Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Closed mouths, closed minds



Audrey Pietrucha

 
What happens to a society when the free expression of ideas is curtailed and debate is strongly discouraged? Surprisingly, experiments in exactly this are conducted daily on American colleges and university campuses. The results are important because their impact is felt far beyond the halls of academia. In Vermont, especially, the lack of respect for different viewpoints and diverse ideas is increasingly apparent.

Greg Lukianoff’s new book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the end of American Debate is an important study of the chilling effect speech codes and other anti-free expression constructs are having on students, faculty and American society. As president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE, Lukianoff spends his days delving into complaints, dissecting speech codes and initiating legal action to halt violations of students’ first amendment rights.

At a recent book forum Lukianoff, who specializes in first amendment law and describes himself as a moderate Democrat, said he was unprepared for the extent of abuses he has encountered in his eleven years with FIRE. And while attempts to suppress speech have always come from both ends of the political spectrum, the left-ward tilt on most campuses means libertarian and conservative religious and political thought are increasingly disallowed in the academic arena of ideas.

Lukianoff began his remarks by reciting the disturbing findings of a 2010 survey conducted by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. Twenty-four hundred students and nine thousand campus employees were asked the questions “Is it safe to hold unpopular opinions on this campus?” Only thirty-five percent of the students answered the question affirmatively, with more optimistic (or naïve) first-year students saying “yes” forty-percent of the time and more experienced (or jaded) fourth-year students registering at only thirty percent. Most troubling of all, only seventeen percent faculty members, who should know the school at which they work best, felt it was safe to hold an unpopular opinions.

In Lukianoff’s experience, students have cause to worry. He detailed cases of students who were kicked out of schools and/or dorms because of mild protests against pet administration projects or jokes regarded as hurtful or offensive. Campus speech codes, one of which the FIRE website hires each month, rely on ambiguous and subjective language which can be twisted to make just about any remark fit. The lack of debate and discussion professors now note in their classrooms is due to a lack of courage rather than a lack of knowledge or opinion. Those whose ideas conflict with the powers-that-be have learned to keep it to themselves and it is hard to blame them when the costs of disagreement run so high. Just a few students need to feel the force of administrative muscle to keep the rest in line.

The first amendment is not needed to protect popular speech; rather, it was explicitly written to defend minority ideas and dissent. The law, Lukianoff said, is strong in protection of offensive and challenging speech but that does not prevent colleges from leveling frivolous charges and dispensing with due process in cases against students. That universities almost always lose these cases does not, unfortunately, encourage a more circumspect approach to speech suppression. Neither does it often embolden administrative staff, faculty or even other students to speak out against an action that they know is unconstitutional. Apathy, Lukianoff said, is the order of the day.
 
Worse than that, censorship is beginning to be accepted as normal, even virtuous. Today’s college students, Lukianoff said, are far too trusting of authority and seem ready to assume similar authoritarian postures when it comes to differences of opinion. College newspaper runs are destroyed regularly when they contain articles some find offensive, insulting or damaging. Some of the free speech walls

that have been erected on campuses where Lukianoff said students share many humorous, wise and interesting thoughts, are sometimes torn down by other students. The designated free-speech zones on some campuses are thought to be acceptable as long as the rules governing them are enforced impartially. Even students who claim to be aware of civil liberties issue seem unaware that having to obtain permission from a governing authority to engage in free speech is itself a violation of the spirit of the first amendment. It is also antithetical to the academic ideal of respectful and honest debate and discussion.

 The effects of these policies are already felt in society at large. At a time when more Americans that ever hold college degrees our conversations are remarkably void of intellectual and interesting content. Critical thinking skills have declined and society is polarized. People who hold views contrary to those more widely-accepted, or at least more loudly proclaimed, confine their discussions to groups of like-minded individuals rather than risk the insults and attacks that often come in conversation with those who hold differing views. The ethic of seeking out the intelligent person with whom you disagree has been replaced by the intellectually-lazy tactic of assigning motives to people we don’t even know and calling them names.

This is a real concern in Vermont, where politics lean so heavily left that people with more centrist views have learned to self-censor. Our little state is quickly becoming what Lukianoff described as a John Stuart Mill nightmare, a place where people believe they are right about everything without having actually considered alternative ideas. A society where ideas cease be explored and challenged stagnates. When mouths are closed, minds are closed also.

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

 

 

 

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Let’s focus on fair spending


 
 

Audrey Pietrucha

“No taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.” George Washington

The question of tax fairness comes up a lot anytime but especially during an election year as candidates trip over themselves and each other trying to convince voters their tax policy is the fairest of them all. Perhaps it is time to move the focus away from tax fairness to spending fairness.

Fairness itself is not an economic concept and therefore impossible to establish by economic means. Neither is it a universal concept and thus impossible to establish through policy as well. One person’s idea of fairness may well be, and often is, another’s idea of unfairness.

