Pat Allen: The View from Right Field

The Heckler: Reasons You're Watching The Cubs Game

From yesterday's Heckler:

Where’s the Anti-Mormon Vote?

During Mitt Romney’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, one of the big questions, in the media, at least, is whether fundamentalists and evangelicals in the Republican Party would vote for Mr. Romney.  Conventional wisdom has been that evangelical voters were going to be a big problem for former Governor Romney.  After all, the implicit argument went, you know those bigoted, right-wing Republicans.  They oppose same-sex marriage because they don’t like gays.  They voted against Obama because he was black.  The big question in 2012 was going to be: Who did the evangelicals hate more: President Obama or Mormons?

There is only one trouble with this story-line.  When it comes to not wanting a Mormon to be President, it’s not the Republicans who are the bigots.  Hidden deep in an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal about this year’s election was this sentence: “Democrats in the poll were more likely than Republicans to express concerns about a Mormon president.”*  But Peter Hart, the Democratic half of the duo which conducts the poll, explained that this wasn’t because Democrats don’t like Mormons.  Rather, some Democrats were just using this question as a proxy for not wanting Mitt Romney to be president.  Now I have heard of voters coming up with phony policy differences to explain why they oppose a candidate when it’s really bigotry.  I have never before heard of somebody using bigotry as a substitute for policy differences.

In any case, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal poll isn’t the first one to identify where the anti-Mormonism is.  A Gallup poll in June of last year showed that while 18% of Republicans and 19% of independents would not support a Mormon for president, 27% of Democrats would not support a Mormon.

In other words, when it comes to anti-Mormonism, if you want to find the bigots, look left.

--------
* Neil King Jr. and Danny Yadron, “Obama, Romney Toe to Toe,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2012; Laura Meckler, “One in Four Say Having a Mormon President Would Cause Concerns,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2012.

President Obama on Afghanistan: From “War of Necessity” to “How in the Heck Do We Get Out of Here”

David Sanger has a new book coming out next month, Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power.  Last week The New York Times published an article by Mr. Sanger on President Obama and Afghanistan, “Charting Obama’s Journey to a Shift on Afghanistan,” that was adapted from the book.

Other comments on the article have noted President Obama’s shift of policy in Afghanistan and his eventual exclusion of not only military leaders but also Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Clinton from policy planning sessions.

What is more fascinating to me, however, is how little Barack Obama apparently knew about Afghanistan when he was elected President in 2008.  Throughout the campaign then-Senator Obama talked about the dumb war in Iraq and the “war of necessity” in Afghanistan.  Except the article makes it pretty clear that President Obama’s commitment to the “necessity” of the war in Afghanistan was shallow, if it existed at all beyond being a great campaign issue.

Which brings me back to the 2008 campaign.  One of the big stories of the campaign was how smart Barack Obama was.  He spoke so well, and he knew so much.  Except as Mr. Sanger’s article makes clear, then-Senator Obama didn’t really know what he wanted to do in Afghanistan or how he wanted to do it.

One of the other big stories of the 2008 campaign was how little Sarah Palin knew.  But after reading Mr. Sanger’s article, I wonder if then-Governor Palin knew any less about Afghanistan than Barack Obama did.  And I cannot help but think that she might have been a better learner than he turned out to be.

Public Money for the Cubs?

Before Kerry Wood’s retirement the big news involving the Cubs that was a super PAC funded by Joe Ricketts, the father of Tom, Pete, Laura, and Todd, had been approached to finance a $10 million series of ads against President Obama and his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  Even though the ads never ran, and it is unclear whether Joe Rickets ever agreed to sponsor the ads, it was a BIG DEAL to Chicago Major Rahm Emanuel.  Six weeks ago Mayor Emanuel said that a deal with the Cubs was in its final stages.  On Thursday of last week, Mayor Emanuel wouldn’t even take a phone call from Tom Ricketts.  Mayor Emanuel said, “I don’t think that’s fitting in a campaign of any nature.”

Most of the commentary in the media was how dumb for the Rickettses to be “involved”* in such an idea when they were trying to get support from Mayor Emanuel for some amount of public help for the renovation of Wrigley Field. 

But wait a second.  Is Mayor Emanuel saying, and is the media condoning the idea, that it’s okay for the City to refuse to help the Cubs with their renovation of Wrigley Field because of a position on national politics that the father of the Cubs’ chairman may have been thinking about taking?  I thought Rahm Emanuel was Mayor of Chicago.  If that is true, he should be deciding things based on what’s good for Chicago, not whether somebody supports or doesn’t support his candidate for President.

