Category: Politics

At a Success Academy Charter School, Singling Out Pupils Who Have ‘Got to Go’ – The New York Times


The PBS News Hour Covered Report

Following negative coverage by The News Hour, the New York Times had done a deep dive into the doings at Eva Moscowitz’s Success Academy Charter School Change, and they have discovered Success Academy Charter School have been singling out students for disciplinary actions in an effort to get students who might lower the school’s test scores to leave:

From the time Folake Ogundiran’s daughter started kindergarten at a Success Academy charter school in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, the girl struggled to adjust to its strict rules.

She racked up demerits for not following directions or not keeping her hands folded in her lap. Sometimes, after being chastised, she threw tantrums. She was repeatedly suspended for screaming, throwing pencils, running away from school staff members or refusing to go to another classroom for a timeout.

One day last December, the school’s principal, Candido Brown, called Ms. Ogundiran and said her daughter, then 6, was having a bad day. Mr. Brown warned that if she continued to do things that were defiant and unsafe — including, he said, pushing or kicking, moving chairs or tables, or refusing to go to another classroom — he would have to call 911, Ms. Ogundiran recalled. Already feeling that her daughter was treated unfairly, she went to the school and withdrew her on the spot.

Success Academy, the high-performing charter school network in New York City, has long been dogged by accusations that its remarkable accomplishments are due, in part, to a practice of weeding out weak or difficult students. The network has always denied it. But documents obtained by The New York Times and interviews with 10 current and former Success employees at five schools suggest that some administrators in the network have singled out children they would like to see leave.

Nine of the students on the list later withdrew from the school. Some of their parents said in interviews that while their children attended Success, their lives were upended by repeated suspensions and frequent demands that they pick up their children early or meet with school or network staff members. Four of the parents said that school or network employees told them explicitly that the school, whose oldest students are now in the third grade, was not right for their children and that they should go elsewhere.

The current and former employees said they had observed similar practices at other Success schools. According to those employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs or their relationships with people still at the network, school leaders and network staff members explicitly talked about suspending students or calling parents into frequent meetings as ways to force parents to fall in line or prompt them to withdraw their children.

………

Suspensions at Success, which typically last one or two days, are frequent compared with traditional public schools. In the 2012-13 school year, the most recent one for which state data is available, Success schools suspended between 4 percent and 23 percent of their students at least once, with most suspending more than 10 percent. According to the most recent statistics from the city’s Education Department, from 2013-14, traditional public schools suspended 3 percent of students that academic year.

………

At Success Academy Fort Greene, the same day that Ms. Ogundiran heard from the principal, her daughter’s name was one of 16 placed on a list drawn up at his direction and shared by school leaders.

The heading on the list was “Got to Go.”

………

The notes also appear to allude to the possibility of getting one child on the “Got to Go” list classified as a 12:1:1 special education student. Those students are entitled to classrooms limited to 12 students, with one teacher and one aide, so Success Academy, which offers only five such classes in a network serving 11,000 students, might not be able to meet the needs of every 12:1:1 student.

Ms. Fleischman, the education manager, warned her colleagues in a follow-up email that the goal should not have been put in an email and that, in any case, a 12:1:1 classification “does not guarantee a withdrawal.”

Asked this month about that remark, she said that she was saying only that the parent of a 12:1:1 student would not be required to take the student out, and was not alluding to any effort to ensure the child would leave.

It gets even better: In response to the PBS investigation, Eva Moskowitz
published one of her former student’s disciplinary records, which is a direct violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

I would also argue that it s a violation of anti-retaliation laws, and I would further argue that the parent, or an enterprising prosecutor, might also consider racketeering as icing on the cake:

Anyone who has reported on campus sexual assault knows that school administrations rarely respond, even when they feel unfairly maligned, because they fear violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA. Passed in 1974, FERPA is a federal law that bans the release of students’ personal information without their consent. “Schools are not supposed to talk about their students, even when the media is saying, ‘Hey, I can’t believe you did this,’ ” says Derek W. Black, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law who specializes in education law. “And sometimes that means the media doesn’t get the story straight, but it does protect the student.”



That’s why it was so surprising when Eva Moskowitz, the high-profile head of Success Academy, a network of New York City charter schools, responded to a negative PBS story by releasing the disciplinary record of an ex-student featured in it. Black says this was probably illegal, and it has left the student’s mother, Fatima Geidi, furious and frantic with worry over her 10-year-old son’s reputation. “For a grown woman, an adult, to attack a child is disgusting,” Geidi told me. “There’s no other way around it.”

The skirmish began on Oct. 12, when PBS NewsHour ran a segment titled “Is Kindergarten Too Young to Suspend a Student?” It came as a national backlash has been building against overly strict discipline in public schools, particularly toward very young students. Last year, the Obama administration urged schools to abandon so called zero-tolerance disciplinary policies, warning administrators nationwide that it would investigate racial disparities in student punishment. Shortly before the PBS NewsHour piece ran, a report from the Center for American Progress documented that students are being suspended and expelled as early as preschool. “[I]t is clear that what were intended to be last resort and occasional disciplinary tools have become wildly overused and disproportionately applied to children of color, resulting in dramatically negative long-term effects,” the report said.

………



The NewsHour segment focused on the suspension of kindergarteners at Success Academy schools, which are known both for their high test scores and their highly structured environments, with a code of conduct running six pages. According to PBS reporter John Merrow, at one Success Academy charter with 203 kindergartners and first-graders, there were 44 out-of-school suspensions in a single year.

