Personal Troubles and Public Issues

What is a Public Issue?  

On Facebook recently, I have had occasion to criticize the radical rightist point of view by saying that it ignored social structural and institutional realities. Here, I would like to explain what I mean by that. In his book, The Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills wrote about the relationship between personal troubles and public issues. He said,

In these terms, consider unemployment. When in a city of 100,000 only one man is unemployed, that is his personal trouble, and for its relief we properly look to the character of the man, his skills and his immediate opportunities.  But when in a nation of 50 million employees, 15 million men are unemployed, that is an issue, and we may not hope to find its solution within the range of opportunities open to any one individual.  The very structure of opportunities has collapsed. Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society and not merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals.[1]

                Mills’ point is that each of us lives in a particular time and place and that in that time and place, we are affected by large, structural and cultural forces over which we as individuals have no control.

Contemporary Public Issues: The Internationalization of Business

            The internationalization of business is a good contemporary example.  We live in a time when large businesses are not bound to particular places. They can locate their operations anywhere in the world, and when a hundred workers in Appleton, Wisconsin are laid off because the factory where they work is closed and its operations moved to Georgia, to Mexico or to China, the causes of their troubles must be found in the changing character of the world’s economy. The workers are not unemployed because they are lazy or because they lack skills. They are unemployed because the economy of the world has changed under them and rendered their skills obsolete in the place where they live.

                If that were all, we could still advise them to go to Fox Valley Technical College to learn new skills and consider the problem solved, but that is not all.  Their new poverty will reverberate through our community.  They will no longer spend as much on food, clothing or entertainment as they did when they had jobs. So, the profits of local merchants will decline.  They may no longer be able to pay their mortgages, and their houses will be repossessed, which will cause a decline in the values of all of our houses.  The decline retail sales and the decline in real estate values will cause a decline in local tax revenue, which will put a strain on all of our local services like schools, fire departments and sanitation departments.  The unemployed workers will no longer have health insurance, and when they need care, they will go to emergency rooms. Emergency room care is very expensive, and they will have no money to pay for it. So, the cost will be passed to the hospitals and ultimately to the rest of us in the form of higher health insurance premiums.  In short these workers and all of us are caught up in the changes brought about by the internationalization of the world’s economy, and we cannot deal effectively with this change by thinking only of what each individual can do to survive. We have to think about our common, structural situation.  We have to see the problem as a public issue and not just a scatter of personal troubles.

Contemporary Public Issues: the Crash of 2008

The financial collapse of 2008 provides another example. Before the collapse, millions of people were caught up in frenzy in which banks extended credit far beyond what the debtors could reasonably be expected to repay.  When the credit bubble collapsed, millions of people, including many who had not taken out loans during the frenzy, were affected. They lost their jobs. With their jobs, they lost their health insurance. Some also lost their homes. The entire economy was in danger of collapsing.  That it didn’t collapse is due to the fact that our government recognized the structural nature of the problem. It was not just whole lot of personal troubles. It was a public issue.  The government did not waste time worrying about the stupidity or selfishness of the people who had brought on the crisis. Instead, it moved to prop up the banks. It took over the automobile companies and restored them to health.  It provided extended unemployment relief to unemployed workers.  All of these measures bought time in which individuals were able to find solutions to their individual troubles.

The distinction between personal troubles and public issues is important because a personal trouble can be overcome by individual action, but a public issue cannot.  A public issue can be resolved only through collective action.  For example, no individual could have done anything about the financial collapse of 2008 (or about the bubble that preceded it).  An individual could in some cases limit his or her personal loss by selling stocks and holding cash, but that option was available only to relatively few people and in any case did nothing to resolve the main issue.  People who lost their jobs or their homes could not do much about it. On the other hand, we were able as a society to limit the scope of the damage through collective action in the form of the TARP program and other programs. 