Is Mayor Emanuel saying you have to support his candidate for President to get help from the City?  Is he, in effect, using Chicago taxpayer money to “encourage” people to support President Obama – or at least to not attack President Obama in ways that Mayor Emanuel doesn’t like?  Is the City of Chicago becoming just another arm of the DNC?

The funniest thing about this whole brouhaha, however, was when Mayor Emanuel said, “You can have disagreements without being disagreeable.”  Rahm Emanuel talking about disagreeing without being disagreeable?  That’s hilarious.

----------
* I am not sure what “involved” means here since there is no evidence that super PAC – or Joe Ricketts – ever agreed to the idea. 

Note:  The White Sox got public money for a new stadium, the Bulls and Blackhawks got public money for their stadium, and the Bears got public money for a new stadium.  Based on all of that, you could make the argument that the Cubs should get public money for renovating Wrigley Field.  Maybe you can, but it’s doesn’t matter.  I didn’t favor public money for those teams’ stadiums, and I don’t favor public money for Wrigley Field.  I do, however, think the City should help the Cubs in ways that don’t cost the City money.  For example, the City shouldn’t let the landmark designation of Wrigley Field be used to prevent the Cubs from doing things to raise money that don’t cost the City money.  Also, the City should let the Cubs close the streets around Wrigley Field.  Etc.

Update (5/20/21 1:40 pm):  Corrected two typos in the last paragraph. 

The New French President Wants to Raise Taxes on the Rich - But the Rich Don’t Want to Pay

I have commented several times that, in effect, it is a lot easier to raise tax rates on the rich than it is to get them to pay more taxes. It is worth it to the rich to pay big money to their accountants and tax lawyers to avoid, or at least minimize, the effect of higher tax rates.

And so, I read with interest an article in SpiegelOnline on Friday about the effect of new French President Francois Hollande’s campaign promise to raise the tax rate on incomes above one million euros to 75%:

“During the election campaign, French President François Hollande threatened to slap an income tax rate of 75 percent on high earners. Since then, wealthy French have been looking for ways to get themselves and their money out of the country. And nowhere looks more attractive than millionaire-friendly London. …

Real estate agents have been aware of a new wave of interest for months, but it's been especially noticeable since Feb. 28. The night before, the then Socialist candidate for French president, François Hollande … announced that, if elected, he would raise the top rate of tax on incomes over €1 million to 75 percent. … [I]n London, the news produced a reaction that was noticeable on the computers of the London-based property company Knight Frank.

‘Since February, when Hollande announced his wealth tax, there has been a large rise in web searches from French customers,’ Liam Bailey, head of residential research at Knight Frank, recently told the Daily Telegraph.

To meet the demand, the property company Douglas & Gordon has just opened an office in South Kensington, where four native French speakers will be available to help out their house-hunting compatriots. Hollande's tax speech immediately led to a 40 percent increase in inquires from worried French citizens, says David Blanc from the London asset management firm Vestra Wealth. …

London Mayor Boris Johnson, who speaks perfect French, recently encouraged workers in France's financial sector to move to the City. ‘Bienvenue à Londres,’ he said in February. ’This is the global capital of finance. It's on your doorstep.’ …

In South Kensington, the epicenter of elegant French exiles, the bon vivant can get all life's necessities. There are French creperies, fromageries and rotisseries, as well as French bookstores and bakeries. There are French-speaking dentists, plumbers and tax accountants, not to mention French schools. There is even a French cinema and a radio station. The French's tricolor flag is as visible here as the Union Jack, and the district secretly sees itself as the 21st arrondissement of Paris.”

Just like in the United States: It’s a lot easier to raise tax rates than it is to get people to pay more taxes.

Woody, Thanks.

I’m sorry we couldn’t win it for you, today, but thanks so much for so many memories.  The twenty strike out game.  The playoff game against Maddux in 1998.  Your comeback in 2000.  Game 5 in Atlanta in ’03.  Your comeback in 2007; Glavine may have won his 300th, but you got the cheers.  And the Cubs Convention the last two years.  It has been great.  Thank you so much.

------------
Update (5/19/2012 11:50 pm):  I was in a rush to post something about Kerry Wood retiring yesterday because, well, it seemed the right thing to do.  Let me mention in some more detail the two "comebacks" I referred to.  On May 2, 2000, Kerry was making his first start since the 1998 playoffs.  He had been out all of 1999 rehabilitating from surgery, and May 2 was his first time back.  The Cubs beat the Astros, 11 to 1, and Kerry hit a home run in the second inning.  On August 5, 2007, Kerry was returning from fourteen months on the disabled list.  Before that he had always been a starter; now he was a reliever.  This was his first game back, and when he came into the game in the sixth inning, Wrigley Field was electric.  I will never forget either one of those games.

