Why In the World Is the U.S. Department of Agriculture Providing International Food Aid?

Ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the rate of extreme poverty began to decline. There was a considerable decline starting in the 1990s. Although there was a corresponding decline in hunger, global hunger remains a scourge on this planet. Reporting from the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization finds that about 9.2 percent of the planet (or 735.1 million) face undernourishment. Global hunger had been declining, started to creep up in the mid-2010s, and shot up during the pandemic because of the increased food prices and lockdowns causing greater economic insecurity. 

Sadly, global food insecurity is nothing new. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has formally been trying to fight global hunger since it started the food assistance program Food for Peace in 1954. This was followed in 1984 by the Food for Progress program with the goal to strengthen the agricultural sector, as well as a program that donates food to schoolchildren: McGovern-Dole. Since these three programs cost the U.S. taxpayers over $2 billion, I have to wonder how effective these programs really are. After all, the USDA is responsible for food stamps that very well might make recipients more unhealthy, subsidized school lunches that do not help improve child nutrition, and WIC vouchers that contributed to the infant formula shortage of 2022. A report released from the libertarian Cato Institute last month shows that USDA does not fare better with its international food aid programs. Here are some findings from the report:

• U.S. farm product donations undercut local farmers, which undermines the ability to feed poor countries and sustain long-term market development. 
• An increase to food aid can increase the incidence and duration of civil conflicts because "food aid is regularly transported across vast geographic territories [and] is a particularly attractive target for armed factions."
• U.S. food aid shipments typically take four to six months, which can open the shipments to greater incidence of theft, infestation, and storage. 
• Congress mandates that these food shipments need to be shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels, which can  increase shipping costs by up to threefold. 
• The monetization process used by USDA means losing 30 percent of taxpayer funds compared to paying for aid projects with cash. Direct cash transfers would do more than in-kind food transfers.
• The USDA international food aid projects have redundancies with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), thereby wasting more money. 

The U.S. government's program has bureaucratic overlap, stifling cargo requirements, and has such costs as exacerbating conflict and undermining agricultural markets. It makes me wonder why in the world the USDA is in charge of providing international food aid in the first place. As I brought up in 2016, trade liberalization does a better job at fighting poverty than foreign aid. The Cato Institute provides a few suggestions, including strengthening property rights, rule of law, opening markets, removing entrepreneurial barriers, and creating stable currencies. By implementing deregulation and trade liberalization, countries can improve their economy and reduce hunger without foreign intervention. 

Hamas Is a Symptom, Not the Source, of What Is Wrong in the Israeli-Arab Conflict

"Free Gaza from Hamas." It is a refrain I have heard from my pro-Israel friends since Hamas carried out its horrific attack on Israeli citizens on October 7. Hamas is an anti-Semitic, homophobic, genocidal terrorist organization that runs an autocratic regime in Gaza and oppresses its own citizens. It shows zero regard for its citizens, as is illustrated by using Gazan civilians as human shields. Hamas official Ghazi Hamad declared on Lebanese television that Hamas will repeat what happened on October 7 until Israel is wiped out. It makes sense that Israel's more immediate military goal is to remove Hamas. 

The idea behind "Free Gaza from Hamas" is that if you remove an element as radical as Hamas, more moderate elements will fill the void, which will result in more peaceful relations between Israel and Palestine. I remain unconvinced that freeing Gaza from Hamas is going to solve woes between Israelis and Palestinians. 

There is little evidence of Gazans protesting or uprising against Hamas. To say that Gazans do not protest or uprise because they are in an authoritarian regime is a copout. There have been multiple revolutions and revolts in authoritarian countries throughout history when the people have had enough with the ruling government. In spite of its crackdowns of protestors, even a country as totalitarian as China has its dissenters. 