Merrow spoke with nearly a dozen families, but only Fatima Geidi and her son, Jamir, agreed to go on camera. Jamir, who left Success Academy last year because he and his mother couldn’t tolerate the frequent suspensions, described some of the infractions that got him in trouble: “I would always have to keep my shirt tucked in. And let’s say I wasn’t wearing black shoes, and I was wearing red shoes. Then that would be an infraction.”

Viewers didn’t get the impression that these were the only reasons the boy, now 10, was disciplined. Fatima Geidi, said that even at his new school, where Jamir hasn’t been suspended, he’s had “meltdowns” and “outbursts.” Still, the segment made it seem as though Success Academy throws kids out for petty misbehavior. Moskowitz herself said that a single incidence of using “sexually explicit language” would get a 5-year-old suspended.

………

But Moskowitz didn’t just object to the numbers. She wanted to combat the allegation that Success Academy suspends kids without good reason. And so she made Jamir Geidi’s record public, posting a letter to PBS on the Success Academies website that listed 19 specific incidents of misconduct, some of them violent, along with long excerpts of teacher reports on Jamir’s behavior. (Her letter referred to Jamir as “John Doe,” but since he was the only student named in the PBS segment, there was no question about who she was talking about.)

Fatima Geidi disputes some of these examples as either false or exaggerated. Whether or not they happened the way Moskowitz claims, Black says that in revealing them, she likely broke the law. “A student’s records themselves are private, as well as the contents,” he says. “If those are going to be disclosed to outside third parties, they clearly have to have consent.”



With the help of Leonie Haimson, co-founder of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, Fatima Geidi sent Moskowitz a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that her son’s information be taken down. “I’ve seen violations of FERPA, but not in such an obvious, egregious way,” Haimson told me. “Not in a press release sent to the media and posted online. I have not seen this level of violation.”

Moskowitz is unapologetic. In a letter to Geidi, she wrote, “The First Amendment limits a person’s ability to use privacy rights to prevent others from speaking. When somebody chooses to make statements to the press, they waive their privacy rights on the topics they have discussed, particularly when, as here, those statements are inaccurate.”


………

Whatever you think about the dispute among Fatima Geidi, Merrow, and Moskowitz, however, Jamir Geidi is 10 years old. A document describing him as frighteningly violent now appears in the first page of his Google results. If that’s OK, it doesn’t just hurt him and his mother. It sends a message to any current or former Success Academy parent who might take public issue with Moskowitz’s methods. Fatima Geidi, “was the only parent whom PBS contacted who was brave enough to speak out” under her own name, says Haimson of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy. “One reason why parents are very afraid—and teachers are afraid too—is they knew they risked the kind of tactics that Eva Moskowitz used against Fatima’s child.” FERPA is supposed to protect such children. We’ll see if it does.

Moskowitz’s argument is bullsh%$.

She is forbidden by law from releasing specific student records.

She can contest the News Hour report, and she can say that the school was justified in its disciplinary actions, but she cannot release student records without specific approval of the parents.

That is the law. (there is an exemption for military recruiters, but that’s another story)

It is this sense of impunity and lawlessness that permeates the charter school movement, and this should not be supported by taxpayer money.

So, When White Folks Start to Oppose a Policy, Obama Starts to Listen

After 6 years of failure, and complaints from teachers, poor and minority have complained that the Obama administration’s support of relentlessly mindless testing and a corporate for profit model for public schools.

Well, now that the protests are reaching into white school districts, Obama finally has to pay attention to parents and teachers, as opposed to listening to corrupt grifter and banksters who are determined to make their fortunes off of public education money:

Faced with mounting and bipartisan opposition to increased and often high-stakes testing in the nation’s public schools, the Obama administration declared Saturday that the push had gone too far, acknowledged its own role in the proliferation of tests, and urged schools to step back and make exams less onerous and more purposeful.

Specifically, the administration called for a cap on assessment so that no child would spend more than 2 percent of classroom instruction time taking tests. It called on Congress to “reduce over-testing” as it reauthorizes the federal legislation governing the nation’s public elementary and secondary schools.

“I still have no question that we need to check at least once a year to make sure our kids are on track or identify areas where they need support,” said Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, who has announced that he will leave office in December. “But I can’t tell you how many conversations I’m in with educators who are understandably stressed and concerned about an overemphasis on testing in some places and how much time testing and test prep are taking from instruction.”
………

As a new generation of tests tied to the Common Core was rolled out last spring, several states abandoned plans to use the tests, while others renounced the Common Core, or rebranded it as a new set of local standards. And some parents, mostly in suburban areas, had their children opt out of the tests.

(emphasis mine)

That last bit is exactly the same racist tripe that Duncan used 2 years ago, when he stated his mystification over the the fact hat there were white suburban parents were opposing his ruining the public schools.

I don’t think that either Duncan or Obama understand why white people are finally turning on their educational vision, but I do think that they understand the political reality.

Black people, brown people, and teachers they could ignore, but once it was white folks, they were forced to at least pretend to listen.

Jeremy Corbyn Just Pulled a Fairly Savvy Political Move

One of the main reasons for Labour’s pasting by the Tories in the last election, aside from Ed Millibrand trying to run as a phony Tory, was that Scotland, a traditional Labour stronghold, turfed out nearly the entire party.

Corbyn’s solution is to create ‘federal’ Scottish Labour party with significant autonomy:

Britain’s opposition Labour Party haemorrhaged Scottish voters and seats in this year’s General Election but newly installed leader Jeremy Corbyn may have a novel new way to get Scots back on the party’s side.

His idea is to hive off Scottish Labour altogether, meaning that the party north of the border will be able to propose tailor-made policies that are more attractive to voters in Scotland.

Policies on welfare and Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons programme, are said to be targeted by Scottish Labour.