This is easily illustrated through the most common forms of taxation. Take the progressive income tax (please!). Those who believe taxation should do more than supply funding for government obligations and programs appreciate the redistribution of wealth that occurs through a progressive tax. But is it really fair to make some people pay a higher percentage of their income merely because they have earned more money in a given year? Usually higher earnings are the result of intense training, hard work, and long hours. Is it wise for a society to discourage people from acquiring skills and education, taking calculated risks and being more productive?

When the United States was founded the government relied on import and export taxes to perform its limited duties. Today’s global economy makes such taxes either more appealing or more problematic, depending on where you stand on the importance of free trade. Those who believe American jobs and goods should stay in America think tariffs are fair. Those who believe the entire world, America included, benefits from open markets think tariffs unfairly inhibit trade and hurt worker and consumers.

Many agree the flat tax, by which all taxpayers are assessed the same percentage on their income, is the fairest way to bring in revenue. But some of the numbers being tossed around seem patently unfair, especially for lower-income families whose necessary purchases represent a far greater percentage of their salaries. A flat tax percentage rate in the high teens or low twenties could be a real hardship to low-earners and there is also the question raised, only half-jokingly, of why ten-percent is good enough for God but not the U.S. government.

A national sales tax, which is actually being called “The Fair Tax,” appeals to people who have established homes and made most of the big purchases they need in order to live day to day. Is it fair to young people, though, who are just beginning careers and establishing households and families? And if such a tax were adopted would it replace the income tax or merely add to it? Though such a combined tax burden would be almost insurmountable for any nation’s economy, it is not beyond comprehension that politicians would try to have their cake and eat it, too.

Since taxes are always unfair to someone it is reasonable to conclude that low taxes are the least unfair to the greatest number of people. This means reevaluating what government is providing and whether it is really the best means of allocating these services and resources. We need to look at which government services are essential and which are better left to the private sector to provide.

We might want to start by identifying where and why government is necessary. According to Thomas Jefferson, the sum of good government was in the protection of persons and property:

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

The Constitution provides a list of what the founders believed were legitimate functions of a national government in Article 1, section 8. These enumerated powers relate mostly to protecting national and individual sovereignty and include some practical functions such as coining money and establishing a national postal service. What is not included is most of what the government does today.

The redundant and intrusive federal agencies and department that absorb huge portions of the federal budget are easy targets as are the funds given to special interest groups and pork barrel projects at the expense of all Americans. But by far the largest federal expenditures – three-quarters of the budget - are on national defense, Social Security, and Medicare.

It could be argued defense is sanctioned by the Constitution but the size and scope of our military apparatus certainly begs discussion. As for our national retirement and health insurance programs, let’s just say a private financial services firm would be up to its eyeballs in lawsuits and criminal charges had it conducted itself so irresponsibly with regards to the accounts of its clients. The Medicare program holds trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and Social Security is even worse. The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion, about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt.

Raising taxes is not going to fix this problem. We could confiscate all the wealth in the nation and still be unable to pay such crushing bills. It’s time to take a more serious look at the spending side of the equation and change some of our ideas about what are truly essential government services and what should be left to the private sector. For when it comes to our current spending any three-year-old could tell you “That’s not fair!”
 

Audrey Pietrucha is on the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She may be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

The illustrative school lunch debacle



Audrey Pietrucha

Advocates of smaller and less centralized government have got to love Michelle Obama right now. The new federal nutrition guidelines being implemented nationwide as part of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative are a wonderful real-life illustration of what happens when government involves itself where it should not. Mrs. Obama has graciously provided a perfect example of how seriously destructive the unintended consequences of well-intentioned but misguided actions can be.

Certainly the objectives of the new guidelines are lofty and benevolent. Who can argue against such common sense ideas as encouraging children to consume more fruits and vegetables, eat more whole grains and reduce their sodium and trans-fats intake? But somehow, it just isn’t all going according to plan. Portion sizes are smaller and children are complaining that they’re hungry; parents are calling schools to demand explanations for the higher meal costs; student athletes are dealing with fatigue during sports practice; students whose school are near stores are supplementing with junk food, and school districts are already worried about how these changes will effect participation and thus the meals programs’ fiscal viability.

That Americans young and old have gained weight is indisputable. Our nation’s obesity rate has been growing for years and with it the attendant problems of illness, disease and physical mobility issues. The causes are up for debate – sedentary lifestyles, diets high in fats and sugar, junk food, fast food – but the results are there for all to see.

So any initiative to get Americans to take initiative with their health seems like a good idea. The problem is in the implementation of those good ideas, which seldom translate well from theory into practice. Worse, dictates from the federal level often hamper or supplant much more effective solutions already being tried at state and local levels.