It is more than a lack of public dissent, even in spite of the high rates of unemployment and poverty in Gaza. It goes beyond "ordinary Palestinians" cheering in the streets at Hamas' October 7 or even gathering intelligence to help out Hamas. I found survey results from Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR). PCPSR is a Palestinian research organization based in Ramallah, which means no one can accuse them of being pro-Israel. These results from PCPSR will give you a sense of how most Gazans view Israel and having Jewish neighbors:

• As of September 2023, 51 percent of Gazans support armed resistance against Israel and 67 percent are opposed to a two-state solution. 
• In June 2023, 38 percent of Gazans view the creation of Hamas as the single best thing to happen to Palestinians since the creation of the state of Israel (PCPSR, p. 3-4).
• If there were an election between Ismael Haniyyah (the current Hamas leader), Mahmoud Abbas (the current PLO leader), and Marwan Barghouti (the leader of the first and second Intifadas), 45 percent of Gazans would chose Haniyyah, 37 percent for Barghouti, and 16 percent for Abbas (ibid., p. 14). Even if you expand the candidate list, Haniyyah and Barghouti would still have half the Gazan votes. Other potentials include Hamas co-founder Khaled Mashal and Gazan Chief of Hamas Yahwa Sinwar (ibid., p. 15).
• Gazans think that the so-called "occupation" is more pressing than unemployment or corruption (ibid., p. 17-18), which is another sign of how Gazans would rather blame Israel than the terrorists governing them.
• When asked what is the most important lesson since the creation of the state of Israel, only 15 percent of Gazans said it was the need to seek political solutions to the conflict with Israel. 28 percent said it was staying steadfast on the ground, with an additional 32 percent saying to build military capacity to liberate so-called "occupied territories" (ibid., p. 23).
• Gazans show no moral qualms with harming Israelis. In March 2023, 71 percent of Palestinians said that they supported Palestinian terrorists attacking and killing two Israeli brothers who were simply driving on a road near Huwara. In September 2019, 80 percent of Gazans were fine with planting the IED and subsequent bombing that killed 17-year-old Rina Shnerb, as well as injuring her family. In December 2015, 85 percent of Gazans were supportive of stabbing Israelis with knives. 

This is not to say that all Gazans are Hamas or supportive of Hamas. At the same, there is strong Gazan antipathy towards Israel and strong support for Hamas and its genocidal intent. Those in the West think that pluralism and democracy are norms. It seems inconceivable that there would be a group of people that by and large despises its neighbor for being of a different religion and ethnicity. That is precisely the problem of imposing Western values and understanding onto a situation in a different culture: it does not work. It is the same sort of thinking that got the United States in trouble when trying to bring democracy to Iraq.

Sadly, this phenomenon of despising Israel is nothing new. In 2010, Pew Research found that only 2 percent of Gazans viewed Jews favorably. Speaking of history, let us take something else into consideration. Hamas was founded in December 1987. The Israeli-Arab conflict predates Hamas. It also predates Benjamin Netanyahu, settlements, the creation of the Palestinian state in 1967, and the armistice lines of 1967. Arab nations were denying Israel's right to exist well before Hamas was even a thought.

We can talk about the nuance of the Middle Eastern conflict. As someone who studied international relations in his postsecondary studies, I can tell you that any conflict in international relations has its history and complications, even between Ecuador and Peru. What I will say is that the complication in the Israeli-Arab conflict has a simple undercurrent: Each time peace has been offered to Palestinians (or in the earlier pre-1967 renditions, for [Jordanian] Arabs), they have responded with a resounding "Hell no!" 

There have been multiple times where the Arabs were offered "land for peace": the Peel Commission of 1937, the UN Partition Plan of 1947, UN Resolution 194 (1949), UN Resolution 242 (1967), the Camp David Accords (1978), the Oslo Accords (1993), the Camp David Summit (2000), the Olmert Peace Plan (2008), and John Kerry's Peace Plan (2013). If the Palestinians wanted peace, they would have had it by now. 

Hamas has got to go, no question about that. Conversely, the issue is not with Hamas per se, but with one group of people who does not want Jewish neighbors in its backyard. Unsurprisingly, Israel is not willing to compromise on its existence. Getting rid of Hamas will not get rid of decades of anti-Semitism that has been so engrained in the minds of Palestinians. Until Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza wanting to live side-by-side with Jews is a norm rather than an aberration, there will continue to be violence and strife in the Middle East.

The Lies of Pro-Palestinian Activists Are Contemptible, But Denying Them Freedom of Speech Isn't the Answer

It was not bad enough that the terrorist organization Hamas carried out the worst single attack on Jews since the Holocaust last month. Over 1,200 Israeli civilians were murdered. Hamas also kidnapped, tortured, raped, and decapitated civilians. There was no shortage of carnage and mayhem from Hamas on October 7, 2023. What I also found to be jaw-dropping was how pro-Palestine activists and protestors reacted. They showed no indignation for what was clearly a violation of human rights. Quite the opposite!