Public Issues and the Radical Right

We Americans are often unprepared to recognize public issues and to distinguish them from personal troubles.  Our individualist culture encourages us to think of situations in terms of individual persons and events. Our news media reinforce this cultural bias in our perspective because they are focused on each day’s news rather than on the forces that underlie the news. The media tell us of exciting events, of heroes and of villains, but they do not tell us much about structural forces because they operate over long periods that are difficult to report on.

The radical right in the United States turns this American cultural bias into a political principle.  It rests on a denial of the existence of structural forces or public issues. In the radical rightist view, only personal troubles exist, and if a person has troubles, he or she is responsible for dealing with them. The best thing that the rest of us can do for such a person is to get out of his or her way. Offering things like extended unemployment benefits does no good and in fact is harmful because it allows an  individual to put off finding a solution to his or her personal troubles.

In the radical rightist view, the free market works perfectly and guarantees benign results. If, as happened in the crash of 2008, the results are not benign, that must be because of misguided and harmful government intervention in the free market.  Thus, for example, the radical rightists insist that the crash was caused entirely by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through their insistence on promoting home ownership by people who could not afford to own homes. The “creative” used of variable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages and mortgage backed securities with fraudulently high ratings would never have existed if the Fannie and Freddie had not pressured the banks to make loans to people who could not afford them, and without that pressure, there would have been no crash.  No matter that such crashes have been a regular, periodic feature of our economy at least since the Panic of 1837, and no matter that the 2008 crash occurred in places like Spain and Ireland where Fannie and Freddie were not involved.

The radical rightists’ insistence that only personal troubles exist would be only a curiosity if it were not used cynically by some very wealthy people whose goal is to reduce the taxes they have to pay.  They spend huge amounts of money on propaganda in support of the radical rightist doctrine and in support of political candidates who advocate it. The argument is simple: if there are only personal troubles, there is little that government needs to do, and if there is little for government to do, there is no reason for it to collect so much money in taxes.

The radical rightist denial of the existence of public issues is wrong.  Forces like the internationalization of business or the crash of 2008 are real, and they cause troubles for people.  But those troubles are not merely personal troubles. They are public issues, and only collective action can solve the problems that they create.

---

[1] Mills, C. Wright, The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, New York, 1967, p. 9.

Radical Right Makes Business and Government Inefficient

The Post-Crescent Highlists Business's Dependence on Investment in Infrastructure

Post-Crescent on July 5, 2013 featured an article about an effort by Congressmen Petri and Ribble to preserve the current weight limits for trucks on U. S. Highway 41 when it is converted to Interstate 41. Today, trucks weighing up to 97,000 lbs. can use Highway 41, but the rules for interstate highways place a limit of 80,000 lbs. on trucks. Mr. Ribble and Mr. Petri are campaigning to grandfather in the old weight limit when the highway becomes an interstate.

Radical Rightist Republicans Are Wrong to Want to Minimize Government Investment

The advantages and disadvantages of the congressmen’s proposal are obvious, and I will not argue one side or the other. What I will point out is that the whole discussion highlights business’s dependence on government’s investment in infrastructure. Radical rightists in the Republican Party like to say that government spending is mostly wasted and that it should be minimized in order to make the money available for private investment. They say that government investment “crowds out” private investment because every dollar invested by government is a dollar that is not available for private investment, but the example of Highway 41 shows that government investment in infrastructure can actually promote private investment. The Post-Crescent quotes the manager of the conversion project as saying,

What it means for the state of Wisconsin is the opportunities for increased economic development along the corridor …. There’s some national operations that won’t consider locating on a highway if it’s not an interstate.

Government Investment and Business Investment Are Complementary

Government investment and business investment are not in competition with one another. They complement one another. Without private investment to develop the economy, government could not operate because the private economy generates the taxes that government needs. On the other hand, without government investment in infrastructure, business could not operate because businesses depend on the infrastructure to get their products to market and to obtain their inventories of raw materials and finished goods.  Modern businesses also need government investment in other areas. For example, they need an educated work force. So, they depend on government investments in education. Law-enforcement and fire protection are other examples.