Protesting NATO. Why?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is meeting in Chicago on Sunday, May 21 and Monday, May 22.  It’s a big deal, and a lot of protesters are expected.  I’m not exactly sure why all these protesters are coming to Chicago.  Chicago police are going to look at this as a chance for baton target practice – just kidding.

Seriously, though, I do wonder what it is about NATO that the protesters don’t like.  Most recently, NATO has been fighting in Afghanistan.  I realize President Karzai is pretty marginal, but compared to the Taliban, he’s not so bad.  Unless you like things such as girls not being allowed to go to school, etc.

NATO has been involved in the Balkans, too, stopping fighting there.  The operations in Libya were perhaps the most controversial – and maybe questionable – thing NATO has done but they are over now.

In any case, Afghanistan and these other operations are not what NATO is really about.  If you are protesting against NATO, that means you are protesting against things such as:

• NATO helping maintain peace in Europe for over forty years after World War II, while giving the nations of Western Europe the chance to do what they wanted to do, instead of what the Soviet Union wanted them to do.
• NATO members working with the United States and West Germany to facilitate the peaceful reunification of Germany after the Wall fell in 1989.
• NATO supporting the people of Eastern Europe in their efforts to bring freedom and democracy to their countries when they finally had a real chance to achieve it.  And not just countries like Poland and Hungary, but Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, too.  Mind-boggling.
• The nations of Eastern Europe becoming members of NATO.  As soon as they could, members of the old Warsaw Pact, and even some republics of the USSR, joined NATO.  Why?  So the security promise that had protected western Europe for so long would now protect them, too.

When you protest against NATO, this is what you are protesting against.  I can see why Vladimir Putin might not like NATO, but protesters in Chicago?

I suppose some of the protestors may think that they are protesting against inequality and that they are supporting the 99% against the 1%.  Except that is not what NATO is about.  Protesting against those things at a NATO meeting misses the point.

But that is the main story of the protests:  The protestors are missing the point.  They don’t understand NATO: they don’t understand what it is, and they don’t remember all the good if has done over the years.  It sort of makes you wonder if they really know what they are doing at all.

Elizabeth Warren Doesn’t Want to Be a Native American – Except When She Does

There has been a big brouhaha in the Massachusetts Senate race recently involving Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate.  Ms. Warren is a law school professor, and at various times in the past either she or the schools that she worked for claimed that she was a Native American, in other words, a minority hire.  This is a little tricky because the best Ms. Warren, or her supporters, have been able to come up with to support a claim that she is Native American is that her great-great-great-grandmother may have been Cherokee, which would make her 1/32nd Native American.

But it’s not whether Ms. Warren is Native American, or should be able to claim Native American status, if she is just 1/32nd Native American that is interesting.  What is interesting is how adamant Ms. Warren is that her Native American status had nothing to do with her getting various jobs:

"[According to a spokesperson,] Elizabeth has been clear that she is proud of her Native American heritage and everyone who hired Elizabeth has been clear that she was hired because she was a great teacher, not because of that heritage."

But what’s wrong with being hired because of one’s heritage?  Liberals are always defending affirmative action on the grounds that it gives a chance to minorities who would be otherwise overlooked or not properly considered.  It forces employers to really look at candidates and not just hire someone like themselves.  Also, minority hires in a university can provide the kind of diversity in a faculty which will encourage minority students to do better.

So why shouldn’t Ms. Warren be proud of being hired because she was Native American?  A liberal should be glad to be looked at as an affirmative action hire who has proved herself to be a success as a great teacher.  Because promoting minorities is what affirmative action is all about.  So why is Ms. Warren protesting so hard that she has not been an affirmative action hire?  Does she think there is something wrong with it?

Keeping Candidates’ Children Out of Politics

President Obama says his position on same-sex marriage has evolved – and it has evolved, in a manner of speaking.  It has evolved back to where it was 16 years ago when, as a candidate for the Illinois Senate, he answered a questionnaire by saying he supported same-sex marriage.  That’s an interesting type of “evolution,” but I’m going to skip over that for now because that is not the point of this post.  Rather, I wanted to talk about keeping candidates’ children out of politics.

President Obama has said, and I totally agree, that families should be off limits to political attacks.  The President’s spouse should not be attacked, and the President’s children definitely are off limits.  The trouble is the President doesn’t follow his own rules.  Here is part of what the President said when he was explaining why he is now supporting gay marriage:

“You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

The trouble with the President using his children this way is that it is going to give some people the idea it’s okay for them to talk about the President’s children, too.  It’s not, but when the President uses his children to justify his policies, other people might be tempted to think they can use his family to criticize his policies. 