At a pro-Palestine rally in Sydney, they were cheering "Fuck the Jews" and "Gas the Jews." In DC, they were screaming "Long live the intifada." In Arabic, intifada (انتفاضة) literally means "shaking off." In a political context, it refers to violent uprisings against Israelis that previously took place in the late 1980s and the early 2000s. There were those in New York cheering for what Hamas did. There is no shortage of "hate marches" in the western world in recent weeks.  

The pro-Palestinian hypocrisy is also stomach-churning. It is not only that they call Israel a genocidal state, even though it is not. They are cheering for Hamas, an anti-Semitic, homophobic terrorist organization that carried out a pogrom to incite a war with Israel and then has the gall to play victim. Hamas has made their genocidal intent clear since its founding in 1988. And the chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," what do you think it means? It calls for the erasure of the Jewish state, or in other words, ethnic cleansing. 

These activists demand empathy and decency, but are basically cheering to wipe out about half of the Jewish population. I know we just had the clocks turn back because Daylight Savings ended, but I didn't think we turned those clocks back to the 1930s when anti-Semitism was fashionable. Not only is it hateful, but the pro-Palestine side bases its arguments either on outright lies, half-truths, exaggerations, or events wholly taken out of context. They misuse such terms as occupation, colonizer, and apartheid to mask Jew-hatred. 

On a personal level, I despise this assault on truth and human decency. It is an affront to so much of what I value and stand for in life. I believe such vile has no place in civil society. Given the uptick in anti-Semitism that has manifested as a result, I honestly wish that pro-Palestinian activists would collectively shut their trap. As much as I cannot stand it, I believe in their right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Before continuing, I want to state that freedom of speech does not include violence, true threats, bona fide intimidation, incitement of violence, discriminatory harassment, or the heckler's veto. The aforementioned exceptions are not covered under the First Amendment. That being said, why am I standing on the side of preserving the freedom of speech of pro-Palestine protestors? 

1. Freedom of speech is indivisible. For free speech to be free, it does not only apply to those I agree with. Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience have to apply to those that I vehemently disagree with, as well. That extends to people having the right to hate Jews or cheering on a terrorist organization raping and murdering innocent civilians, as upsetting as it is. After all, hate speech is still a form of free speech. 
2. If that power to suppress freedom of speech could be used against anti-Semites , it could also be used against those who are in favor of Israel if anti-Israel politicians got into power. Giving government that sort of power would mean that no one's freedom of speech would be guaranteed. 
3. Allowing for their freedom of speech creates greater tolerance in society. Keep in mind that acceptance and tolerance are not the same thing. I do not accept the lies or hatred that are prevalent in the pro-Palestine movement. I don't have to agree with their viewpoints. Conversely, if we are to live in a pluralistic, democratic society, we have to have a threshold for opinions we disagree with, as well as a basic level of respect for those who we do not agree with. Tolerance is key for creating a more peaceful, cohesive society. 
4. I want to know who hates Jews so much that they end up being apologists for depraved mass murderers. Bring them out into the light and expose their hatred. At least I know where they stand. That is freedom of association. Plus, haven't there always been consequences in the professional world if you go as far as glorify terrorists? If someone celebrated 9/11 on September 12, 2001, what do you think would happen? They would most likely lose their job or not get a job offer. I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe that freedom of association means disassociating from someone who has a view you find disagreeable or repugnant. 
5. A working paper from the Research Institute of Industrial Economics shows that increased freedom of expression helps ease social conflict (Bjørnskov and Mchangama, 2023). This paper's findings suggest that censorship would only increase tensions because it would limit legitimate avenues for discussion. 
6. Banning something is not the same thing as defeating or eliminating it. As we see with other bans, it most likely means making the problem worse. This is a war of worldviews and we need to use freedom of speech to fight against Islamist extremists and Jew-hatred. Let them come with their fallacious arguments. This is about preserving a marketplace of ideas. It is up to us to refute the lies and the hate. Now is the time to stand up not only for Jews or Israelis, but for human rights, democracy, civilization, and plain human decency. 

