The NC Department of Public Instruction just released their Draft 2.0 of the state social studies standards. Among the changes, they now require two years of United States History at the high school level.
The John Locke Foundation's Shaftesbury Society had a chance today to hear Tucker discuss key themes from the book. In the video clip below, he outlines one of the key reasons for writing a book about an election that took place 86 years ago.
Click play below to watch the full 55:37 presentation.
You'll find other John Locke Foundation video presentations here.
The Washington Post's Jay Mathews has a terrific talent for cutting through the crap about education and in this blog post he slices up the notion that students who go to elite colleges and universities get an elite education.
As much as any American politician of his generation, he's proved that cutting spending and gaining a reputation as a skinflint is good politics.
Now Daniels is being mentioned as a presidential candidate and he doesn't deny that he's thinking about it. He's been holding dinners with national policy experts in Indianapolis, much as George W. Bush did in Austin a dozen years ago.
And he says that, if he runs, he'll be a different kind of candidate. As for "the federal fiscal picture -- and why don't we have the philosophic debate tomorrow -- as for today, can we agree that the arithmetic doesn't work? We're going to have higher and higher levels of debt."
He goes on. "This is a survival-level issue for the country. We won't be a leader without major change in the federal fiscal picture. We're going to have to do fundamental things you say are impossible."
He believes that "Democrats are better positioned to do this, but they're not going to lead. This will probably be a Republican responsibility." To do what, exactly?
To propose "fundamental changes in entitlements and in the size and scope of the federal government." Because "the machine is going TILT."
He thinks voters may be ready to support such changes because they've had a searing experience with debt and their lives are changing. Younger people may be ready to put up with lower Social Security benefits for high earners because they've seen that some companies' new hires aren't getting the pensions and benefits their elders got. "There's nothing radical about this. It's already happened all over the place."
While Fareed Zakaria’s new contribution to TIME points out — correctly — that Congress’ protectionist stance toward Chinese goods “is at best pointless posturing and at worst dangerous demagoguery,” he follows up with the following:
The real challenge we face from China is not that it will keep flooding us with cheap goods. It's actually the opposite: China is moving up the value chain, and this could constitute the most significant new competition to the U.S. economy in the future.
It’s too bad Zakaria doesn’t identify as the “real challenge” China’s Communist regime, which has been less inclined in recent years to play nice with neighbors.
It’s been a while since we’ve been compelled to tweak TIME’s “Curious Capitalist” in this forum. Zachary Karabell gives us our latest opportunity.
In his column, Karabell pooh-poohs the notion that uncertainty about government policy is playing a key role in slowing economic growth.
Perhaps Mr. Karabell would benefit from reading Amity Shlaes’ research into another period of economic uncertainty tied to an activist president trying to “fix” the economy.
Kokai: You don’t paint [FDR] as a villain, but you do point to some of the things that he did that just built upon other mistakes. You get the sense in reading this book that if he had just stopped at some point and let his various “reforms” stand, we would have been better off.
Shlaes: Politicians have their reasons, that they like reform for the sake of reform. But as we know here in the marketplace or when we are citizens that reform for the sake of reform is very costly in terms of uncertainty. If your child’s school is reformed six times from first grade to sixth grade, you know he doesn’t have a pleasant experience in that school and a lot of us know that, right? So we know No Child Left behind. We know stuff that changes sounds good, but change itself can be trouble.
And that was the New Deal. Roosevelt would do a reform. One day he loved big business. The next day he is suing them. Then he loves them again, breathing spell, then he is back at them. And even Keynes, the famous U.K. economist who was so important in that period, didn’t like it. He said to Roosevelt about utilities: either nationalize them or leave them alone. What’s the use of chasing them around the lot every other week? That’s the politician, and that’s what Roosevelt did. It’s the dark side of his famous phrase “bold, persistent experimentation.” People don’t like bold, persistent experimentation too much because they can’t get their bearings, and that’s a little bit of what happened in the ’30s — especially the latter half.
Roy Cordato has argued that it’s incorrect to label President Obama anti-business.
But you’ll certainly get that impression from a brief Bloomberg Businessweekarticle that includes the following:
"The fundamental problem," says Steve Reinemund, former PepsiCo CEO and now dean of the Wake Forest University School of Business, "is the sense the President doesn't consider business a noble profession."
Since high-speed rail is likely to offer little to no benefit for the taxpayers who would be forced to subsidize it, an article in the latest Bloomberg Businessweek offers some consolation:
When President Barack Obama announced in January that 13 high-speed rail projects covering 22 states would share $8 billion in seed money, he spoke with optimism about easing highway congestion while bolstering the U.S. economy. Eight months later, some Republicans running for congressional or statehouses seats are singling out the funds, part of Obama's economic stimulus package, as a waste of taxpayer dollars distributed too widely to do much good. A more practical obstacle has also emerged: Freight rail carriers that own some tracks are resisting sharing their lines.
One expects they would be disappointed to read a recent Bloomberg Businessweekarticle about a new “council of regulators,” whose mission involves reviewing “non-bank financial companies for possible inclusion under the Fed’s regulatory umbrella, taking into account everything from size and debt to hidden liabilities.”
If you believe the economy is a machine in need of fine tuning, this new group might make sense. If you believe increased meddling from the likes of Treasury Secretary Geithner and Fed Chairman Bernanke is more likely to create problems than solve them, this council should cause concerns.
The latest Carolina Journal Online exclusive features David Bass' report on the 13-candidate scramble for one seat on the N.C. Court of Appeals.
John Hood's Daily Journal explains that self-styled campaign finance reformers should look in the mirror if they want to blame someone for the prominent role of independent expenditures in the 2010 election cycle.