Wednesday, March 17, 2004
HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY
Just don't drink the green beer.
. . .
A KERRY MELTDOWN?
My new column at the Spectator.
. . .
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
HOW MANY JOBS?
Some more thoughts over at the Pork Forest.
. . .
REKHA TAKEDOWNS
Cedar Pundit and Jeff Cordts fisk Basu’s latest.
. . .
Monday, March 15, 2004
KERRY’S VEEP
My new column at National Review Online.
. . .
WHEN IS LOCAL CONTROL GOOD?
Not long ago I noted that the Des Moines Register editorial page is more than willing to use contradictory principles for the sake of expediency. Recently, they did it again. After the state Iowa Health Facilities Council denied a request from the Methodist Medical Center to build a hospital in West Des Moines, the Register trumpeted its approval
It was a tough decision for the five council volunteers charged with ensuring the growth of Iowa's health-care system is orderly and cost-effective.Yet as they talked publicly and openly about the struggle of coming to a decision, it was clear the reasons for denying the hospital are sound.
In other words, the state government needs to intervene in the state economy, or at least the health-care portion of it, to make sure it functions properly. Local control is not a consideration.
Yet, a week ago Saturday they argued against the State Legislature changing the law so that 3rd graders who can’t read at grade level are held back. Guess what justification the Register gave?
The answer is not automatically forcing a third-grader - an 8- or 9-year-old child who has formed friendships with classmates and may have other problems that need to be addressed - to return to the same classroom the next year. A decision that drastic must be left to parents and educators who know the child.
The decision must be left to parents and educators. Isn’t that pretty much the definition of “local control”?
Now, I’m in favor of local control as much as the next free-market, limited government advocate, and I’m not thrilled about the state intervening in this matter. But at least with education, the state has a case for intervening since it provides a hefty chunk of the funding via state school foundation aid. One can make the case that since the state provides some of the money, it should have some say in making the rules. Unless of course the Register wants to make the argument that the state shouldn’t provide funding anymore. (Yeah, that’ll be the day!)
To the best of my knowledge, no state money would have been involved in the building of the state hospital. So why did the Register approve of state meddling in that matter?
Would it be too much of a stretch to suggest that the Register approves of government meddling when only private money is involved, but doesn’t approve when public money is?
. . .
|
. . .
|