Prefatory Remarks on the Anti-Semitism That Exists on the Far Left

Hamas' assault on Israel on October 7 was unconscionable to say the least. Kidnapping over 100 hostages, raping, torturing, decapitating babies, and killing over 1,200 Israeli citizens is brutal. It was the single worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It is difficult to see how Israel could not militarily respond to such brutality. Seeing the surge in pro-Palestine protests and anti-Semitism as a result of current events has gotten me thinking about anti-Semitism a lot lately. 

Jews being oppressed, stigmatized, and murdered simply for being Jewish is sadly nothing new. Jews have contended with the ire of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the English Expulsion of 1290, the Spanish Inquisition of 1492, the pogroms in the Russian Empire, and most notably the Holocaust. The Holocaust was actually a major impetus for the modern state of Israel to be created shortly thereafter. Israel was to be a safe haven for Jews because Jews were hoping "Never Again" would mean never again. Oh, how October 7, 2023 changed that notion!

Anti-semitism has come in multiple forms. It has come from Christians and Muslims. It has religious and secular varieties. Some have hated Jews on ethnic grounds as opposed to religious. Whether it is blaming Jews for the cruxifixction of Jesus (spoiler: it was the Romans), Jews control the media (which is hard to believe given the pro-Palestine tilt of many major media outlets), Jews are an inferior race (as argued by Nazi Germany), or Jews are money-obsessed, there is no shortage of libel and hatred that has been directed at the Jewish people over the centuries. 

You would think with Jews having endured so much, the political Left would be sympathetic to the Jewish plight. After all, the political Left over the past century in the Western world has operated with the stated intent of helping out the marginalized and disenfranchised. I would have thought this would especially hold for those who identify as woke or "progressive." If one were to be consistent with this goal of helping out the marginalized, that would include wanting to help out the Jews. Yet what I have seen in recent weeks makes me think otherwise, especially since the Left has a history of anti-Semitism that dates back to the Enlightenment era. 

Most universities could not muster the decency to condemn the barbarism of Hamas on October 7. Reports of pro-Palestine protests, which has a lot of allies on the Far Left, have been perturbing. Some have yelled "Intifada," which is an armed rebellion that entails violence against Jews. Others chanted "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which if you look at a map of the region, means wiping out Israel and advocating for ethnic cleansing. Black Lives Matter in Chicago blamed Israel for Hamas' attack and cheered it on. It is not only anecdotes that have me worried. It is not that anti-semitic incidents increased 400 percent since October 7 when antisemitism was already on the rise. It is also the polling data in response to current events. 

The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released in mid-October asked some questions about opinions on the conflict between Israel and Gaza. When looking at the cross tabs data, I was able to see the data broken down by political ideology. I found out that liberals are more likely than conservatives to believe the following:

• Hamas' attack was targeted against the Israeli military, and not citizens (35% vs. 18%)
• Hamas comprises of militants and not terrorists (29% vs. 15%)
• Hamas murdering Israeli civilians is justified by Palestinian grievances (36% vs. 16%)
• Hamas' attack is not indicative of increased anti-Semitism (52% vs. 36%)
• Hamas and Israel have fairly equally just causes (48% vs. 26%)

The Far Right and The Far Left do not agree on much. One thing they have in common is hating Jews (e.g., Allington et al., 2023). Those on the Right in the U.S. that express anti-Semitism tend to go with more traditional forms of anti-Semitism. The Left is pernicious with how it expresses it. Why? Criticizing Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic. Israeli citizens do it with the vigor of a national pastime. Conversely, those on the Left are more likely to use anti-Zionism as their guise for their anti-Semitism (ibid.), even down to having token Jewish friends and allies sympathetic to the Palestinian cause giving them cover. This tactic of using anti-Semitism to masquerade as anti-Zionism originates from the Stalinist Zionology that intensified after the Six-Day War of 1967. 

If the the uptick in anti-Semitism the past few weeks were a reminder of anything on this topic, it is that the overlap between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in the Western world is astoundingly high. What we are seeing on the Far Left is beyond criticizing the Israeli state beyond normal or reasonable standards. Examples of when legitimate criticism of Israel crosses over into anti-Semitism including holding Israel to double standards and singling out Israel in a disproportionate matter (especially while ignoring or downplaying actual human rights abuses), opposing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state or to live in the land, or the very flawed analogies of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany or an apartheid state. It has resulted in 95 percent of the antisemitic attacks in the U.S. that were motivated by Israeli policy were carried out by those on the Left. 