Radical Rightists Create Inefficiency in Government

Because of the interdependence between business and government, we all want both of them to do their jobs efficiently, but unfortunately, the radical rightists in the Republican Party are making both of them less efficient than they should be.  The radical rightists insist that government investment should be minimized. They oppose practically all proposals for public investment, and their opposition has become a drag on the efficient operation of governments at all levels. Because of Republican opposition, useful investments of many kinds of slowed down and even stopped. Republican intransigence creates uncertainty in funding, and as a result, our governments are much less efficient than they might be.  Many important investments in infrastructure, education and other areas are not made, and our economy suffers as a result.

Radical Rightists Create Inefficiency in Business, Too

The uncertainty created by the radical rightist also reduces the efficiency of businesses. They delay making investments because in a climate of uncertainty, it is hard to know what the costs and benefits of an investment will be. Large companies are sitting on huge piles of cash that could be invested to grow their profits, to create jobs and to grow our economy, but the uncertainty created by the intransigence of the radical is preventing them from making such investments.

We Must Distinguish Between Investment and Other Spending

We need to find a way to bypass the intransigence of the radical right. To do so, we need to do two things. First, in our public discussions, we need to distinguish between “investments” and other spending. An investment is an expenditure that is expected to bring a return that is greater than its cost.  Expenditures in areas like transportation infrastructure and education are investments. They stimulate the economy by improving transportation or by improving the work force.  That does not mean that every investment turns out well. Some investments will fail to produce the expected results. This is true for business investment just as it is for government investment. Businesses sometimes make investments that don’t pan out, and so do governments. Investments are inherently risky because we cannot really know the future, but we have to exercise our best judgment, and we have to take the risks that investments bring in both the private and the public sectors. Cutting back on public investment in order to minimize the size of governments is a recipe for economic decline.

We Must Defeat the Radical Rightists at the Polls

The second thing we need to do in order to bypass the intransigence of the radical rightists is to defeat them at the polls.  If you are a Republican, work to elect moderate Republicans to office. If you are a Democrat, work to elect Democrats to office. Until we do these things, the radical rightists in the Republican Party will continue to create fiscal uncertainty and will continue to make both our governments and our businesses less effective and less efficient than they should be.

The Refusal to Expand Badgercare is Bad for Wisconsin's Economy

Refusal to Expand Badgercare is in the Budget

One of the provisions of the budget that was recently signed by Governor Walker is the refusal to expand Badgercare (our Medicaid program) as a part of the implementation of The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Under the Affordable Care Act, most people will be required to have health insurance.  Some of those who cannot afford health insurance will receive assistance in paying for it, but many people are too poor to pay for health insurance even with help, and the expansion of Badgercare was intended to provide insurance for them.  Federal dollars are available for those states that decide to expand their Medicaid programs.

174,000 People To Be Denied Assistance

Governor Walker and his radical rightist colleagues in the legislature decided to refuse to expand Badgercare, and in an extremely cynical move, actually reduced the number of people who are currently eligible for Badgercare with the excuse that they will now be able to buy their own insurance through the health insurance exchange created by The Affordable Care Act. It is estimated that because of the refusal to expand Badgercare, 174,000 people will be denied the health insurance that they would have been entitled to under the Affordable Care Act. This includes 98,000 people who are now enrolled in Badgercare who will be kicked out of the program under the newly narrowed guidelines. Kicking these people out of Badgercare is cynical, cruel and completely contrary to the values of most people in Wisconsin, but that is not all. 

Our Economy is Harmed in Several Ways

The refusal to expand Badgercare harms our economy in several other ways.

1.       It increases the total cost of healthcare in Wisconsin by promoting the excessive use of emergency rooms. Many of the people who are unable to enroll in Badgercare will be too poor to afford insurance. They will be uninsured, and when they need care, they will go to hospital emergency rooms, which are required to care for them. Emergency room care is the most expensive kind of care. So, the fact that the uninsured have nowhere else to turn increases the total cost of healthcare.