Corbyn, who won by a landslide leadership victory vote just over a month ago, told The Sunday Times that he is aiming to create a “federal” party in Scotland.

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale supports this idea as she aims to tell parliament on Monday that Labour will seek greater “autonomy” in Scotland and use the powers of Holyrood [the capitol district of Edinburgh, Scotland] to have greater control over policies such as welfare.

………

Not everyone in Labour is happy about. One source inside the party’s National Executive Committee told The Times, “This looks worryingly like Jeremy Corbyn and Kezia Dugdale are trying to sneak through a secret plan to break up the Labour party.”

………

The Labour Party depends on voter support from Scotland. Usually, according to electoral data, Scots vote for the Scottish National Party or Labour. In 2010, Scottish voter support for Labour cratered and the party lost 91 seats across Britain. The Scottish National Party stayed the same with only 6 seats.

However, the Scottish referendum in September 2014 boosted support for the SNP. In the 2015 General Election, Labour was more or less wiped out in Scotland, and the SNP gained 50 seats. The former Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont resigned a month after the referendum and quipped that the Labour party north of the border was being treated like a “branch office.”

So, Corbyn’s plans to create a federal party seems to be a good idea to win back voters.

Labour has taken Scotland for granted for decades, and in the last election, they literally ran against Scotland, publicly refusing to deal with the Scottish National Party under any circumstances, even if it means that Labour would be unable to form a coalition government.

Obviously, there are some issues where there is little common ground (Trident) but the campaigns run by Labour for the last generation have all been about being a little bit nicer than the Conservatives, while remaining in the pocket of the financial interests in the City of London.

Once the banksters blew up the world, that whole “Fellating banksters while not being quite so awful as the Conservatives,” schtick has gotten old.

It has the additional advantage of jamming up the “New Labour” pukes, because any resurgence of the party’s fortunes has to involve Scotland, and the right wing of the party has now been forced to put themselves into an even deeper hole.

It’s actually a pretty savvy move.

Donald Trump is Just F%$#ing with Us Now

Trump defends Islamic head coverings, says women want to wear them: "It's easy—you don’t have to put on makeup.” https://t.co/tfLYhDv8ir

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) October 26, 2015

His latest bit, he just said that women might wear burkas because they find makeup too inconvenient:

Trump was speaking about foreign policy, which lead into his critique of anti-Muslim sentiments.

Here are his comments in full:

Then I saw women interviewed. They said, ‘We want to wear them. We’ve worn them for a thousand years. Why would anyone tell us not to?’ They want to! What the hell are we getting involved for? Fact it’s easier. You don’t have to put on make-up. Look at how beautiful everyone looks. Wouldn’t it be easier? Right? Wouldn’t that be easy?

Seriously.

The Donald is trolling us, and this is a troll that is more trollish than Goatse. (If you do not know what Goatse is, do not google it. Ever. Trust me on this one.*)

*The same goes for Lemonparty. Do not go there.
Of course, if you had a choice between any of these and Donald Trump, any sane person would go with Goatse and Lemonparty, but barring a time machine and an accident involving an ancestor of Donald Trump’s, the best you can do is cut your losses.

Quote of the Day

What we have seen take place is nothing less than a feral and unhinged scream from the swamp of reaction that resides in our culture, where every crank with a computer resides, consumed with bitterness and untreated angst, much of it in the form of self loathing over their own inadequacies and lack of talent – not to mention in some cases a jump from the extreme left to extreme right of the political spectrum, with all the psychological dysfunction such a metamorphosis describes.

—John Wight at Counterpunch on observing the torrent of abuse that Seumas Milne has endured since become Jeremy Corbyn’s communications chief

Seriously, the public freak-out over Labour being run by a guy who is ……… Labor ……… is kind of a major mindf%$#.

There is Someone Less Popular than Barack Obama in Kansas

It’s Kansas Governor Sam Brownback:

Only 18 percent of Kansans are “very” or “somewhat satisfied” with Gov. Sam Brownback’s (R) job performance, according to a poll from Fort Hays State University released Friday.

In comparison, President Barack Obama (D) had a job approval rating 10 points higher in the deep red state than the Republican governor: 28 percent.

“This could be some of the lowest approval ratings of any Kansas governor in history,” Bob Beatty, a political scientist at Washburn University, told the Topeka Capital-Journal on Saturday.

It appears that the people of Kansas aren’t evil, they are just kind of slow.

That’s why it’s taken 4 f%$#ing years for them to get the fact that they are dealing with a delusional psychopath.

Seriously, folks, what were you waiting for, for him to start carrying around a white Persian cat?

Note the Quotes in the Headline

The BBC described the latest special operations action in Iraq as “US-Iraqi Rescue Operation ‘Foils IS Mass Execution’.”

I’m inclined to put a quote around “Foils Mass Execution” too.

It strikes me that this operation was more likely driven by concerns about increased Russian influence, and success, in the region that it is by high quality actionable intelligence.

I believe that the slang for this is “Wag the Dog”.

The Worst Job in Washington, DC

The Zombie Eyed Granny Starver from Wisconsin has aggred to take the job of Speaker of the House, but he has laid out conditions that resemble those of a Heisman winning first round draft pick:

On Tuesday night, Rep. Paul Ryan announced that he’ll run for speaker of the House — if he gets the endorsement of every major Republican caucus by this Friday, and they agree to sign on to rules changes making it much harder for the far right to depose the speaker in the middle of a session.