You can read my piece on when criticism of Israel turns into anti-Semitism here. You can also read Woke Antisemitism: How a Progressive Ideology Harms Jews by David Bernstein for more on the history of how "progressives" turned to anti-Semitism. I want to get into the heart of the matter in the near future. How did so many on the woke Left embrace anti-Semitic tropes to the point where they can sympathize with a genocidal, terrorist organization intent on wiping out a historically marginalized people? In an upcoming piece, I plan on going through a list of theories as to why so many on the Far Left abandoned human rights, democracy, and equality in favor of making Jew-hatred en vogue. 

NBER Study Shows That Lower Corporate Taxes Vis-à-Vis the TCJA Boosted Economic Growth

In 2017, the Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the largest tax reform passed since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. One of the major components of TCJA was cutting the statutory tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. When I analyzed the TCJA in 2017, I predicted that the corporate tax cut would be one of the redeeming features of the TCJA because it would boost global competitiveness. It looks like I was correct that it would improve the U.S. economy.  

A couple of weeks ago, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) released a paper entitled Tax Policy and Investment in a Global Economy (Chodorow-Reich et al., 2023). In addition to looking at the corporate tax rate cut, the authors also looked at the bonus depreciation provision and the various components of the international tax code overhaul. I want to look at the corporate tax reduction because about half the boost in investment and capital stock from the TCJA was due to the corporate tax reduction (p. 43).

As for the aggregate of all the provisions, the U.S. domestic corporate capital stock is to grow 7.4 percent over the long-term (i.e., ten years), as well as a 0.9 percent increase in domestic wages (p. 4). Plus,  the abstract points out that "the TCJA caused domestic investment of firms with the mean tax change to increase roughly 20% relative to firms experiencing no tax change." 

These findings do not surprise me because they are in line with what empirical research has to say on the effects of high corporate taxes. I have written before how corporate tax cuts spur investment. Conversely, I have written how high corporate tax rates cause countries to flee to other countries with friendlier tax codes, as well as how corporate taxes reduce labor productivity, slow economic growth, and creates double taxation effects. This recent NBER study shows how we need to keep corporate tax rates low instead of Biden's recommendation of raising corporate tax rates.

Coloradans Should Vote "No" on Proposition HH to Maintain Fiscal Sanity

"If you don't first succeed, try, try again." Those who are against Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) are no exception to this rule of thumb. TABOR opponents tried to get rid of TABOR in 2013 and 2019 in the state of Colorado to no avail. What do these opponents have against TABOR? The state of Colorado passed TABOR into 1992 to limit the amount of tax revenue the state can retain and spend. The TABOR formula looks something like this:

Total Spending Limit = Previous Year's Spending + (Previous Year's Spending X Inflation Factor) + (Previous Year's Spending X Population Growth Factor)

As we will explore shortly, I surmise that the TABOR opponents seem to take issue with spending caps hamstringing growth in government spending, which implies as a less flexibility in new government programs. On November 7, the state of Colorado is going to vote on Proposition HH. There are multiple facets to Proposition HH, which do not make it easy to follow. The local NBC 9 News has a good primer (also see video above), as does the Colorado General Assembly (see Figure below as part of that primer) and Ballotpedia.

The first main feature is a reduction in the growth of property taxes. This will entail in a reduction of property taxes for most residential types. More on that in moment. First, I want to point out that there is already something taking place in Colorado related to but independent of Proposition HH: property taxes rates are going to soar. What happened? The value of Colorado homes skyrocketed in value compared to a couple of years ago. In Colorado, the formula used for property taxes is "Property Tax Rate = Actual Value x Assessment Rate x Mill Levy." Looking at the formula and knowing what happened with property values, it should not be a surprise. However, Coloradans were surprised with notices that their property taxes went through the roof. Colorado Public Radio analyzed Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) data on property valuation to discover that the median Colorado home increased in value by 37 percent.   

What Proposition HH proposes is to reduce the assessment rates on property tax. The reduction in assessment rate does provide some relief to the taxpayer relative to what is the status quo. However, this property tax relief is only part of the Proposition, which is why we cannot look at the property tax relief in isolation. 

The second major component of Proposition HH will be an increase in the spending limit under TABOR. If Proposition HH passes, the spending limit would increase by an additional 1 percent annually until 2032. This would not only boost government spending, but it would shrink the income tax refunds under TABOR. Excess revenue would be distributed to school districts and other local government entities. 