2.       The state government’s expenditure for health care will increase because the budget includes money to compensate the hospitals for caring for the uninsured in emergency rooms. Refusing to expand Badgercare does not even save money for our state government. It will make our deficit worse as is shown by the $500 million structural deficit in the current budget.

3.       Our health insurance premiums will rise. Inevitably, the state’s reimbursement of the hospitals will not cover the whole cost of care for the uninsured. The hospitals will recoup their cost by increasing the charges to the rest of us. Our health insurance companies will pass the cost on to us in the form of increased premiums.

4.       Thousands of jobs will be lost. The expansion of Badgercare would have increased the demand for health care, and that would have created thousands of jobs in Wisconsin. Many of those jobs would have been here in the Fox Cities because our hospitals are regional medical centers. Those jobs would in turn have boosted the economy of our community by creating demand for all sorts of consumer goods here in the Fox Cities.

5.       Our tax money will be sent to other states instead of being returned to us. The money that would have been sent to Wisconsin to help with the cost of the expansion of Badgercare will come from the income taxes that we pay. Now it will be sent to other states instead of being used to benefit us. The amount we will lose is big. It is estimated at approximately $12 billion over ten years.

The Refusal to Expand Badgercare is Contrary to Wisconsin's Values

Thus, the refusal to expand Badgercare not only harms thousands of people unnecessarily. It also increases the state’s deficit, increases the total cost of health are, increases our health insurance premiums, harms our economy by eliminating thousands of jobs and sends our tax money to other states. This is not consistent with our values. Most people in Wisconsin believe in caring for their neighbors, not abandoning them. Most people in Wisconsin believe that we should reduce the cost of state government, not increase it.  Most people in Wisconsin believe that our health insurance premiums are already too high, and that we should avoid increasing them if we can. Most people in Wisconsin believe that we should create jobs, not eliminate them. And most people in Wisconsin believe that we should get our fair share of the benefits from the taxes we pay, not send them to other states.

Is This a Pay-off to Big Special Interests Outside of Wisconsin?

We should ask ourselves why Governor Walker and the other radical rightists in Madison would do something so obviously contrary to the values and wishes of the voters of our state. We cannot know for sure, but in cases of this kind, it is not a bad idea to follow the money. Governor Walker has received millions of dollars in campaign support from radical rightist individuals and organizations outside of Wisconsin, and those organizations expect something in return. Perhaps Governor Walker acted against the interests and desires of the people of Wisconsin as a payoff to the large, special interests that have supported him so generously.

Vouchers, Abortion and the Radical Right in Wisconsin Politics

"Conservative" Can be a Misleading Label

Several months ago, I wrote that “conservative” was a misleading label for those on the right in American politics, and that they should be called “radical rightists.”  I said that conservatives were people who wanted to conserve something, while radicals were people who wanted to make radical changes. Recent passage in Wisconsin of a law promoting private school vouchers and of a law creating new restrictions on abortions provide an opportunity to revisit that argument.

Conservatives Favor Limited Government With a Few Exceptions

Historically, conservatism has been associated in the United States with opposition to the expansion of the role of the government in people’s affairs. Conservatives have argued that most decisions should be left to individuals or to the impersonal workings of markets. They have said that unnecessary government interference reduces our freedom.  Therefore, conservatives have traditionally said that the powers of government should not be used to make changes in long-established practices.

At the same time, conservatives have always accepted that some things require collective action, and they have agreed that those things should be the province of government.  Education is one of those things. Public education has been a part of the bedrock of our society since its very beginning in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the seventeenth century.  Conservatives have traditionally supported public education, and consequently, it has been very strong in conservative parts of our country. It is not an accident that some of our best public school systems and our best public universities are in conservative states like Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin.

Supporters of Vouchers Favor Radical Changes in Education

Today, however, many on the right in American politics want to apply the principles of free market competition to education. They say that schools that have to compete for students will have to work hard to serve those students well, and in order to stimulate that competition, they have decided to divert tax money from the support of public schools to vouchers that can be used by students who want to attend private schools. This is a radical change in the relationship between government and private education in the United States. 

