Oct. 11, Ipsos-Reid released its latest index of consumer attitudes and spending by households. It shows that the fall in the stock market is not just affecting people's expectations, but their current spending as well.
On Oct. 10, Fox News released a poll showing that 45 percent of people rate the economy and jobs as their highest concern. Among voters, 30 percent said it would be the most important issue in deciding their votes. The next highest issues were terrorism and education, which were tied at 12 percent.
Also on the 10th, the Pew Research Center released a poll confirming the predominance of economic issues. Fifty-five percent of people now want more discussion of economic issues, up from 20 percent in June. The percentage of Americans saying Republicans are best able to handle economic issues has fallen to 37 percent from 45 percent in January, whereas the percentage saying that Democrats will do better has risen to 41 percent from 33 percent.
Under ordinary circumstances, one would expect Republicans to be in trouble, given such numbers. But so far, they are not. Democrats believe that it is because Republicans have successfully diverted attention away from the economy, toward Iraq and terrorism. Indeed, some on the left believe that President Bush's heavy emphasis on the latter is little more than a political ploy to help his party.
Nonpartisan analysts, however, point the finger at the total lack of a Democratic agenda on the economy. As political analyst Charlie Cook puts it: "The problem for Democrats is that they have sat back and waited for economic woes and statistics to beat Republicans --and have yet to articulate even an anemic message on the issue."
Jim Cramer, the liberal half of CNBC's "Kudlow & Cramer," complains that Republican economic failures should be the number one issue for every Democrat running for office in America. "But no, the Democratic blockheads remain silent, even as their constituents feel Republican-induced pain every day," he says.
Even prominent Democrats share this view. Last week, The Hill newspaper quoted Senator Fritz Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, as saying: "Our problem is the Democrats whine and whine. Republicans say the trouble is spending. We say the reason for the trouble is 'we don't know.'"
Hollings himself said the problem is "the tax cuts." Presumably, he would repeal last year's tax cut if he could, even though it would constitute a major tax increase for many Americans over what they would pay under current law. What conceivable good this would do is a mystery. As David Broder of the Washington Post notes, all reputable economists favor budget deficits in a soft economy.
In an editorial on Oct. 5, the Post did a better job than most Republicans of refuting Senator Hollings and his ilk. "President Bush's main economic policy -- the large tax cut of last year -- was not responsible for any of the current damage," it opined. "Indeed, given the twin shocks of Sept. 11 and the post-Enron stock market decline, the short-term stimulus created by the tax cuts has turned out to be fortuitously well timed."
The Democrat dilemma is that they hate the tax cut, but cannot bring themselves to openly advocate its repeal. They really want more government spending, but have committed themselves to a balanced budget, which Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin convinced them was the key to prosperity. So they are left demanding a tax increase to pay for more spending to stimulate the economy. This strikes most Americans and all economists as a contradiction in terms.
If Republicans prevail next month, therefore, it will not be because they have done a good job with the economy, but because Democrats have nothing better to offer.
(Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.)
The Acton Institute
(The Acton Institute works to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles. Its goal is to help build prosperity and progress on a foundation of religious liberty, economic freedom, and personal moral responsibility.)
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- Performance Pay: Excellence for All
By Clint Green
Across America, teachers and students are back in school. But for many teachers, school did not end in May and begin again in August. These teachers spent their summers hard at work preparing classrooms and curriculum, bulletin boards and lesson plans. Indeed, these same teachers did not spend much of their summer on vacation; rather, they were busy -- attending workshops and visiting teachers' stores, always looking for that one key that may unlock learning for their students.
Other teachers, though, were not so diligent. They simply came into their classrooms on the first day of school for only the first or second time since May. These teachers are carefree and careless as they approach the school year. After all, it's only (fill in the blank) years to retirement. After all, it's only a job and they will get paid no matter what. The unions have seen to that.
Oct. 5 marked World Teachers' Day -- a day that celebrates the unique contribution that teachers make to the world. Most importantly, that day commemorates the important role that teachers have in the formation of the future. However, while it is universally recognized that not just anyone can teach effectively, we do little the other 364 days of the year to reward the many who do.
There is a difference between the two approaches to education cited above, yet the teachers' unions refuse to see it. While they may continually call for improved schools and higher standards, the unions refuse to take necessary steps to ensure that goal. Among those steps is one that other industries and organizations adopted long ago: "pay for performance".
The idea behind giving incentives for outstanding performance is not a new one. Many businesses use this strategy to great effect, rewarding hard work, dedication, and excellence in their employees. Teachers should be given the same incentives for excellence and dedication. However, under the current teacher compensation plans, teachers are not compensated based on their results, or their excellence, but rather on their seniority.
Interest in this issue is growing, according to Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of Great City Schools. "It's coming up in contract after contract. It doesn't mean the school system is being successful in the negotiations, but it now gets on the table pretty consistently." If this is so, and if this concept has been successfully implemented in other industries, the question rightfully asked is, why is it not so well received in education?
The answer is actually rather complicated. Teachers fear that low-performing urban schools will lose out, since their students so often score much lower on standardized tests than do student in the suburbs. Teachers worry that pay for performance will force competition among teachers and thereby break down cooperation in schools.
These are serious concerns, given the moral and ethical questions they raise. However, these fears can be overcome. Salary increases can be linked to overall performance and improvement, rather than absolute scores. In other words, as long as a student's performance improves from year to year, teachers in urban and low-performing schools will benefit as much as teachers in affluent suburban districts.
Roy Romer, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, told the Los Angeles Times last year that the way to avoid damaging teacher cooperation and forcing competition is to use two variables to determine raises. First, evaluate performance in the individual classroom; second, evaluate performance increases for the entire school.
Romer argues that adding the second dimension will also add an incentive for older, more experienced teachers, to mentor newer teachers. Thus, not only is an individual's raise tied to the performance of his or her own students, but it is also linked to the performance of the school as a whole.
Additionally, educators that choose to work in the poorer urban and rural schools deserve to be compensated for that choice. In the same way, teachers who choose to specialize in the more difficult to fill fields of math and science should also be compensated accordingly. It is an accepted fact that individuals with more sought after skills are generally paid more than those with less desired skills. If this is true in business and industry, why not in education?
More than this, there is a moral dimension to teacher compensation. Justice demands that those who do their job, and do it effectively, deserve to be rewarded. In contrast, the current system of teacher compensation neither rewards those who are effective, nor punishes those who are not.
It is heartening to see that the American Federation of Teachers, the second largest teacher union in the United States, on its official Web site, states, "recognizing the limitations of the single salary system ...(the AFT) is encouraging its locals to explore various teacher compensation systems based on local conditions." While this is not a blanket endorsement of performance pay, the union does indicate that there are serious shortcomings in the present system.
As the teachers unions gear up for the state and federal elections, now just four weeks away, policy questions come into the foreground of public awareness. These unions offer many proposals to help "fix" the American educational system, proposals ranging from increased funding of schools and programs, to modernization. While no one proposal will repair decades of decline, pay for performance is an important first step in addressing the systemic problems which lie at the heart of the public school crisis.
A system that rewards everyone, regardless of performance, does little to provide incentives for outstanding effort and achievement. Students take their cues from the adults charged with educating them, and the vast majority of teachers take this charge seriously and discharge it out well. They recognize the correlation between their performance and the performance of their students. If we want our children to strive for excellence, can we really afford to expect less from their teachers?
(Clint Green is the programs officer at the Acton Institute.)