Brigid S. Scheffert, superintendent of Washington West Supervisory Union in the middle of northern Vermont, understands this reality because her district is currently living it. In a recent letter to media she outlined the harm this new policy is doing to WWSU and its students.

According to Sheffert, WWSU had what they considered an exemplary lunch program in place. The district employed talented food service directors and on-site chefs and offered students whole grain and largely organic food choices as well as all-you-can-eat fruits and vegetables. School salad bars, Sheffert said, could have competed with those of high-end restaurants.

But that has changed dramatically under the new guidelines. Sheffert reports salad bar participation is down fifty-percent in the first month of school. Schools cannot enforce government requirements if students are self-serving so many choices have been eliminated. Proteins are tightly controlled under the new regulations so hard-cooked eggs, lean meats and various cheese are no longer available to salad bar customers. Likewise some vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, pasta salads and breads are no longer offered because the amounts students take may exceed government limits.

The unintended consequences go on. Condiments can no longer be served in bulk or consumed at the discretion of the diners because calorie restrictions may be exceeded. Canning and freezing of local foods and sauces is no longer feasible due to time constraints and lack of scientific expertise in easily calculating nutrient contents. Using scratch recipes and locally produced food in general has become less of an option for the same reason. Schools are actually forced to use more prepackaged and processed foods since the nutrient information is already stated on the side of boxes.

Sheffert is also concerned with the impact these new guidelines will have on the district’s food services budget, which ran large deficits before the program was reinvented to include more local farmers and suppliers. She worries the $7,000 surplus the program ran in FY 2011 will soon turn into a deficit again.

Unintended consequences brought about by broad federal mandates that attempt to make squeeze everyone into the same mold encumber American businesses and individuals all the time.  Since the victims of most of these invasive programs are both smaller in number and more isolated their plights they are more easily ignored. What happens in our schools, however, cannot be discounted because nearly every citizen is somehow impacted when problems arise. Whether you are a student, teacher, parent or taxpayer, you have a dog in this fight.

Fortunately, the fight is underway. Students have taken their lessons on civil disobedience to heart and started protests of their own, such as a YouTube video  song parody, “We are Hungry,” which has gone viral. Others are writing on blogs and Facebook pages and across the nation “Brown bag-ins” are being held as students organize to boycott the lunch programs at their school and bring their own lunches.

That, in my opinion, is the wisest option. Students and their parents need to take back control over the highly personal and individual act of eating, among many other actions. This kind of push-back, where individuals embrace their responsibilities and once again assert their right to live their lives as they see fit - as long as they harm no one else – is exactly what is needed. Government involvement far too often leads to long and depressing lists of harmful unintended consequences. If you don’t like what the federal government is doing to the school lunch program, just wait till it is running health care.
 

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

The Great and Powerful Oz


“Who's the mage whose major itinerary is making all Oz merrier? Who's the sage who’s sagely sailed in to save our posteriors?” – from Wicked

 When I saw the musical Wicked, a reimagining of the story of the Wizard of Oz, Barack Obama was about a year into his presidency and the parallels between American and Ozian-style hero worship stunned me. Since then our attitude toward the president, and what he can and cannot do, has modified somewhat, but only slightly. As this presidential campaign season has shown, Americans still want a savior president. The only thing we differ about is whether an R or D comes after his name on the ballot.
 
It seems to be human nature to look outside ourselves for rescue when danger or difficulties appear. Perhaps this is a vestige of childhood and calling upon our parents to make everything from scraped knees to bruised feelings better. But when society relegates itself to the position of child and makes government its parent and protector it sacrifices precious liberty as well as opportunities to grow and mature as a people. Examples of this loss, unfortunately, abound over the last two centuries and have increased and intensified over the past decade as our last two presidents have expanded the powers of the office and rendered congress almost superfluous.

Not that our representatives have fought their dismissal very hard. Content to rule over their own little fiefdoms, our representatives and senators have settled for prestige over power because with power comes responsibility and accountability, neither of which is all that appealing. It is easier to niggle from the sidelines while enjoying the perks of lesser office than make unpopular decisions and risk losing a cushy job.
 
Over decades chief executives have discovered a couple of reliable paths to expanded executive power, the most obvious and effortless being some sort of national emergency. James Madison once said “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad” and it is true that a state of war has been a most effective route to increased presidential power. Madison looks especially prescient in light of the changes in American life as a result of the 9-11 attacks. The broad and multi-focused “war on terror” we find ourselves fighting has been the perfect way for presidents who would be kings to justify the steady encroachment of government on American’s freedoms. From humiliating sojourns through airport security lines to warrantless wiretaps to a national defense act which allows American citizens to be executed by drone without the benefit of a trial, national security has become the chief executive’s way of saying “I can do anything I want.”

Regulation is the other preferred route of presidential usurpation. Our current president has shown himself especially skilled at exploiting the post-New Deal administrative state and taking the legislature’s lawmaking power unto himself and the executive branch. From sodium in our diets and credit card fees to what services are considered “essential health benefits,” the Obama administration has had its hands in just about every conceivable area of American life.