It is also a radical change in the role of government in determining the structure of education. Setting curricula and setting requirements for graduation have always been responsibilities of local school boards and of state governments in this country.  Under the voucher program, curricula and graduation requirements will be set by private schools even when tax money is used to pay the students’ tuition at those schools. Thus, school vouchers are a very radical solution to the problems of education in the United States. Vouchers may work out well, but by no stretch of the imagination can they be considered conservative.  People who support the use of vouchers are radicals even though they are on the political right.

Opponents of Abortion Favor Expanding the Power of Government to Eliminate Abortions

The situation with regard to abortion is similar. Legal abortion has been an established part of our system for 40 years. However, unlike public education, it has always been controversial.  Supporters of a woman’s “right to choose” and supporters of a child’s “right to life” have no common moral ground. To the latter group, an abortion is a murder, and the group’s members have dedicated themselves to eliminating such murders from our country. Since the decision in Roe v. Wade precludes eliminating the right to abortion, its opponents have focused on making abortions difficult to obtain both physically and psychologically.  The hope is that, if abortions can be made sufficiently difficult enough to obtain, the right to an abortion will become an empty right, which exists only in theory.  No one will actually get an abortion in this country because abortions will be too difficult to obtain.

Here again we see the nature of the political right in our country. Its members seek to alter established practices radically, and in the case of abortion, they seek to do so by means that are directly opposed to traditional, conservative values, which stress limiting the reach of government.  Opponents of abortion seek to extend the powers of government to abridge a right guaranteed in law.  From their point of view, they are correct to do this because, if an abortion is a murder, the law is clearly wrong.  Our system has always included the idea that citizens have a right to oppose laws that are wrong and to attempt to end practices that are immoral.  The anti-slavery movement, for example, used legal and illegal means to bring an end to slavery.  However, such opposition to established practices cannot be described as conservative. A willingness to use all available means to change established practices is a radical stance, and so, members of the anti-abortion movement must be labeled as radicals.

Never Call Radicals “Conservative”!

This is important because words make a difference. The word “conservative” evokes an emotional response that is very different from the response evoked by the word “radical,” and a false use of the word “conservative” affects the character of political discourse.  False political labels mislead voters just as false labels on food mislead consumers. Falsely labeled food is likely to be bad for people who eat it, and falsely labeled political movements are bad for all of us. Never call radical rightists “conservative.”  If you do, you are supporting the use of false labeling. People like Scott Walker, Dave Murphy and Jim Steineke are radicals. They cannot be considered conservatives.

That is the Way to Tyranny

The NSA is Collecting Data on Millions of Communications

We have recently learned that the National Security Agency has been sweeping up data on millions of phone calls and emails. The agency has not collected the content of the communications, but it has collected the number (address) to which each communication was directed as well as its time and date.  Such information will allow the NSA to map communication networks over both space and time.

Is the Information Really Useful?

It is easy to see how this information might theoretically be used to improve our national security, but it is not so clear how much the information has actually contributed.  Have terrorist plots been foiled because of information collected in this way? We don’t know. How many plots have been foiled this way?  We don’t know.  Could they or would they have been foiled without this information? We don’t know.  We also don’t know whether there are other, less costly or less intrusive methods that could have been used. We really should have a national debate on this and other related questions, but we probably won’t be able to have such a debate, because our government will be unwilling to share any information about what has been done on the grounds that the program is “classified” and that revealing information about it would damage our national security. 

Veering Toward Totalitarianism

This is the point where we veer dangerously toward totalitarianism and a police state.  Our government is saying in effect, “We can collect any information about you that we want to collect, and we don’t have to tell you what we are doing because if we told you, we would damage our national security.”

“Trust us,” they say.  

“We have your interests at heart,” they say. 
 