I don’t think that is right, and I don’t think that should be done.  But if families, and especially children, are supposed to be out of politics, then let’s keep them out of politics.  Both ways.

“Illinois Ponzi scheme fugitives caught in Arizona”

This was the headline on an Associated Press article today.  It surprised me because I didn’t realize that Michael Madigan, John Cullerton, and Pat Quinn were in Arizona.

Church Unity: For Today’s World – Or the Next?

Christian unity has been a goal of people and church leaders for centuries.  Today there are many conversations between Catholics and Protestants and among leaders of different Protestant groups about what they share and how they can join together.

But I have often wondered whether such unity is, in and for today’s world, the right goal.  It has often seemed to me that it has been the competition between different Christian groups, and the enthusiasm people had for their denominations or groups, that encouraged so many people to go out and spread the word of God.  Obviously, I am talking about peaceful and God-centered competition, not the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries – and more recent times.  As long as we all understand we are all working for the same goal and the same God, why does there have to be just one way of getting to God and one church to lead us there?  Why can’t there be a multitude of ways to get to God - and to get people to God.

A recent report issued by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, “Beliefs about God across Time and Countries,” may actually provide some support for my view:

“Countries with low atheism and high strong belief tend to be Catholic societies, especially in the developing world, plus the United States, Israel, and Orthodox Cyprus. … There is also evidence that religious competition and/or religious conflict may stimulate higher belief.  Belief is high in Israel …, Cyprus …, and Northern Ireland ….  In the United States there is relatively little overt religious conflict, but intense religious competition across both major religions and denominations within Christianity.” 

It seems to me competition does several things that may encourage belief and attendance.  First, as I said above, competition makes people more excited about their church and makes them more excited to go out and tell people about their church.  Second, it provides alternatives.  If there is only one major church or denomination (or even just a few), if you don’t like the church you are going to, you may just drop out of religion.  In the United States, however, if you don’t like one church, there are many others you can try.  And at least some of them may be reaching out to you.

Third, competition will keep church leaders on their toes – if they don’t want to lose their members to other churches.  When your congregation has choices, you have to do a better job.

While one church may be what we will rejoice in in the future that will come, for the world we live in today, more people may be led to God if we have a variety of churches all talking about God in their own way – and respecting the right of others to do the same.

Help in the Bullpen? Time for a Comback, Doug Dascenzo.

The Cubs clearly need help in the bullpen.  Woody is back, but he is only going to be used in the sixth or seventh inning.  Carlos Marmol is … well, better to not say anything about him.  Dale Sveum is talking about closing with James Russell or Rafael Dolis, but before we commit to one of them, let me make suggestion.  Instead of some young kid, how about proven veteran, a guy who has pitched for the Cubs in relief and has gotten the job done.  A guy who has never given up a run in all of his relief appearances for the Cubs – and somebody who is not going to injure himself shagging flyballs in the outfield during BP.  Who do I mean?  Doug Dascenzo, of course:

In four appearances over two years, Dougie pitched five innings without giving up a single run.  He had a WHIP of 1.00 and only walked two batters.  It doesn’t get any better than that.  And he set a then-National League record of 241 errorless games in the outfield at the start of his career, so we won’t need to worry about torn ACLs before the game even starts.

And don’t worry about him being too old.  He’s over than a year and a half younger than Jamie Moyer.

--------
Update (5/4/12 12:50 am): I changed to title to include Dougie's name. 

President Obama on Osama Bin Laden. John McCain on Heroes.

President Obama, and his campaign, are celebrating the anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  The Obama campaign has released a seven-minute video which includes Bill Clinton on the killing of Bin Laden.  The President himself, in a press conference with the Japanese prime minister, implied that Mitt Romney would not have sent the Navy SEALs in.  And President Obama flew to Afghanistan to sign an agreement with Afghan President Karzai* and to address the American people.  It was 4:00 am in Afghanistan, but just about prime time in the US.

The best comment on all of this may have been John McCain’s:

"I've had the great honor of serving in the company of heroes. And, you know the thing about heroes, they don't brag." 

---------
* I find it interesting that the President flew to Afghanistan personally to sign this agreement since, when he became president, he discontinued the regular personal communications that President George W. Bush had had with President Karzai.

"Psst: Mitt Romney Is Mormon – And They’re Weird"

As the Presidential campaign heats up (now that could be a cause of global warming), President Obama is celebrating the killing of Osama Bin Laden and trying to claim Mitt Romney would not have ordered it if Mr. Romney had been President.  (As if anyone believes President Obama on that one.)