Concentration of the power to make and execute laws has encouraged Americans to look unquestioningly to the president to do anything and everything. Especially problematic is our tendency to support regulations we like despite the fact that they have been implemented in unconstitutional fashion by unelected bureaucrats. In our shortsightedness we forget that presidential power is seldom rolled back and the next person to hold office might have priorities that directly conflict with our own. We also overlook the overtly political nature of such a system, through which those in control may grant exemptions or privileges to political and financial allies. When we the people support the regulatory state we give up even more of what little influence we have over our government.

In both the book and the musical the Wizard of Oz is eventually exposed as a fraud. Dorothy and Elphaba, the victim of the wizard’s unchecked power in Wicked, discover their salvation lies within themselves and not with some wonderful wizard. It would be truly wonderful if we would all internalize this lesson and choose our leaders based not on what they can do for us but on what their proposed policies allow us to do for ourselves.

 
Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She may be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

On Liberty

Audrey Pietrucha

 Rediscovering the founding virtues



Despite almost fifty years of Great Society programs designed to alleviate poverty, America’s lower class is growing. Why some Americans are poor and increasingly dependent on government for basic needs is one of the most important public discussions we refuse to have. Though much is made of the welfare apparatus that treats the symptoms of the disease, the actual causes of economic despair are ignored.

One reason for this may be a fear that explanations of poverty are, at their core, racially unique and no one wants to walk that road. This is why social scientist Charles Murray’s latest book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, is an important beginning to the public conversation we need to have. By concentrating on whites Murray shows that contemporary American society divides most sharply by class, not race, and the lines are becoming more distinct. Most importantly, he goes beyond simplistic explanations of why economic disparity is growing and explores the cultural underpinnings of our growing divide. This is especially applicable to a state like Vermont, where racial diversity is virtually absent but class differences can be stark.

Central to this discussion is the recognition that there is a widening gap between the working class and the upper middle class, both of which are growing. These differences are not just economic – they encompass everything from television viewing, eating habits and hobbies to educational choices and civic involvement. Murray examines two mostly-white neighborhoods that encapsulate these economic sub-cultures –Fishtown, an urban neighboraahood, and Belmont, a wealthy suburb. The trends he observes in both areas demonstrate the growing cultural disparity which may also explain, at least in part, their economic divergence.


To summarize Murray’s 400-page book here is impossible but his discussion of America’s founding virtues provides a window into his theories on the changing American culture. Through the writings of our founding leaders and later discourses on the American project by such keen observers as Alexis de Tocqueville and Francis Grund, Murray identifies four traits and institutions that were core to our success as a society and a nation: industriousness, honesty, marriage and religion.


Murray traces the disintegration of these values to the 1960s; he actually establishes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as a pivotal point in the creation of modern American society. Though both Fishtown and Belmont experienced cultural upheaval related to the four virtues during the 1960s, marriage and religion in particular, Belmont pulled up and righted itself. After a period of decreased marriage and increased divorce and cohabitation, Belmont has now returned to nearly that same levels of marriage stability and religious practice that it had fifty years ago. Belmont’s population also demonstrates high rates of industriousness, especially among males in their peak earning years, and a high degree of trust and security.


Unfortunately, this is not the case for Fishtown. The decline in values, which had been practiced fairly uniformly across all classes in the early 1960s, continued in Fishtown. For instance, today only 48 percent of prime-age whites in Fishtown are married, compared to 84 percent in Belmont, and more than a third of Fishtown men have never been married. Since birthrates have not significantly declined, this can only indicate a similar increase in children born to unmarried women. In fact, Murray estimates 43-48 percent of Fishtown births are to unmarried women. As uncomfortable as it makes the politically correct among us, socials scientists have demonstrated repeatedly that children raised in single-parent homes are negatively affected by the situation. While this is true regardless of socio-economic status, it is also true that single mothers and their children comprise the poorest families.

The difference between Belmont and Fishtown in their observance and practice of the founding virtues is stark in all four categories. Industriousness in Fishtown has taken a nose dive, with 53 percent of households in 2010 having someone who worked at least 40 hours a week compared to 81 percent in 1960. Both property and violent crimes are committed today at far higher levels than they were in 1960. Regular church attendance and the benefits it brings of purpose, connection and community is almost non-existent in Fishtown. Meanwhile, Belmont continues to successfully practice the habits which have produced strong individuals, families and communities for centuries.

Here is where Murray sees a way out of the desperate situation in which Fishtown finds itself. Tolerance of all and any lifestyles is hurting those who should be able to look to the successful and find guidance. It is time, Murray says, for the Belmonts among us to start preaching what they practice.