Imprisoning People Without Trial or Even Charges

Before the NSA’s program was revealed, we had already allowed our government to hold people in prison for many years at Guantanamo without having to prove in court that the people had committed any crimes or even that releasing them would endanger our national security.  Again, our government said that it couldn’t reveal how it knew that these people were a danger to national security because to do so would endanger that security. Again, the government said, “Trust us.”

These Programs Invite Political Abuse

The motives of the officials who run these programs today may be pure, but the programs themselves are invitations to political abuse.  If we allow them to stand, they will eventually be abused.  We know that they will be abused because such abuse has occurred in the past.  We know, for example, that for many years, the FBI kept voluminous files on politicians and that J. Edgar Hoover used those files to maintain his power.  We also know that the FBI illegally collected information on civil rights workers because J. Edgar Hoover didn’t like their politics.  We saw with our own eyes that people were harassed and sometimes crushed by the McCarthy committee and by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

We can be certain that sooner or later, the temptation to use the powers of the new programs to silence or harass political opponents will be too great to resist. Sooner or later, the communications of a political opponent of a president, of a powerful senator or of the head of the CIA or the NSA will be monitored.  His or her friends will be subpoenaed to testify before congressional committees. Pressure will be brought on them to keep their mouths shut on political topics. Perhaps, their careers will be destroyed as were the careers of many writers, directors and actors in the days of the Hollywood blacklist. And when we ask why this or that person is targeted, we will be told that unfortunately, the reasons for doing so cannot be revealed because revealing them would damage our national security. This is not a fantasy.  We have seen such things done in this country in our lifetimes, and anyone who thinks that they could not happen again is I am sorry to say, sadly mistaken.  

The Bill of Rights is Supposed to Prevent This Sort of Thing

The writers of our Constitution knew that power will always be abused unless it is hedged about with limitations.  That is why we have the Bill of Rights.  That is why we do not allow our houses to be entered and searched without warrants.  That is why we do not allow people to be imprisoned without clear charges.  That is why the right of habeas corpus is important.  

The Way to Tyranny

Today, again, our government wants to be able to bypass the rules in the Bill of Rights. The war on terror provides a good excuse for doing it, but we cannot allow the excuse to be used unless it can be proved to be a valid excuse.  If we want to continue to enjoy our democracy and our freedom, we have to stand up now.  We have to say that national security cannot be used as an excuse to abridge our freedom without proving that it is a valid excuse and without showing how the scope of the abridgement will be limited. We have to require our government to show that the benefits of abridging our freedom really do outweigh the danger of doing so. We cannot allow our government simply to murmur the words “national security” and then do anything it wants to do.  That is the way to tyranny.

Winners For Walker

The Post-Crescent Labels Medicaid Expansion "a Winner for Wisconsin"

An editorial in the Post-Crescent’s on June 2, 2013 entitled “A Winner for Wisconsin” pointed out that expanding Medicaid to cover more people as provided under Obamacare would be a winner for Wisconsin from nearly every possible point of view. The state would save money.  Consumers would save money. Health care providers would save money, and people without health insurance would obtain it.

Why Has Mr. Walker Refused a “Winner for Wisconsin?”

If expanding Medicaid would be so great for all of us, why has Governor Walker, who is not a stupid man, decided to reject the expansion?  A part of the answer is that, like his fellow radical rightists in the legislature, Mr. Walker believes in minimizing the size of government in order to reduce taxes on the rich, and that consideration outweighs every other goal except that of building political support.  In Mr. Walker’s view, it doesn’t matter whether expanding Medicaid would be good for Wisconsin or not. What matters is that expanding Medicaid would expand the roles of the state and federal governments in providing health insurance, and in his doctrinaire view, that is always bad.

Mr. Walker Plays Politics With Medicaid

The other part of the answer is that the special interests who support Mr. Walker love what he is doing, and Mr. Walker works hard to satisfy the special interests who support him.  In fact, he is so anxious to do so, that in order to please those special interests, he is willing to make one big exception to the principle that the role of government should be minimized.  He doesn’t mind expanding the role of government in order to give large amounts of the taxpayers’ money to businesses.  He says that the purpose of giving money to businesses is to create jobs in Wisconsin, but we know that isn’t true because he has never bothered to track the use of the money to see how many jobs were really being created.  In fact, giving the taxpayers’ money to businesses has not created many jobs, but it has been very successful in building political support for Mr. Walker.