Also, the Obama campaign is publishing the names of private citizens who have contributed to President Obama’s opponent, saying in effect*: “We’re the President’s campaign, and we know who you are and where you live.”  That’s a nice touch.  No hint of intimidation there.

So, here is the question for today:  When is the Obama campaign and/or its “friends” going to bring up Mitt Romney’s religion**, as in: “He’s a Mormon.  They’re weird.  They’re a cult.  We can’t have a Mormon in the White House.”  President Obama will stay above it all, of course, but it will be brought up.  The only question is when.

My guess is that the Democrats will wait until October.  It’s generally better to do something like that as late as possible.  If it’s right at the end of the campaign, it’s harder for your opponent to respond and for the press (or the blogs) to put out the real facts.  The only reason why they might do it earlier is if the Democrats get worried earlier and think they have to do something sooner. 

The only certainty is that Mitt Romney’s religion will be brought up as an issue by Democrats and that it will be nasty.

----------
* Kimberley A. Strassel, “The President Has a List,” The Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2012.  (The link should be good for a couple of days.)

** I realize Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) tried to raise the issue about ten days ago, but there was no follow up by other Democrats, probably because they realized it was too early.  The Obama campaign has said Mitt Romney’s religion is not an issue, but wait until the race gets tight in October and see what Democrats do.

Update (5/3/12 8:00 am): I added quotation marks around the title of this post to make it clear that this is what I think other people will say, not what I think.  I apologize for any confusion.

A Meeting of Nobel Peace Prize Winners – And Those Who Were Not There

There was a World Summit of Nobel Peace Prize laureates in Chicago last week.  Attendees included Lech Walesa, the Dalai Lama, Mikhail Gorbachev, Oscar Arias Sanchez (former president of Costa Rica), F.W. de Klerk (former president of South Africa and co-winner with Nelson Mandela), and Jimmy Carter.

It was a very impressive group, but perhaps more impressive were those who were not there because they were never awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.  I understand the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Mikhail Gorbachev.  He played a critical role in the transformation of Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  But he did not do it alone, and he didn’t succeed in what he was trying to do.  Instead of reforming the USSR, he killed it.  But the way he acted in the process of doing what he was trying to do was worth a share of a Nobel Peace Prize.

But that is the point.  It was only worth a share.  Because he should have shared it with two other people.  The Axel Springer publishing group understands this point and they get it right in the collection of busts outside their headquarters in Berlin.  They call them the “Fathers of [German] Unity,” but they are really the fathers of the peaceful transformation of Europe:

 
[Picture by Jennifer Allen, December 20, 2010]

Mikhail Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush and Helmut Kohl.  It was Helmut Kohl who drove the engine of German unification and worked to get the Soviet Union’s consent for this incredible accomplishment.  It was George H.W. Bush who provided the support to Chancellor Kohl and who set U.S. policy to help achieve German reunification and bring democracy to Eastern Europe, including even the Baltic states, peacefully.  And it was Mikhail Gorbachev, supported by Kohl and Bush, who was able to stay in power long enough so that his policy of non-interference in eastern Europe gave those countries the time to choose freedom and democracy.

The achievements of Kohl and Bush were outstanding.  They did something that could not have been reasonably foreseen even a year before 1989.  And Kohl and Bush did it in peace.  It was truly amazing.  They were accomplishments that truly deserved at least a share of a Nobel Peace Prize.

But I doubt either Helmut Kohl or George H.W. Bush really care.  At one point, George H.W. Bush was asked what he was proudest of.  He said it was that his kids came home.  I am sure that they still do, and I am sure that George H.W. Bush considers than more important than a Nobel prize.

As for Helmut Kohl, I think that being known as the father of German unification is much more important than winning a Nobel prize – and he’s right.

The Most Exciting Player on the Cubs

Matt Garza is probably our best pitcher.  Starlin Castro is our best player (and he only turned 22 last month; mind-boggling).  But probably the most exciting player on the Cubs right now is just 5’ 8” and weighs 165 pounds: Tony Campana. 

I don’t know how much the Cubs ever expected out of Tony.  When he came up to the Cubs last year, he had to first be put on the 40-man roster.  And this year he didn’t make the major league roster out of spring training.  But when Marlon Byrd was traded to the Red Sox, Tony came up.  And he has been awesome – and so much fun to watch.  I was at Wrigley Field last weekend and last Monday night.  When Tony got on base, he was a constant distraction to the pitcher.  The other team knew he was going to steal and they knew he was going to be safe, but they still had to try to stop him, which meant they couldn’t be giving their total concentration to the batter.  It was great.