In a meeting with his House Republican colleagues, Ryan laid out several conditions that he’d want in exchange for taking the job. According to a statement issued by Ryan’s office, he said:

  • That the next speaker should be “visionary” and “needs to use the platform to create a clear policy choice for the country”
  • That rules should be changed to make it much more difficult to challenge the speaker’s leadership in the middle of a House term
  • That he wanted to spend “less time on the road” (meaning less than the three weekends a month Boehner spends fundraising)
  • And that the next speaker should be “a unifying figure across the conference”

The last of those is particularly important. The statement from Ryan’s office says he will only run “if he is a unity candidate — with the endorsement of all the conference’s major caucuses,” and that members should “make clear whether they support” him by Friday.

So I guess that we can add prima donna to his resume as well.

It’s kind of amusing, the Teabagger caucus finally gets Boehner’s scalp, and discovers that they are now at the point where no one is willing to take the job.

Charlie Pierce notes that Ryan wants to ignore the basic history and responsibilities of the office:

………
Comes now Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny-starver from the state of Wisconsin, who apparently will deign to become Speaker of the House, but only if the entire Republican caucus in the House supports him, and only if the more recalcitrant members of the caucus agree not to turn on him. This very much includes the 40 members of the so-called “Freedom Caucus,” the prion-addled Patient Zeroes of movement conservatism, and the people who defenestrated John Boehner and also ended Kevin McCarthy’s aspirations. So far, these folks seem reluctant to accept the conditions proposed by “Uncle Paul” Ryan.

Ryan’s conditions include rules changes that would make it more difficult to overthrow a sitting speaker – a provision that Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, a leader of the Freedom Caucus, said is a “non-starter.” “We have to remember everything in the House and everything in Congress is about checks and balances,” Labrador said. “We have two houses of Congress for that reason. We have three branches of government for that reason, and one of the reasons that every board has the freedom to vacate (the chair).” And fellow Freedom Caucus member Rep. Mo Brooks said in addition to that concern, he takes issue with Ryan’s track record on immigration. “Paul Ryan’s support for amnesty and open borders, that is a significant factor,” the Alabama Republican said.

​Plainly, Paul Ryan wants to be granted the authority and prerogatives of a being powerful Speaker without having to earn them through the process of persuasion that became a requirement of the office beginning with the breaking of [Despotic House Speaker from the turn of the last century] Joe Cannon. Now, having Paul Ryan two heartbeats from the presidency is a goddamn awful idea merely on its merits. But, beyond that, his demands seem to me to be based on a fundamental misreading of the current political landscape. For the past 30 years, through the deliberate development of the political identity that infected the party with the prion disease, no Republican politician ever will be allowed to be truly safe. The party handed the skunks the weapons, and the skunks learned how to use them. You’re their huckleberry now, sport.

This really is going to be the worst job in the world, and at the rate that this is going, I would expect half of the Republican Caucus to exhume the body of Ronald Reagan, and make him Speaker.

It is a f%$#ing mess.

Funniest Lad Mad Cover in Pakistan of the Day

Pakistani actress Veena Malik just appeared nude on the cover of FHM India sporting ink on her left arm saying “ISI”.

This is a reference to the Pakistani intelligence service which has been accused of supporting terrorists in South Asia, and they are not amused:

In this month’s issue of FHM India, an international men’s magazine, Pakistani actress Veena Malik made worldwide headlines with a risqué nude photo shoot. While much of the attention has been on what Malik wasn’t wearing, one of the most powerful elements of her photo shoot was what she was sporting: a big, bold tattoo on her left arm, stating very simply, “ISI,” for Pakistani’s secretive Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate.

The cover headline: “Pakistani W.M.D. Veena Malik Shows You How to Throw a Grenade!”

Indeed, the cover has been explosive; PakAlertPress.com, for instance splashed a headline on its blog: “India and Pakistan Are Going Nuclear Over Provocative Political Tattoo.” And the photo has elicited a furious reaction in Pakistan’s media and in its living rooms.

In one fell swoop, the enormous tattoo on a bare woman’s body managed to demystify, emasculate and parody the ISI — something most people have been afraid to do in public since the inception of the agency a year after the birth of the nation in 1947. Founded with a mission of coordinating intelligence in the country after Pakistan’s loss to India in the 1947 war in Kashmir, the agency has become a feared, though privately mocked, enterprise, its hands allegedly in every back-room Pakistani deal; rigging elections, training militants for battle in India and Afghanistan, and monitoring its own citizens. The tattoo’s location on Malik’s body takes on special meaning in light of retired Adm. Mike Mullen’s statement in September that the militant Haqqani Network, considered by most Western analysts and experts to be based in the tribal areas of Pakistan, is a “veritable arm” of the ISI.

………

Kabeer Sharma, editor of FHM India, says the ISI tattoo was meant to be a sardonic reflection of India’s own conspiracy theories about the intelligence agency. “In India, you say, ‘The milk has gone bad. The ISI did it,’ They blame all of their problems on ISI,” says Sharma.

Sharma, the son of an Indian satirist and New Delhi bookstore owner, says that a dilemma on the subcontinent is that folks don’t laugh enough over the absurdities of politics. “The problem,” he says, “is that we all blame our problems on this imaginary force. Who is this ISI?” Meanwhile, on the Pakistan side, everything is blamed on RAW. “We collectively have no sense of humor. We have no sense of irony,” he says.

………

But this isn’t just a conspiracy hatched in India (though the magazine was produced there), feeding the siege mentality behind so much of the rhetoric in Pakistan. In a country where the “ghairat brigade,” or honor squad, of talking heads takes regularly to the airwaves to defend Pakistan’s honor against enemies — perceived and imagined — the photo shoot was a victory for a new movement that is emerging in Pakistan: the beghairat brigade, or the squad “without honor,” or more aptly the “shameless brigade.”