Refusing to Expand Medicaid Uses the Taxpayers’ Money to Further Mr. Walker’s Political Career

The refusal to expand Medicaid also uses the taxpayers’ money to build political support, although in a less direct way.  According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau as quoted in the Post-Crescent’s editorial, the state would save $119 million by accepting the Medicaid expansion. So, by refusing the expansion, Mr. Walker is giving up those savings.  In effect, he is using $119 million of our money to build political support for his career by pleasing the special interests who support him.  Refusing to expand Medicaid and giving money to business may not be winners for Wisconsin, but they are winners for Mr. Walker, and that is what counts for him.

“The Case for Voucher Expansion” is Weak

Post-Crescent Article Lays Out the Case

Jim Bender’s article entitled “The Case for Voucher Expansion” that appeared in the Post-Crescent on May 23, 2013 lays out the case for public funding private school vouchers, and it is a very weak case. Mr. Bender makes two important points. The first is that “data shows that students in parental choice programs graduate at higher rates than their public school counterparts and are more likely to enroll in college.”  Unfortunately, things are not so clear. The findings to which Mr. Bender refers come from a 5-year, longitudinal study of comparing a sample of students in Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program (MPCP) voucher program with a matched sample of students in Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS).  For detailed reviews of the reports of the study’s findings, visit the website of the National Education Policy Center.

The Finding is Based on Fewer Than Half of the Students in the Sample

The study was based on carefully drawn matched samples that were chosen at the beginning of the 5-year period, but of course, the students in the samples did not always stay put for 5 years. In fact, 56% of the students in the MPCP sample left the program before the end of the period. The finding that the MPCP students were more likely to graduate and enroll in college than their MPS counterparts was based only on those who remained in the sample at the end of the five years.  No results were reported for the large number who left the program. So, we do not know what happened to them. Did they graduate?  Did they go to college? Did they move to other cities? We don’t know.

The Differences Were Too Weak to Be a Basis for Policy Decisions

In addition, the differences between MPCP students and MPS students were found to be statistically significant only by using an unusually loose definition of statistical significance.  The differences between MPCP students and MPS students were so small that they were significant only at the level of p = .10 instead of the more usual p = .05.  This is important because the study used a very large sample size (more than 800), and with large samples sizes, statistical significance is easy to obtain.  In short, what we have here is a very weak finding of a very small difference, and no conclusions about the general value of voucher programs can be drawn from it.

Parental Choice is Not the Issue

Mr. Bender’s other important point is that parents ought to be able to choose where to send their children to school.  No one can quarrel with this sentiment, but parental choice is not the issue. Public funding is the issue.  No one denies the right of a parent to send his or her children to private schools. The question is: who should pay the tuition?

Private schools have always played an important role in our educational system.  In our own Fox Cities, generations of immigrant parents struggled and sacrificed to send their children to Catholic or to Lutheran schools.  The schools had and continue to have scholarship programs to help families that cannot afford their tuition.  Because of these scholarships, parents already have the choice to send their children to private schools.  Public funding will not change that, but it will drain scarce dollars from our public schools. 

We Have Great Public Schools.  We Should Not Weaken Them

Wisconsin has some of our country’s very best public schools.  We have them in part because we have consistently supported them. We have not diverted desperately needed dollars to the support of private schools instead, and we should not do so now.  People come to live here because of the quality of our schools.  Businesses locate here because of the quality of our schools.  They are our very best investment.  Why would we want to weaken them by diverting funds to private school vouchers?  Mr. Bender would like us to think that Milwaukee’s experience with vouchers offers proof that they make a big difference in students’ lives, but his evidence is very weak. We should not abandon something that has worked well for us for many on the basis of such weak evidence.