And he doesn’t just affect the other team’s pitchers.  He affects their fielders, too.  Infielders know they have to field the ball cleanly and throw quickly in order to get Tony, and the fact that they know that can make them bobble the ball just a little, and that is enough for Tony to beat it out.  Also, infielders have to play in a couple of steps when Tony is batting because they have to get to the ball quickly if they are going to throw him out.  If they stay back, he could be safe.  Having the other team’s infielders playing in a couple of steps opens up bigger holes in the infield for more hits to get through.  (That’s just geometry.)

Consider yesterday’s win over the Phillies.  I had some things to do, so I wasn’t able to watch the game on TV.  But it was great just listening to the radio with Tony on base.  In the third inning, Campana singled.  The pitcher was so worried about Tony stealing that he mis-threw a pickoff throw to first and Tony went to second.  Darwin Barney moved him over to third.  When Starlin Castro hit a fly ball to shallow-to-medium right field, nobody else in the league would have tried to score, especially with Hunter Pence, who has had the most assists of any National League outfielder over the last four years, in the right field.  But Tony tried, and he was safe even though Pence threw a one-bounce strike to the catcher.

In the eighth inning, Tony singled on a soft ground ball to the second baseman.  He promptly stole second and was sacrificed to third by Darwin Barney.  With the Cubs already ahead 3 to 0, the Phillies played the infield in.  Starlin Castro hit a ground ball to second, but Campana was going on contact and he scored – again.  I didn’t see it, but it sure was fun to listen to.

Without those two runs, Cubs would have only been up by three, instead of five, when Carlos Marmol came in in the bottom of the ninth.  Who knows what would have happened if we had only had a three-run lead, since Marmol gave up a single and three walks, including walking in a run, before finally getting the third out.

Here’s what two Cubs said about Campana after Sunday’s game:

“‘We scored two runs on just flat out speed, that's all it was [said Cubs manager Dale Sveum]. Anybody else you don't even think about sending him on that [shallow] a fly ball, but a guy like that you send him on just about anything that's not on the infield dirt.’ 

Said [Cubs starting pitcher Matt] Garza: ‘He's just too quick. If I was facing him, it would be a pain in the butt. You want him to hit the ball hard. He's one of the few where you want him to hit the ball hard. You want him to get it up in the air. Because if he hits it on the ground, nine out of 10 times he's going to be safe. It's awesome for us, for the other guys it's a pain.pain.’”

Tony has gotten on base five times in the first three games of the series against the Phillies and he has scored each.  As Paul Sullivan said in the Tribune this morning, the Cubs are playing a variation of small ball:  “Campy Ball”.

Tony Campana:  Fun to watch and, right now, maybe the Cubs most exciting player.

The Heckler: “Pujols blames slow start on not facing Cubs anymore”

I had another article published in The Heckler: “Pujols blames slow start on not facing Cubs anymore”. You can find it here.

The High Cost of College Tuition - and Student Debt – Part 3

One trillion dollars.  No, that is not the cost of four years at an Ivy League college, though it may be pretty soon.  Rather, it is the total amount of student debt outstanding.  It has become a big deal in the last few weeks because, well, one trillion dollars is a lot of money, as well as being sort of a milestone or marker.  Also, when Congress cut the interest rate on student loans temporarily back in 2007, they had to put an end date on the temporary cut.  2012 is it.  If Congress doesn’t do something, the rate will go back up to 6.8% shortly.

Back in November I wrote two posts on “The High Cost of College Tuition”.  In one of the posts, I talked about the dramatic increase in college tuition over the last forty years, an increase that was way more than the increase in the Consumer Price Index.  In the other I talked about the fact that other costs have gone up more quickly than the CPI, too.  For example, medical costs.  But at least with medical costs, the quality of medical care has gone up, too.  I don’t think one can say that for college education. 

One of the concerns about the amount of student debt we have is the effect it could be having on the economy:

“Graduates lugging huge debt loads with few job opportunities to pay them off are reluctant to buy cars, purchase homes, or start families. Family formations, a key bulwark to home prices, have been in a seemingly inexplicable funk over the past five years or so.”

In November I left the question of what we can do about the cost of college tuition (and, tied in with it, student deft) to this post.  How can we make college more affordable?  The traditional answer, at least from politicians, has been to increase student loans and grants.  But the problem has been, when more loans or grants become available, tuition seems to go up, too.  Many colleges are already taking all of the money that students (and their parents) are willing to spend on college (plus a little, in some cases).  If students (and their parents) have more money available to spend on college tuition (because, for example, more federal loans are available or there are higher Pell grants), at least some colleges will increase tuition to get that money, too.*

This is why I was pleased to hear President Obama say this in his State of the Union address:

“Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money. … [C]olleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. … [L]et me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down.”