To many, the beghairat brigade offers a counter to the conspiracy theories that so permeate debates in Pakistan. Josh White, a scholar on Pakistan at the U.S. Institute of Peace, says, “I think the significance of the small but interesting beghairat movement is that it is trying to forge a way of being genuinely nationalistic without accepting the narrative that all of Pakistan’s problems are the result of someone else’s meddling.”

I am sure that there are some deeper sociological points here, but this tempest in a teapot also amusing as hell.

Schadenfreude Alert

The Kaiser Family Foundation has just released a study on public health costs, and they found that both state spending has mushroomed in states that have refused to adopt Medicaid expansion:

Beginning in FY 2014, policy changes introduced by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have been driving Medicaid enrollment and spending growth. This report provides an overview of Medicaid enrollment and spending growth with a focus on state Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 and state Fiscal Year 2016. Findings are based on interviews and data provided by state Medicaid directors as part of the 15th annual survey of Medicaid directors in all 50 states and the District of Columbia conducted by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (KCMU) and Health Management Associates (HMA). Information collected in the survey on policy actions taken during FY 2015 and FY 2016 can be found in the companion report. Key findings related to Medicaid enrollment and spending growth are described below.

Medicaid enrollment and spending increased substantially in FY 2015, the first full year of implementation of the major ACA coverage expansions. Across all 50 states and DC, Medicaid enrollment increased on average by 13.8 percent in FY 2015, largely due to the ACA coverage expansions. Driven by growth in enrollment, total Medicaid spending increased by 13.9 percent on average in FY 2015. (ES – 1)  Beyond enrollment, states reported that the other drivers of increases in spending were provider rate increases and the higher cost of health care, including prescription drugs. Improvements in the economy were a downward pressure on enrollment which affected spending, but downward pressure in enrollment and spending as a result of the improving economy were outweighed by the ACA coverage policy changes.

………

In FY 2015, Medicaid enrollment and total Medicaid spending growth in expansion states far exceeded growth in non-expansion states. Expansion states reported Medicaid enrollment and total spending growth nearly three times the rate of non-expansion states. (Figure 2) A total of 29 states were implementing the ACA Medicaid expansion in FY 2015, up from 26 states in the previous year (FY 2015 additions include: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Indiana).

Across the 29 expansion states in FY 2015, enrollment increased on average by 18.0 percent and total spending increased by 17.7 percent; both enrollment and spending growth were driven by increases in enrollment among adults qualifying under the new expansion group. Of the 29 states expanding Medicaid in FY 2015, more than half (17 states) noted that enrollment initially increased faster than expected. Over two-thirds of expansion states reported that per member per month costs for the expansion population were at or below projections.1 Across the 22 states not implementing the Medicaid expansion in FY 2015,2 enrollment and total spending growth was 5.1 percent and 6.1 percent (respectively), much slower growth compared to the expansion states. Increased enrollment among previously eligible parents and children was the primary reason cited for enrollment growth in non-expansion states. (ES – 2)

This could not happen to a more deserving bunch of narcissistic nihilists.

H/t Talking Points Memo.

Another Benefit to the Libs Winning in the Great White North

It looks like the elections in Canada make it far less likely for there to be any purchases of the F-35:

British Columbia — Canada will see a major shift in defense policy with the election of a new Liberal Party government and its planned withdrawal from the Iraq coalition air campaign and the US-led F-35 program.

Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau promised both during the election campaign leading up to Monday’s vote. Trudeau won a surprise landslide victory, forcing the ruling Conservative Party government into the opposition ranks of the House of Commons.

Trudeau said Tuesday he talked to US President Obama about Canada’s changing role in Iraq and the battle against the Islamic State militant group.

“I committed that we would continue to engage in a responsible way that understands how Canada has a role to play in the fight against ISIL,” Trudeau told journalists in a televised news conference from Ottawa, using an alternative acronym for the Islamic State group, also known as IS. “But (President Obama) understands the commitments I’ve made around ending the combat mission.”

………

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper said if he was re-elected, he would approve a long-term commitment to the Iraq and Syrian wars.

Although Trudeau intends to end Canada’s role in the bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria, he has promised to boost the number of soldiers available to train Iraqi troops.

………

Trudeau also has promised to move quickly on replacing Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft and to pull out of the F-35 program. He said Canada does not need a stealth fighter for its defense needs and that the F-35 is too expensive.

The Liberal Party released its 88-page election platform Oct. 5, which included some details about how it would proceed with replacing the CF-18s. “The primary mission of our fighter aircraft should remain the defence of North America, not stealth first-strike capability,” the platform said. “We will make investing in the Royal Canadian Navy a top priority. By purchasing more affordable alternatives to the F-35s, we will be able to invest in strengthening our Navy.”

………

Alan Williams, who signed the original memorandum that brought Canada into the F-35 program in 1997, said the planned withdrawal from the fighter jet project would be embarrassing for the US.

But he said that Canada has to base its decisions on its own defense needs, and not only on the security and industrial concerns of its allies.

………

The other potential contenders to replace Canada’s CF-18s are the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale, Boeing’s Super Hornet and Saab’s Gripen.

Williams said holding an open competition for a CF-18 replacement would ensure Canadian aerospace firms have the best chance at obtaining work on such a project.

Trudeau has suggested that the F-35 would not be considered in any competition.