How can this be accomplished? What would such an effort look like? That is for each community to decide but mentoring, outreach, and both practical and moral instruction would seem important components of any endeavor. Churches and civic organizations should be involved and policy makers need to start crafting programs and legislation that incentivize responsible behavior. Whatever we do, we need to get started – we’re already running fifty years behind.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Vermont should learn from other states


The Moocher index - look familiar?
Audrey Pietrucha         
  
Vermonters are understandably proud when the state appears at the top of a list ranking states according to their success in improving access to education or health care or decreasing violent crime. Positive high rankings are seized upon by government agencies, politicians and newspapers to prove to them and us that, yes, everything is working great.

 But there are a number of ranking polls where Vermont does not fare well. These usually have to do with economic issues and general prosperity. A look at these studies and their conclusions about the general fiscal picture is worth noting.

 For instance, the “Ten worst states to retire to” list recently compiled by TopRetirements.com placed Vermont near the top with a ranking of four.  States were judged on five criteria: fiscal health, property taxes, income taxes, cost of living, and climate. Climate, of course, is a personal preference and helps explain why the top ten was dominated by northern states (the only New England state outside the top ten was New Hampshire) but there is no disputing the high taxation numbers that pushed Vermont near the top.

 Vermont’s top marginal income tax rate is 8.95 percent and state sales tax is 6 percent. Property taxes are high in comparison to other states’, there is an estate tax and Vermont is one of the few states that taxes social security benefits, as well as most pensions. Overall the tax burden in Vermont came in at 8th highest in the nation at 10.3 percent.  Add that to a relatively high cost of living (partially caused by taxation as well as burdensome land use regulations that push real estate prices upward) and it is understandable why retirees might look elsewhere to enjoy amenities similar to those of Vermont without the higher price tag.

Number four is significant but how about a list where we’re number one? That would be the Moocher index, a list compiled in 2010 by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute. Mitchell wondered if the residents of some states are more willing than those of others to sign up for government entitlement programs. Using an earlier study of welfare dependency rates, Mitchell subtracted each states poverty rate and came up with the number of non-poor residents receiving government assistance. Vermont blew the competition away, coming in first by a wide margin over second-place Mississippi, which barely beat Maine.

With a ranking of 31 New Hampshire was once again the only New England state ranked outside the top ten. This measurement of government dependence was dominated by northeastern states with large tax burdens. It would be interesting to see if residents of the moocher states felt less justified in using government programs if they were allowed to keep more of what they earn in the first place. It’s not unfathomable that many see these programs as a rebate on their own hefty tax payments.

Finally, Vermont did rank near the bottom of another recent study but not in a good way. This was the American Legislative Exchange Council’s fifth annual Rich States, Poor States report, which ranks states according to a variety of tax, spending, and regulatory policies. Vermont was not at the actual bottom – our neighbor to the west, New York, earned that distinction – but at 49 it was as close as it could get. Once again Vermont was joined in the bottom ten by all of her New England sisters except New Hampshire. An interesting conclusion of the study is that high-ranking states are attracting people while low-ranking states are losing population.

States are much more than outlines on a map – they consist of living, breathing, working individuals who are looking to make the best lives for themselves and their families. Though Vermonters often seem to regard the state as above the money fray, or is at least worth paying extra for, the truth is the same laws of economics are at work here as elsewhere. Money represents the time, effort, skill and education poured into a job or profession. Those who make that kind of investment are looking for a good return.

When opportunities arise elsewhere people take advantage of them. More and more opportunities appear to be in places outside Vermont. Our standard policy of raising taxes and growing government will backfire as more people vote with their feet and move to more friendly economic climates. As this happens state revenues will fall and the tax burden will land more heavily on remaining Vermonters. At some point, they, too, will leave - or rebel.

The lesson Montpelier should learn from the many comparative economic studies available is that low taxes and less government interference produce living environments where people thrive. This is especially important if we hope to keep our young people, who increasingly seek opportunities outside our state and can easily find them just a few miles to the east. Vermont can reverse that trend by improving its own economic climate and giving them a reason to stay home.

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.


Wednesday, May 16, 2012

The High Cost of Higher Education

The United States seems to be breaking trillion dollar barriers on a fairly regular basis these days, so often that many such milestones go unremarked.  Our latest post-trillion dollar status achievement in the area of student loan debt is worth noting, however, as it signifies a trend that shows no signs of reversing itself.  Indeed, with $100 billion in education loans being taken out last year alone, the numbers are only getting higher.
Higher education costs have increased at a rate three times that of inflation over the last two decades, with average increase in college tuition hovering over four percent annually. Reliance on government-backed higher education loans has likewise increased. With more young people being encouraged to pursue higher education we seem caught in an expensive upward supply and demand cycle.