The President said a little bit more in a speech he gave at the University of Michigan on January 27, 2012:

“But it’s not just enough to increase student aid, and you can imagine why. Look, we can’t just keep on subsidizing skyrocketing tuition. If tuition is going up faster than inflation, faster than even health care is going up, no matter how much we subsidize it, sooner or later, we’re going to run out of money. And that means that others have to do their part. Colleges and universities need to do their part to keep costs down as well.

Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Here at Michigan, you’ve done a lot to find savings in your budget. We know this is possible. So from now on, I’m telling Congress we should steer federal campus-based aid to those colleges that keep tuition affordable, provide good value, and serve their students well. We are putting colleges on notice – you can’t keep – you can't assume that you’ll just jack up tuition every single year. If you can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down.”

Obviously, the President’s comments were pretty general.  The key will be what the Administration does to follow up on them, but it was good to at least hear him say this much.

After the President’s speech, college spokespeople were defensive.  At Northern Illinois University, officials claimed that they had been working hard to find financial aid for students and that “you have to be able to pay for the education that you’re delivering.  You do pay for quality.”  Christopher Kennedy, chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, said: “For a big research institution, we need to concentrate on affordability and greatness.”**

Others, including President Obama, have complained that tuition at public universities is going up because states have been cutting back on spending for state schools.  That is true in many cases.  But it really doesn’t address the underlying problem, which is that public colleges, like all colleges, do a lousy job of keeping their costs under control.

This also ties in with the student debt problem.  Making more loans available for students going to college really doesn’t make college more affordable.  It just increases debt students will have when they graduate from college.

And in its own way, increased state funding for public colleges doesn’t really solve the problem, either.  College is still too expensive.  It’s just being paid for by the public instead of the students.  At a time of growing demands on public funding for all kinds of things, I have to wonder if spending more money on colleges is really the answer.

The real question is not who pays college tuition.  The real question is does college need to be as expensive as it is.  All kinds of products and services are getting relatively less expensive, either because they cost less or because the quality is up – or both.  Colleges are neither.  They cost more and it is hard to see the quality being better.  Except maybe in one way.

The physical facilities are nicer.  Housing is nicer.  Food services are nicer.  There are health clubs.  It is almost as if colleges are competing on the fanciness of their facilities instead of the value of the education they provide.

The problem is that there is no (more accurately, not enough) pressure trying to keep tuition down.  And that ultimately is what we need to do, keep college tuition down.  Now, here comes the hard part:  To keep tuition down, you have keep costs down.  But keeping costs down can’t just mean keeping costs from increasing as quickly  To keep tuition down, i.e., to make college affordable, you have to actually cut costs.  Costs have to go down.  

There are plenty of good ideas about how to cut costs.  One is to get professors teach more – and research less, at least on students’ money.  If research by college professors is that important, maybe the state (or federal) government ought to pay for it directly, instead of making students pay for it. 

Administrative spending is a prime area for cost cutting.  Some reports indicate that administrative spending in colleges and universities has gone up even faster than tuition, which is pretty amazing considering how fast tuition has gone up.  According to one report, from 1993 to 2007 administrative costs per student went up 61% in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) terms.***  Another report noted that, in the California State University system, from 1975 to 2008, the number of teaching faculty went up 3%, while the number of administrators went up 221%.  The California State University System now has more administrators than teachers. 

Here is another idea: Companies that provide prep courses for college entrance exams or grad school exams have all kinds of different options.  Different courses (more intense or less intense).  Different ways to take the courses (in person, live lectures on the computer, taped lectures on the computer, etc.).  All with different price points.  Because there is competition and people can choose.

A lot could be done to keep costs and tuition down.  But how do we get the colleges and universities to do these things?

For public universities, I suppose that state legislatures could knock heads together.  State legislatures aren’t good at micro-managing (and some state legislators, often those with state schools in their districts, seem to be in the back pocket of the universities).  On the other hand, it is unclear how good the current administrations of a lot of our public universities are at managing, either.  Maybe states have to tell their colleges: Here is the amount of money we can afford to give you.  Here is the amount of tuition your students can afford to pay you.  And here are the number of students you have to admit.  If you can’t run the school on this basis, we’ll find somebody else who can.

President Obama has a good idea, too.  Maybe the key is simply for government, both federal and state, to stop subsidizing excessive tuition bills.  President Obama talked in general terms when he said to colleges and universities: “If you can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down.” 