There is an interesting comparison of capabilities at this page, and you will notice that, apart from low observability performance (stealth), the F-35 does not seem to be a particularly good deal:


Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Saab Gripen JAS 39E/F Eurofighter Typhoon Dassault Rafale Boeing F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornet
Crew 1 1(E), 2(F) 1 or 2(Trainer) 1(C,M), 2(B) 1(E), 2 (F,G)
Engines 1 1 2 2 2
Power 28,000 (43,000 with afterburner) 13,000 (22,000 with afterburner) 26,000 (40,000 with afterburner) 22,500 (34,000 with afterburner) 26,000 (44,000 with afterburner)
Thrust-to-weight ratio (with 100% fuel and A2A weapons) 0.87 1.06 1.07 0.99 0.93
Max speed (in mach) 1.6 2 2 1.8 1.8
Supercruise No1 1.2 (with 2 WVR and 2 BVR missiles) 1.3 (with 2 WVR and 4 BVR missiles) 1.4 (with 6 WVR/BVR missiles) No
Combat Radius (Air to Air mission) 1,100km (internal fuel only) 1,300km (with centreline 290 gallon tank) 1,389km 1,000+km 1000+km (internal fuel only)
Ferry Range (with external tanks) 2,220km (internal fuel only)2 4,000+km 3,790km 3,700+km 3,300km
Service ceiling: 60,000ft3 50,000ft4 55,000ft 55,000ft 50,000ft+
Wing loading (lower = better): 91.4lb/ft2 58lb/ft24 64lb/ft2 62.8lb/ft2 94lb/ft2
Rate of climb: Classified 50,000ft/min4 62,000ft/min 60,000ft/min 44,882ft/min
Radar: AN/APG-81 AESA Raven AESA CAPTOR-E AESA (planned) RBE2-AA AESA APG-79 AESA
Infrared Search and Track: AAQ-40 EOTS Selex “Skyward G” IRST PIRATE IRST, LITENING pod SAGEM-OSF IRST mounted in external fuel tank
Helmet mounted display System: HMDS (still in development) Cobra HMDS Eurofighter HMSS TopSight HMD JHMCS






Electronic warfare and countermeasures: AN/AAQ/37 DAS missile warning system, AN/ASQ-239 Electronic Warfare system, stealth design resulting in decreased radar and infrared signature. ECM pods, BOL advanced countermeasure dispenser, MAW (missile approach warner), Laser Warning System, towed decoy, internally mounted RF jammers. ECM pods, flares, IR decoy dispenser, chaff pods, radar warning receiver, MAW, laser warning receiver, towed decoy, Thales SPECTRA electronic warfare suite ECM pods, towed decoys, chaff, flares, AN/ALE-165 jammer pod, AN/ALR-67 radar warning reciever
Gun: GAU-22/A 25mm 4-barrelled gatling cannon 27mm Mauser BK-27 Revolver cannon (E model only) 27mm Mauser BK-27 Revolver cannon 30mm GIAT 30/719B autocannon 20mm M61 Vulcan gatling cannon
Hardpoints: 4 internal, 6 external 10 13 (4 semi-conformal) 14 11
Payload: 18,000lbs (using external pylons) 15,875lbs 16,500lbs 21,000lbs 17,750lbs
“X-Factor”: Stealth, advanced sensors Can operate from unprepared runways, low operating cost. Legendary air-to-air performance, twin engine. Ground strike ability, naval version available, twin engine. Naval airframe, easy transition, twin engine.
Problems: Troubled development, questionable performance, high operating cost. Smaller design, less payload. Troubled history, high operating cost. Proprietary systems and weapons. Old design, unremarkable performance.

1Unofficially, the F-35 can supercruise at mach 1.2 for a distance of 241km.
2External fuel tanks are planned for the F-35, but none have been flight tested yet.
3The F-35 has only been tested to 43,000ft so far.
4Gripen C information, Gripen E data is unavailable

I would note here that the F-35 is more than 50% more costly than any of the competition, and has a direct operating cost more than that of an F-15, which was never known as an aircraft that was cheap to operate.

Further, it appears that the use of external tanks in a combat configuration will not be something that we will see in the near future, the Pentagon has its eggs in the stealth basket, and adding a combat tank would require its cooperation.

This means that its range in a typical combat configuration will typically be no better than its competitors.

In an air to air mode, the F-35 either needs to carry missiles externally, negating stealth, or to limit itself to just two missiles, placing the aircraft at a disadvantage.

Furthermore, much like Donald Trump’s hair, it’s fat, heavy and slow.

Finally, the F-35 is a roach motel: Data goes in, but it does not come out until it reaches Lockheed Martin in Ft. Worth, which means that there will be a heavy rent collected for developing new weapons, which will suppress the defense industries in partner nations.

The inability to access the source code of the aircraft also means that there will be some serious tactical issues, as data collected on new threats cannot even be examined by anyone but LM and the Pentagon, which could make for lots of flaming debris when an opponent deploys a heretofore unknown air defense system.

I do understand why Trudeau wants to drop the program:  It is less a defense program than it is an industrial base preservation program centered on the US defense industry.

More Thoughts on the Last Night’s Debates

In terms of debate performance, I will have some observations:

  • I think that Martin O’Malley had the best debate performance, even my son who dislikes him felt that, but that Sanders “won” the debate, because he accomplished his positive objectives more completely.  Clinton played defense, which is not surprising for a front runner. I do not think that she “won”, but she clearly did not “lose”, which is even more important to her.
  • If CNN had to use the hapless Don Lemon, giving him the do nothing role of introducing questions from social media was the least bad way of using him.
  • Dana Bash was literally asking questions that were taken directly from the Chamber of Commerce.  As a journalist, you should at least rephrase the questions.
  • I was unimpressed with Cooper as moderator, but he wasn’t bad, which is actually a good place for a debate moderator to be.
  • His question about which enemy the participants were proudest of was a very good one. It seemed gimmicky, but it meant that the responses were relatively short, but that they were also illuminating.
  • O’Malley’s answer to this question, “The National Rifle Association,” was arguably the best answer of the evening. It was short, to the point, and created the impression that he was willing to stand up to an organization that is widely loathed by the vast bulk of the people who would have the slightest inclination to vote Democrat.
  • A close second for the best answer was when, in response to Chafee citing the 99-1 vote for the Patriot act, Bernie Sanders said, with no small amount of pride, that he was that one Senator.
  • Jim Webb’s answer to the “enemies” question was arguably the worst of the evening. I understand how he wanted to highlight that he was the only one on stage who did active duty, but his pride on killing a former opponent on the battlefield was just kind of squicky, particularly with the grin that followed.
  • A close second on bad answers was the two times (repealing Glass-Steagall & the Patriot Act) that Chafee tried to justify a vote because there was nearly unanimous support in the Senate.
  • Chafee’s debate performance did nothing to convince me that he has a coherent reason for running for the Presidency.
  • Webb was trying to troll his way to the presidency. This is not a winning strategy when the troll of trolls, Donald Trump is in the race.

In any case, my opinions, and five bucks, will get you a small latte.

More Truth from a Congressional Republican

Is someone putting Scopolamine in their drinking water?

Because we just had a 2nd Republican Congressman admit that the Benghazi investigation is entirely a political ploy:

A second House Republican has now conceded that the overarching purpose of the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been to attack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In September, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) argued that one of House Republicans’ successes has been using the Benghazi Committee to drive down Clinton’s poll numbers. Though McCarthy tried to walk back his controversial comments, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) argued on Wednesday that the Majority Leader had it right to begin with.

“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,” Hanna said in an interview on Keeler in the Morning, a radio show in upstate New York. The third-term congressman paused for a moment, perhaps recognizing the importance of what he was about to say, before going on to agree with McCarthy’s original statement.

“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Hanna said.

He explained further why he believes the Benghazi Committee’s purpose has been in part to attack Clinton. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not,” Hanna said. “I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

Weird that we are having a sudden outbreak of truth ……… from Republicans.

This is clearly a sign of the apocalypse.

If this continues, things should get very interesting.

My Predictions on the Democratic Debate

Actually, my predictions at about what the press will do.

Seeing as I am waiting to pick up my wife from an OSA board meeting, I’ll give you my predictions.

The moderators will be asking the most banal questions, with way too much meta. (…How does your campaign respond to ….)

Also the moderators all have at least one completely irrelevant Bernard Shaw type question to spring on one of the participants.

As to the rest of the press:

James Webb will be lauded for his performance, because pundits love “Democrats” who were former Reagan cabinet members who resign because the Gipper was insufficiently bellicose.

Also, since Webb will go big on the non-existent “crisis” in “entitlements”, so they will declare him brave.

Unless there is an extended discussion about marijuana, Chaffee will be largely ignored.

O’Malley will be depicted as running for Vice President, and he will be criticized for “running to the left”.

Additionally, the former Maryland governor’s will be declared effectively dead within a half hour of the debate ending.

Hillary Clinton will be portrayed as calculating and distant, and any attempt for her to humanize herself will be portrayed as as just another ploy.

Bernie Sanders will be treated as a combination of dinosaur and clown with his liberal views widely mocked.

What I want to see is Joe Biden streaking across the stage …. dressed as a Victoria’s Secret model …. Who is dressed as an angel.

But I am evil that way.

Posted via mobile.

My Expectations of Republicans Have Once Again Been Proven Too High

It appears that Republicans need to get their hate on

A group of Republican lawmakers are reiterating their call for the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery to remove a bust of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and 25 House members sent a letter to the museum’s director Kim Sajet Friday calling the display of the bust “an affront both to basic human decency and the very meaning of justice.”

The letter pointed to Sanger’s support of eugenics, but also blasted her for founding Planned Parenthood, which has been in the crosshairs of congressional Republicans and nearly prompted them to shutdown the federal government rather the reauthorize its funding.

It appears that I cannot set my expectations low enough to meet the reality that is the Republican Party.

Yes

Is Money Corrupting Research?

This has been another episode of simple answers to simple questions.

The background:

THE integrity of research and expert opinions in Washington came into question last week, prompting the resignation of Robert Litan, an economist, from his position as a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Senator Elizabeth Warren raised the issue of a conflict of interest in Mr. Litan’s testimony before a Senate committee examining a proposed Labor Department rule designed to protect consumers in their dealing with retirement-plan brokers.

The testimony was based on a paper Mr. Litan had prepared for the Capital Group, a mutual fund company. Mr. Litan disclosed that the Capital Group, which has a stake in the debate, had funded his paper, but he did not disclose that it had also commissioned it. Mr. Litan concluded that the regulatory rule, while well intentioned, would be too costly. He resigned because he testified as a Brookings fellow, violating a recent Brookings rule change that would have prohibited that.

Senator Warren was herself criticized by economists and pundits, on the left and right. Hal Singer, a fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and a co-author of the research she criticized, said, “This is McCarthyism of the left.”

But at stake is the integrity of the research process and the trust the nation puts in experts, who advise governments and testify in Congress. Our opinions shape government policy and judicial decisions. Even when we are paid to testify as expert witnesses, integrity is expected from us. After all, our payment is not contingent on the kind of opinion we provide.

In fact, this was Mr. Litan’s defense. The Capital Group hired him to write a paper on the topic, but it did not dictate the conclusions. (Mr. Litan did get feedback from the Capital Group on his paper’s initial outline, as he told Senator Warren in response to follow-up questions after his testimony, and “some editorial comments.”)

Yet it is disingenuous for anybody (especially an economist) to believe that reputational incentives do not matter. Had the conclusions not pleased the Capital Group, it would probably have found a more compliant expert. And the reputation of not being “cooperative” would have haunted Mr. Litan’s career as a consultant.