Yet many of the premises on which this cycle spins are faulty, starting with the idea that more formal education is always a good thing. There is no question that college degrees, in the long run, produce higher earnings. However, with college graduates swelling the work force ranks and taking jobs for which they are over-qualified, we could soon see these earnings disparities begin to close. According to the Associated Press, fifty percent of college graduates aged 25 and under are either unemployed or working in jobs that do not require a college degree. One-third of those of all ages who hold bachelor’s degree are in jobs that do not require their credentials.

Even more worrisome are estimates put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the coming years. Only three of the top twenty occupations BLS projects to grow between 2010-2020 - registered nurses, elementary school teachers and post-secondary teachers – require four years or more of post-high school education.

We could be seeing the results of massive over-consumption of higher education, which, it turns out, is really not for everyone and sometimes can be downright harmful. Students who were not necessarily suited to college in the first place often find themselves saddled with student loan debt but no degree to show for it. An astounding eighty percent of first-time community college students will not finish their two-year programs within three years while forty percent of first-time students in four-year programs will not finish within six years. The majority of these students will never finish, period. They will, however, still have the debt accumulated while funding their educational explorations.

In this they are very much like their college-educated peers. The average college graduate carries a debt burden of around $25,000, not an outrageous investment in one’s own human capital. But for every student who went through on a sports or academic scholarship or whose parents paid for school there are students who borrowed far more than the cost of a new car. Stories abound of art majors who owe $100,000 in student loans or social workers who attended schools where the tuition was twice what they now make in a year. These young people may well spend the rest of their lives paying for their educations and be forced to put off buying homes and starting families.

Help in keeping young people out of debt is not likely to come from educational institutions, which make a hefty profit of about forty-one percent off of each student. Advocates of higher education are more likely to pressure the government to make more funds available and at lower interest rates. In fact, President Obama and his presumptive Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, both support the continuation of the 3.4 percent government-backed student loan interest rate.

This seems a hair of the dog solution that encourages more consumption of that which caused the problem in the first place. Anything that is subsidized increases in cost and there is a strong argument that the abundance of low-cost student credit has contributed significantly to the upward spiral in tuition and other college costs that make it nearly impossible for students to follow the traditional path of working their way through. Cheap loans also often lead to borrowing more than is needed. Yesterday’s starving college student has been replaced by today’s bar-hopping partier. How much of the comfortable college lifestyle currently enjoyed will have to be paid for tomorrow?

Fortunately, students and their parents have more control over this situation than they have been led to believe. There are many options in both educational programs and directions and all deserve consideration. Community colleges and technical and professional schools may provide reasonable alternatives more in line with some young adults’ talents and interests. High school grads might also reasonably take a couple of years off to get a better idea of what they want from life and education. Spending some time in the working world can have the two-fold benefit of teaching them what they do or do not want to do with the rest of their lives as well as allowing them to save some money toward college costs and lower the amount they might need to borrow.

Those who do head right to college have a moral obligation to choose their majors wisely, live frugally and take their educations seriously. Much of an individual’s college education is subsidized by the public through taxes which help fund public institutions, provide federal grant money and underwrite discounted loan rates. In addition to their parents, who usually sacrifice much of their own convenience and comfort in order to support their children’s educational aspirations, college students owe a debt to the public at large. Under those circumstances fewer parties and more Ramen noodle dinners seem a fair exchange.

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Mutual Aid: Historic Solution for Modern Problems

Audrey Pietrucha                   

One of most troubling aspects of the growth of government is how it has limited our creativity in response to challenges of all kinds. This is especially apparent when financial difficulties confront us today. Instead of brainstorming as a society for fresh approaches to age-old difficulties, we pass the problems along to elected officials whose solutions usually involves forcing one group of people to pay for the needs or wants of another group. Is it any surprise that Americans increasingly look at each other with resentment and suspicion?

Ironically, some of the solutions we seek may be found in the past. Before the welfare state was created, before either employers or government took or were given responsibility for insuring us against every conceivable difficulty, people themselves came together in Mutual Aid or Friendly Societies. These voluntary organizations, the remnants of which still exist, formed under the premise that there is strength in numbers. These community-based associations required a small investment of time and money but provided great returns. They also showed individuals can work together without government interference to prepare for the future and provide comfort and security to each other in times of need.

Mutual Aid Societies consisted of people who banded together for a common financial and sometimes social purpose. The idea was that regular and widespread contributions to a mutual fund would build a community nest egg which could be used on behalf of members in times of need.  In England, where these groups were called Friendly Societies, the purpose was mainly financial: insurance, pensions, and savings or cooperative banking. In America, where these groups were usually called mutual aid or benevolent societies or fraternal organizations, they often combined to fill both financial security and social needs. Group events included regular meetings, dances and sporting events. Sometimes there were even ceremonies involved – Think Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble and the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo lodge with its silly hats, passwords and convoluted handshake.