Lower property taxes would likely be offset by higher state taxes, which is especially undesirable if you are a renter who does not pay property tax. The Right-leaning Common Sense Institute (CSI) calculated that Coloradans could save $9.92 billion between now and 2032, whereas state taxes could increase by $9 billion, or a net savings of $0.2 billion. While this does not de facto eliminate TABOR state income tax refunds, it does make it less likely for Colorado's taxpayers to receive these tax refunds.

Proposition HH gives the legislators the opportunity to vote in 2032 whether to extend the tax cut and the spending growth. If the legislature passes the extension, it could mean a tax increase of $20.9 billion between now and 2040 (CSI). The reason for a larger difference between 2032 and 2040 is the compounding nature of adding an additional 1 percent on the spending cap per annum. That is the impact on the statewide level. 

For the median individual, there would be a reduction in taxes of $4,641, whereas there would be an increase in state taxes of $5,119 by 2032. The net impact for the median household? An increase in taxes of $478 per annum (ibid.) if Proposition HH is enacted through 2032. 

It is not only the net tax effect that is worrisome; it is also the spending. The Dean at the CU School of Public Affairs saw this as a "clever strategy" to grow spending levels that are comparable to other states. Since the proposed change is compounding in nature, the amount of spending that would increase would be more grave over time. If Proposition HH passes, that means the spending limit would grow from $170 million in 2024 to $2.2 billion in 2032. If extended, that would mean an additional cap of $5.8 billion by 2040. 

The Left-leaning Bell Policy Center (BPC) brings up two relevant criticisms. One is that the CSI is projecting out too far because it is difficult to make macroeconomic projections, especially out to 2040. I brought up this concern about modeling when discussing climate change as to how difficult it can be. Last year, I tried figuring out if we were in the middle of a recession. While I thought it was likely and I made sure to caveat my prediction, it turns out that the National Bureau of Economic Research did not declare a recession for 2022. I would not take the projections literally so much as I do seriously. Regardless of the exact magnitude of government spending, having a spending cap increase larger than the property tax cut is cause for concern.     

The second criticism from the BPC is that nothing in Proposition HH raises. This is technically true. The second major component on Proposition HH is not a state tax hike, but it is an increase in the spending cap. At the same time, I have to ask myself two questions. The first is how likely it would be politicians, especially in a swing state that has a Democrat majority in both branches of its legislature, is likely to keep government expenditures significantly below the spending cap. The second question is why TABOR came into being in the first place. To reiterate, TABOR limits the amount of revenue the government can retain and spend. TABOR also gives Colorado citizens the power to approve tax increases, which it has not done for state income or sales taxes. When you spend way more money than you have in the long-run, there ends up being debt. Government spending is the major driver in the federal government's fiscal crisis so much so that Fitch's lowered its credit rating for the United States back in August. State government is not immune from the adverse effects of such fiscal irresponsibility. 

Relaxing the spending caps can be problematic since they have been proven as a tool for fiscal discipline and solvency. One study from the European Central Bank shows that spending limits are superior to anti-deficit rules (Benalal et al., 2022). A paper from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) shows that fiscal rules bring about fiscal discipline, especially in election years (Eklou and Joanis, 2019). 

Especially for a swing state drifting towards being a blue state, Colorado has been able to maintain fiscal sanity. That is in large part due to TABOR and the spending caps implemented. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released a report in November 2022 showing how Colorado's TABOR became a gold standard of state fiscal rules. If Coloradans vote "Yes" on Proposition HH, their fiscal state will look less like one of stability and more of the fiscal dysfunction that is common with such blue states as Illinois. Especially if extended to 2040, Proposition HH would undo all of the fiscal discipline that TABOR brought to Colorado for the past thirty-plus years. If you live in Colorado, please vote "No" on November 7.

Oregon Suspends Basic Skills Requirement for Graduation: Another Example of How Pursuing Equity Dumbs Down Education

Last week, the Oregon Board of Education unanimously voted to remove its basic skills requirement to graduate high school. Prior to 2020, Oregonian high school students had to prove proficiency in mathematics, reading, and writing either through standardize testing or assignments recognized as the equivalent (e.g., work samples), in order to graduate. If students could not pass the standardized test or work sample, they would need to take extra writing and math classes during their senior year. 