And Mr. Litan’s defense that people should judge the content of his work and not its funding is also invalid. This is O.K. for a peer-reviewed journal, but not for Congress. Lawmakers hold expert hearings because they lack the expertise to evaluate certain technical subjects. They rely on the integrity of the process.

The assumption is that researchers will value their reputation of integrity more than their fee for any individual job. At some level this assumption is correct. Underlying this conclusion is not only an economic calculation (the compensation for lying once can hardly offset the revenues lost because of the reputational damage) but also a professional one: For most of us, academic prestige is more important than any amount of money.

As Alan Greenspan once noted, “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity—myself especially—are in a state of shocked disbelief.”

Or as Upton Sinclair stated more succinctly, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

As I say, “Do you want some cheese with that whine?”

BTW, if you are not aware, the Progressive Policy Institute, the home of Hal Singer, who was co-author, and hence co-employee of The Capital Group, isn’t in the least progressive. It’s a vestige of the now shuttered Democratic Leadership Council, which spent its existence worshiping at the alter of Ronald Reagan, so they spend most of their time attacking progressives.

BTW, Charlie Pierce notes quite accurately that the problem here is note “McCarthyism”, but rather that the think tank scene in DC is a particularly egregious form of pay-to play. (the PPP is even more heinous in this regard than Brookings)

Can Someone Primary this Ninny?

Dem debate 1: During Game 4 of NLDS Debate 2: College football Saturday Debate 3: Saturday Debate 4: NFL playoff Sunday

— Brett LoGiurato (@BrettLoGiurato) October 12, 2015

I am referring, of course, to Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Whether it is her refusal to support challenges to right wing Republicans to placate the Cuban Community, preventing a DNC vote on the Iran Deal, her structuring the debates in a way to ensure that they would be as meaningless as possible so as to help Hillary Clinton.

Now, it turns out that she is retaliating against people in the DNC who have the temerity to suggest that this is a bad idea:

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said she was disinvited from the first Democratic presidential primary debate in Nevada after she appeared on television and called for more face-offs.

Ms. Gabbard confirmed on Sunday that her chief of staff received a message last Tuesday from the chief of staff to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the national committee, about her attendance at the debate. A day earlier, Ms. Gabbard had appeared on MSNBC and said there should be an increase beyond the current six sanctioned debates.

A person close to the committee who asked for anonymity to discuss internal discussions insisted, however, that Ms. Gabbard had not been disinvited. Instead, the person said, an aide to Ms. Wasserman Schultz expressed a desire to keep the focus on the candidates as the debate approached, rather than on a “distraction” that could divide the party, and suggested that if Ms. Gabbard could not do that, she should reconsider going.

Ms. Gabbard insisted otherwise.

“When I first came to Washington, one of the things that I was disappointed about was there’s a lot of immaturity and petty gamesmanship that goes on, and it kind of reminds me of how high school teenagers act,” Ms. Gabbard said in a telephone interview on Sunday night. She said she would watch the debate in her district in Hawaii, which elected her to her second term last year.

“It’s very dangerous when we have people in positions of leadership who use their power to try to quiet those who disagree with them,” she added. “When I signed up to be vice chair of the D.N.C., no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door.”

………

People who disagree with Mr. O’Malley have pointed out that he infrequently debated his challenger for governor in Maryland. And they note the number of sanctioned debates is the same as in the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But there were more than a dozen unsanctioned debates and forums back then. This time, the candidates could be excluded from the sanctioned debates if they take part in ones that are not approved by the national committee.

(emphasis mine)

Obama got more than 60% of the vote in her district in 2008 and 2012.

This is a about as safe as a Congressional district for Democrats as you can find.

It’s ridiculous that she is a sitting member of Congress, much less head of the DNC.

She is the very definition of the term “worthless party apparachik”>

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

I’m not sure whether John Boehner is laughing or crying, but the fact that Congressman Malaprop, AKA current House Majority Leader has decided nto to run for Speaker is a bit of a surprise:

Representative Kevin McCarthy of California abruptly withdrew on Thursday from the race to succeed Speaker John A. Boehner, blindsiding his House Republican colleagues and throwing their already tumultuous chamber into deeper chaos with no clear leader in sight just weeks before a series of high-stakes fiscal battles.

As lawmakers ate barbecue and sipped sodas during what was expected to be a pro forma vote to select Mr. McCarthy as their nominee, he did an about-face, saying that he had concluded he could not unite the increasingly fractious Republican majority.

“I am not that guy,” said Mr. McCarthy, with his wife and family by his side, according to members who were in the room. Moments later, Mr. Boehner, who learned of Mr. McCarthy’s decision only minutes before he announced it, declared the vote postponed and the meeting adjourned even though there were two other candidates in the running, underscoring the weakness of the field.

Some Republicans, including Mr. Boehner and Mr. McCarthy, are pressing Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the party’s nominee for vice president in 2012, to step up. Mr. Ryan, however, has repeatedly said he does not want the job, a point he reiterated Thursday even before his colleagues had left the meeting.

I’ve heard that there were some Republican Representatives crying in the coat closet crying after the announcement.
I love me some sweet Republican tears, but we are in for a really bumpy ride.
If someone like Jason Chaffetz ends up speaker, we will get of the Benghazi-Planned Parenthood-Fast and Furious freak show.
In fact, I would guess that it is even money that they will try to impeach Obama.
Actually, I would think that there is a 10% chance that they will try to retroactively impeach Bill Clinton.
About the only good that might come of this is if it ends up killing the TPP, because nothing else is going to get done.