Typically, members of these organizations paid a regular membership fee and in return received an allowance to cover their financial obligations when they were sick or disabled. Many societies contracted “lodge doctors,” often newly-trained physicians looking to establish their practices, whom members could consult free of charge. During illness fellow society members would also provide emotional support by visiting regularly - this also helped ensure benefits were not being abused. When members died their funerals were paid for by their lodge mates and often there was some money left over for widows or other dependents.

Some mutual aid societies formed around common religious, ethnic or trade affiliations. There were female societies and African-American societies. In fact, these societies were often the only place where single women and blacks could build their own financial security. An unanticipated benefit of the use of lodge doctors was the opportunity it provided females and non-whites to become doctors. Medical colleges were created to train women and blacks for service to their benevolent societies. Unfortunately, these colleges fell victim to established medical practitioners who saw lodge doctors in general as competition and a threat to the dignity of their profession. One way these established professionals used the government to eliminate competition was by pushing for accreditation for medical schools, which put many small medical colleges out of business.

Some familiar organizations with us today are examples of mutual aid societies, most notably the American Association of Retired Persons and the Knights of Columbus. Credit unions and other financial services companies such as USAA, which serves retired and active-duty military personnel and their families, are also present-day equivalents. Unfortunately, the modern welfare state and the labyrinth of rules and regulations it has constructed around what once were mutually agreed upon and beneficial private interactions makes a revival of mutual aid societies on a small scale difficult if not impossible.

It is regrettable that proven community-based solutions such as mutual aid societies are no longer considered practicable. There are many who would chalk this up to the complexity of modern society but I would remind them that people themselves have not changed, only the construct within which they operate. We have the power to rectify that, if only we would.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The Rally for Real Change


By Audrey Pietrucha

It is always humbling to look back on the choices and decisions that have brought us to where we are now in our lives and, in a way, I guess I have to thank George Bush, Hank Paulsen and all those other “too big to fail” guys because they brought me to Montpelier and the “Rally for Real Change” on Saturday.

Three years ago in October I joined the Campaign for Liberty out of frustration with what was happening in Washington D.C. and on Wall Street. It was a presidential election year and Ron Paul was the only candidate addressing my concerns, which chiefly revolved around my three kids’ future and what little would be left of it after the politicians and the bankers got through mortgaging it. By this point Dr. Paul had dropped out of the race but the organization that had grown out of his run for the nomination, the Campaign for Liberty, was the only organization I knew of to join. What would become the Tea Party movement was just starting to simmer – Rick Santelli had not yet had the famous rant from which it would take its name - but I had to do something – anything! So I sent in my $30 and became Bennington County coordinator for the Vermont C4L.

Now, three-plus years later, I was in a room full of people I never would have had the privilege of knowing were it not for Ron Paul. Many of these people have become quite dear to me – it is amazing how a core belief in individual liberty and the necessary respect and esteem for our fellow citizen required by such a political philosophy can cut through superficial differences and help hearts hold on to one another.


On this particular Saturday we were there to further Dr. Ron Paul’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination and commit to real change, the kind of change that can only come when citizens become informed, committed, active and energetic. We were there to reach out to people of all political philosophies, personal persuasions and lifestyle choices. We were farmers and lawyers and housewives and entrepreneurs and musicians and computer geeks. We were from the Northeast Kingdom and the Banana Belt, the ski towns and the small towns. We were Vermont and we were there to try to take our state and our fellow Vermonters back to when we were strong and self-reliant, when we cherished independence and respected each other and ourselves.

Anti-progressive? No, the push against human progression was applied by those who sold our citizenry back into a form of serfdom in which we are all dependent on our governmental masters either for crumbs or permission to produce those crumbs. The call to change this degrading relationship was the first one issued as organizer Steven Howard opened the Rally for Real Change after a rousing round of politically-charged songs from the band Oneoverzero.

“We demand change and we are willing to work for it,” Howard said. As citizens of Vermont and the United States, he said, we can no longer accept the status quo and the two political parties which perpetuate it. We must demand accountability from elected officials, the media and the financial powers-that-be. Most of all, we must change the way our neighbors and friends look at political institutions. Too many accept the huge role government has come to play in their lives. We need to reach out to them, talk about liberty and how it sweetens and enriches our lives. We must convince them to search out and support the people who are talking about the changing the relationship between the people and their government. People like Ron Paul.

“There are no promises,” Howard said, “except that if we do nothing we won’t get the change we want.”

Speaker Jessica Bernier, founder of the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty, reminded us that frugality and ruggedness are essential components of the true Vermont character.

“The Vermonter knows how to make do or do without,” Bernier said.

One thing Vermonters would like to do without, Bernier said, is the constant state of war the United States is in. She reminded the crowd that 18-year-old voters today have lived more than half their lives with their nation at war.

Bernier said issues of import to Vermonters have been taken over at the federal level even though people know better than government officials what is best for them. She called for returning authority to people and local institutions and urged us to use ideas to fight for liberty.

