I would get an IntenseDebate account so that your posts are auto-approved after a while. Sometimes the approval system doesn't work correctly for guest posters, which is super annoying.

What does the state crime rate have to do with drug-related violence? And what does that have to do with people trying to come across and get a job?

The hysteria over immigration is on the left, which consistently votes to cap H1B, Y1 and other visas, to send science PhDs back to India, and to cap temporary worker programs. The right is primarily concerned with jobs... which happen when policies allow the free exchange of people, goods and services across borders.

http://www.opencongress.org/

.. Not everything you hear on MSNBC is true

Conyers talking about single-payer: <a href="http://www.johnconyers.com/healthcare" target="_blank">http://www.johnconyers.com/healthcare

Sanders talking about single-payer: <a href="http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/12/16/Heal..." target="_blank">http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/12/16/Heal...

Barney Frank talking about single-payer: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLm9t9j-qKM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLm9t9j-qKM

Then-state senator and later U.S. Senator Barack Obama advocated single-payer at a 2003 AFL-CIO convention.

Baucus supports it from a political angle, even though he doesn't necessarily claim that it's a good thing: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/politics/24b..." target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/politics/24b...

Those are the ones I could find in 5 minutes.

All markets need regulation. Markets (via the interaction between consumers and producers) will provide regulation if undisturbed and operating in a proper environment. As to your claim that the Communist Party doesn't regulate Chinese industry... well, there are few markets to do any regulating to in mainland China outside of Hong Kong, so if the Party is failing in its efforts, you can largely blame Communism and its destruction of the market incentive system.

You seem to be rejecting the proposition that central planning (one-size-fits-all) is the proper way to handle a primarily local issue. If that is what you are saying, I most definitely agree.

"Vouchers would flood private schools with people who don’t deserve to be in private schools."

Vouchers increase demand for private education, which results in an increase in supply. Are you sure you want to stereotype the kind of people receiving vouchers in such a broad sweep? If kids in the DC OSP did not "deserve" to be in private schools and will just cause trouble, why have things gone relatively well in that program (statistically significant increases in parent satisfaction and reading scores, and a small increase - though not statistically significant - in math scores)?

I disagree that vouchers will "transfer" the problems of public schools to existing private schools. You were right earlier to imply that private schools that cost, say, $15k will be out of reach of students receiving $7,500 vouchers. But this won't stop new private schools from popping up and specializing to take care of the educational needs - and behavioral needs, in your district and others - of the types of kids who will be receiving vouchers.

I like vouchers because they give parents more of a stake in their kids' education. This encourages parents to become more involved in decisions about curriculum, extracurricular programs, etc. I don't like state-run schools because the government sets the curriculum. The result is a very leftward bias in the public school curriculum. It's so biased that the stuff taught in high school history can border on untruth. Diversity of educational curricula - and diversity of perspectives - sustains the democratic paradigm in the United States. It wouldn't be so if the government taught every kid that Che Guevara was a hero and that Franklin Roosevelt's 1932-1937 economic policies were 100% successful.

"Even if you send your kid to a public school, that doesn’t mean that you, as a parent, are not the chief educator of your children you are, whether you accept that responsibility or not."

Yeah. But the incentives here are wrong. The parent pays taxes to let the state take care of their kids' education. But I'm saying that the parents should be primarily responsible for education by directly paying a particular institution, which creates an incentive for parent involvement. This is not statement of morality of the parents' fundamental responsibilities; it's merely a statement of incentives. An incentive tends to make things go one way or the other; it's not an end-all-be-all solution. Eventually, this needs to be done with their own money. Right now, that's not politically or economically feasible.

I just hope he bucks the unions on vouchers, too. And he hasn't with his failure to stand up for DC OSP.

Those bills are full of subsidies, boards, panels, and commissions of "experts", taxes, and frameworks for the use of regulation instead of market forces to guarantee consumer product quality. Sounds like a business model implemented by the Chinese Politburo.

I'm not convinced at all that Pelosi and Reid believe in savings and investment of private capital (capitalism) for the largest sectors of the economy. I think they want the state to run about 60-70% of the economy. They don't really care whether or not their model is efficient, because all that seems to matter is that they control the important things.

Sanders wants government to run and fund doctors, health centers, and the other major aspects of care, but he seems oblivious to an easy way to expand access and quality while reducing costs: markets. Other areas of his philosophy are more welfare-statist than radical state-socialist.

Socialism has nearly always meant government control of the means of production. Programs that give money to people to select from among competing options do not constitute government control of the means of production. Instead, such programs constitute welfare statism.

A limited welfare state is a proper way to move away from a socialized education system and towards a market-based education system. This pro-capitalist transition method is not a statement describing the benefits of welfare statism but a statement recognizing political reality (i.e., roadblocks stand in the way of immediately converting to a market-based system). Milton Friedman, whom many consider to be a somewhat radical libertarian, subscribed to the same general view.

"Free market competition" - I did not use that term; if I had, that would have been a problem. Any subsidized market is not entirely free. But in this particular situation, it's easy to see how subsidies allow consumers to choose among competing options. The competing options must improve in order to get the business of consumers. This is a simple idea, and it is a fundamental tenant of any economy with market elements. Your point is rhetorical only and does not invalidate the selection of one option from among competing options.

Yes, $7,500/yr. That is about about 2/3 of what D.C. spends per child in public school (note that a properly implemented voucher program would make reasonable funding adjustments to public schools accordingly). So, do you like government control of the means of education plus redistribution of wealth, or just a little redistribution of wealth, when those are the only politically feasible options?

I don't know what kind of voucher system you're envisioning, but parents, not the government, should assign kids to schools.

Vouchers do encourage competition by allowing parents to select from among competing educational opportunities. And I'm not sure that a different funding model is going to solve behavioral or parental issues. One of the ideas is that parents will have more of an incentive to care about their childrens' academic success if we move from a public education model to a subsidized but privately-run model.