In 2020, the state of Oregon suspending the standardized testing due to the pandemic. Although the pandemic has been over for a while, the Oregon Department of Education has decided to extend this suspension until the 2028-29 school year. Why? Because the Department claims that the requirement is unfair to historically marginalized students. 

I decided to take a look at the student assessment results data from Oregon's Department of Education. I looked at the 2018-19 school year, the last year before the state got rid of the graduation requirement. Let's use the mathematics results. What percent of students were considered proficient [at Level 3 or 4] in mathematics? 32.1 percent of students. Yes, it inconvenienced 89.1 percent of Black students and 80.7 percent of Latino students. However, it also inconvenienced 44.2 percent of Asians and 63.7 percent of white students. 

The fact that most students generally are not deemed proficient shows that it does not exclusively create a hurdle for historically marginalized students, thereby undermining the argument. Also, another aspect that undermines the argument. If the requirements were racist now, how would they be less racist in 2028? If they were truly racist, why not simply eliminate them? 

Let's ask another question. By removing the requirement on these grounds, what sort of message are you sending? That minority students are incapable of learning? It is a soft bigotry of low expectations. Of course, these same people would plausibly argue that Asian-Americans are merely "white-adjacent," even though Asians have a history of being marginalized in the United States. It is convenient for these educators to ignore Asian-Americans because they have, on average, become successful in spite of adversity. The Asian-American success story goes against the narrative of the "oppressed minority."

How does removing this basic skills requirement help historically marginalized students? It does not help incentivize students learn better. If the Oregon Department of Education were serious about helping minority students, they would direct resources and supports to help disadvantaged students, not discount a neutral yardstick that measures proficiency. 

If a high school student cannot demonstrate even a partial understanding of the basics in math, English, and writing, what is the likelihood that would succeed in college? As I pointed out a few years back when discussing dropout rates, academic preparation is a major indicator of academic success. Allowing 11th grade students to continue on to 12th grade without additional intervention is irresponsible. Eliminating such a requirement is a tacit admission that public schools are failing their students. Plus, school districts in California, Michigan, and New York cut academic standards. Surprise, surprise, it did not result in better academic outcomes for their students. 

Snopes pointed out that Oregon statute de jure requires that students earn three credits in math; four in English; three in the natural sciences; and three in the social sciences. Even acknowledging this statute, there are still two issues. One issue is that of grade inflation. While grade inflation started as a phenomenon in the 1970s, it really took off in 2016 (Hechinger Report). More pervasive grade inflation means that using school credits is inadequate as a substitute for a basic skills requirement. 

The second issue has to do with what the Oregon Department of Education is contemplating. In lieu of the traditional "A to F" grading scale, the Department is considering the implementation of "equitable grading." What "equitable grading" means varies by district. Some commonalities entail avoiding zeros on the 0-100 scale; giving a minimum score of 50; letting students retake grades to replace former grades; no late points take off; feedback remarks as grades as opposed as to numbers on a scale; and making consequences related to cheating not connected to grades. 

The goal is to try to make education more accessible to those who struggle. Looking at the implications of such a system, however, it means that a student cannot flunk for cheating or get a zero for not showing up. Rather than ensuring that students have the proper resources, it means either giving the same or trying to give as similar of a grade as possible, which is implied in the phrase "close the achievement gap." As we see with the Los Angeles case study, the widening gap between grades and actual academic performance show the perils of "equitable grading."

What should be rewarded? Effort and ability, not failure or laziness. Oregon had put these standards into place in 2008 so Oregonian secondary education did not turn into a participation trophy. Yet that is what an Oregon high school diploma is becoming. It is not only Oregon that is in the process of watering down its education standards. As I pointed out in 2021 when I criticized critical race theory, school districts are findings ways to lower standards in education: removing homework, eliminating the use of quizzes, arguing that mathematics is a form of white supremacy. Earlier this year, a high school in California eliminated honors classes using "equity" as an argument. 

We have to restore our education system to one where educational achievement is more important than hurt feelings. Having standards should be more important than assuming people are "fine just the way they are." Education should be about learning and growth, not propping up a false sense of self-esteem that does nothing to serve high school students down the road. Until our educators realize those salient points, the U.S. education system will continue to slip towards mediocrity.