Dick Tracy of the Central Vermont Tea Party Coalition said the three core principles of his group are fiscal responsibility, limited constitutional government and support for free markets.  He illustrated the federal government’s inability to retrain its spending by pointing to our nation’s 15 trillion dollar debt.

“Fiscal Responsibility – we know it when we see it and we know when we don’t” Tracy said.

Tracy spoke of limiting government to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and pointed to the Federal Reserve as an example of the harm an extra-constitutional institution can do.

“Today the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is five-percent what it was when the Fed was created,” Tracy pointed out. He said under those circumstances claims that the Federal Reserve is necessary to “control inflation” are laughable.

Tracy cited Ron Paul and his support for free markets, which he described as nothing more complicated than willing buyers and willing sellers. He expressed concern about healthcare legislation which ignores the economic reality that healthcare is a limited commodity and seeks to subvert market forces.

New Hampshire liberty activist Chris Lawless talked about the methods employed in New Hampshire to earn Ron Paul a second place finish in that state’s January primary and urged us to get off our computers and go out and talk to people in Vermont.

“You can’t let Romney get fifty percent,” Lawless said. He said Ron Paul needs to win a minimum of twenty percent of the votes cast March 6 in order to gain delegates and that translates into at least 8,000 votes. To reach that number, he said, we need to see through crude stereotypes, form coalitions of people from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints, find commonalities and reach out and get more people involved. Common sense, Lawless said, is our common ground.

“We are on the cusp of the next revolution,” He said. “We, the people, need to make the decisions to take back our towns, our states – take back what is ours.”
Civil Libertarian Maurice Kinney opened his remarks with a description of the gravesites in Maine where his Revolutionary War veteran ancestors lay. He said he has been aware since childhood that these men had risked their lives to give Americans the civil liberties they cherish.

Kinney then cited the USAPATRIOT act as a “systematic effort to deprive us of our civil liberties” and said Ron Paul was the only candidate talking about this dangerous law.

Kinney said Ron Paul’s support continues to grow as those of us who cherish liberty see there are many Americans who agree with us. Essentially, he said, there is strength and courage to be found in numbers and civil liberties are a natural point of consensus around which we can form coalitions.
Kinney also spoke out against the unconstitutional way by which the United States has entered wars for the last seven decades. He called the preemptive wars in which we now engage a waste of lives and resources that are counterproductive to their stated goal of keeping us safe. Today’s wars, Kinney said, are not national defense but offense.

Kinney said the liberty movement has arisen in recognition that we have problems which need to be faced and encouraged us to keep at it. Quoting Samuel Adams he said, “It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” He then urged us to be pyromaniacs for freedom.
Keynote speaker Robin Koerner, a blogger at the Huffington Post, publisher of WatchingAmerica.com and coiner of the phrase “Blue Republican,” converted to the Austrian economics viewpoint in his early thirties. He looked around the Vermont State legislative chamber at the more than 80 people in attendance and said “This is what a state capital looks like when it is actually filled with people who love liberty,” for which he received a resounding round of applause.


Koerner began his remarks with some instruction on winning arguments with those of different political ideologies. He said persuasive arguments need to start from our opponents’ points of view.

“Libertarians are good at talking to each other,” Koerner said. We’re not so good at persuading others to our positions, he said and that is something we need to work on.

Moving on to the current state of the nation, Koerner said Obama is Bush-plus and the only course for principled liberals and democrats is to support Ron Paul. He reeled off a list of abuses by the federal government, including corporations and lobbyists writing federal legislation, violations of the fourth amendment and due process laws, the National Defense Authorization Act and the lack of financial privacy. Some laws, he said, actually make it illegal to tell the truth. For instance, banks are required to file suspicious reports on their clients but cannot tell clients that the government is accessing their records, even if asked.                           

Koerner urged us to get past the old left-right animosity and see the synergy between movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party, who don’t even realize how much on which they agree. He said government overreach, not neglect, is the cause of the majority of our problems today. He also blamed fear-driven policies and politics.

“America is not a scared country,” said Koerner, a native of Great Britain who hopes to gain American citizenship within the next three years. Love, he said, is the opposite of fear and is at the core of the Ron Paul revolution.

“Ron Paul’s politics say to the nation ‘As you wish,’” he said. Put in place, he added, they have the potential to unleash a torrent human potential.

Koerner said we don’t ask those on the left to give up their principles but to look at the results of decades of top-down government interference in our lives and society.


“Have the goals of social justice and economic justice been reached?” he asked. Our friends on the left, he said, need to start separating the means from the ends. No taxes are high enough to solve our problems because we need to understand the source of our problems, not just treat the disease. He believed the root of our problem is that we have strayed from our nation’s, “sublime document,” the U.S. Constitution, which leans neither left nor right but toward human liberty.

So that's how I spent last Saturday - how was your weekend?