Let me suggest something more specific.  Set a formula:  If tuition increases more than X% – or, even better, if tuition is more than $YY per year, then the maximum amount of loans and grants that a student can get to go to that college goes down.  In other words, the more you charge in tuition, the less the government will give a student to go there.  The less a college charges, the bigger the loan and/or grants available to students going there.  And if a school’s tuition gets too high, maybe we need to say that the government won’t help pay any of it.  After all, the federal government has a limited amount of money available to help students go to college.  Maybe the federal government should spend its money where it can do the most good for the most students – by helping as many students as possible go to schools that do the best job in keeping costs down.

I realize the problem with this last idea is that it might mean poor and middle class students would not be able to go to certain expensive schools – those schools whose annual tuition is more than a high-end luxury car.  I understand that may not seem fair.  These are supposedly the schools where the best and brightest go.  These are the schools that turn out leaders of our country.  I understand that it somehow doesn’t seem fair that some students can’t go there because their parents don’t have enough money.

On the other hand, how fair is it for students to have to mortgage their futures with loans to go to schools that seem to wear their high tuition as a badge of honor?  Or for middle class taxpayers to give grants and loans that, in effect, wind up supporting the upper middle class lifestyle of college academics?  Also, if poor and middle class students can’t afford to attend those schools, maybe we can shame those schools into either cutting their costs or at least figuring out a way to use some of their own money to help poor and middle class students go there.

The fact is:  College tuition can be lower.  Colleges can cut costs.  American businesses were forced to cut costs and get more efficient by foreign competition.  Businesses had to learn to get the job done with less money.  And they did.  Now colleges have to learn the same thing. 

But, just as businesses only cut costs because they were forced to, colleges will only cut costs if they are forced to.  So far, the best idea I have seen for forcing colleges to cut their costs is to reduce the amount of grants and loans that are available for students going to schools with the highest tuition.  As I said above, we need to tell schools: the more you charge in tuition, the less the government will give to students (either through grants or loans) to go to your school.  And the less you charge, the more that will be available to students who go to your school.  Obviously, this won’t be easy.  It won’t be fun, and it’s going to be really hard on the students who are in the middle.  But something has to be done to get college tuition down.  This seems like the best idea to me.  But if somebody has another one, I’m all ears. 

And that is where our federal system can help.  While some states and the federal government might try the idea I mentioned above, other states could try something else.  We could see what works and what doesn’t work.  Just like competition helps businesses figure out what is best, federalism and different states trying different ways to control college costs, can help us figure out the best way to control college costs. 

The bottom line is:  College costs have to come down.  It doesn’t matter how we do it.  Just so the job gets done.

----------
* This is not a point that people have only started making recently.  In going through my files on college costs, I found an article by Joan Beck making this very point over 15 years ago: Joan Beck, “Proposed tax break for college only of temporary help,” Chicago Tribune, September 15, 1996.

** Christi Parsons and Kathleen Hennessey, “Obama targets college costs,” Chicago Tribune, January 28, 2012.

*** Schumpeter: “How to make college cheaper,” The Economist, July 9, 2011.

Wisconsin: Maybe Not So Nice

Remember when U.S. Representative Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords (D-AZ) was shot In January of last year, and so many people were concerned about the lack of civility in political discourse in the United States?

Well, here is what former Democratic Representative David Obey of Wisconsin, former Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, had to say about the effort to recall Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin:

“‘They [i.e., Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and U.S. Representative Paul Ryan] genuflect Ayn Rand* three times a day before they go to work and they come in, whether it’s at the federal level or the state level, and they screw working people every time they turn around. It shouldn’t mystify people why (unions) are more active.  They have their backs against the wall. The governor has a switchblade out and it’s at their throat. So they’re going to fight back with everything they have.’”

That’s a nice, friendly comment.  A lot of civility there.  No animosity or exaggeration.  Just accusing Governor Walker of getting ready to slit the throats of his opponents with a switchblade knife.

It’s already been a long campaign season, and I’m afraid it’s going to get even longer.

---------
* The reference to Ayn Rand is, apparently, this month's Democratic talking point about Paul Ryan.  The President is making it, and Democrats up and down the line, like former Representative Obey, are picking it up, too.  It’s not true, but that doesn’t matter.  It’s the charge du jour from the DNC, and Democrats will make it until the next one comes along.

Wisconsin: The Drive to Recall Scott Walker: Look for the Union Label

As part of the process of trying to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Wisconsin Democrats are holding a primary election to see who will run against Governor Walker in the recall election.  Recalls in Wisconsin work like this:  Once enough signatures are submitted, a new election is scheduled.  Each of the parties then has to select its candidate for the recall election.  If a party has more than one candidate file to run, a primary is held.  The Democrats in Wisconsin have five people running in their primary.  Of the five, it is my understanding that the two big ones are Kathleen Falk, former county executive of Dane County (which includes Madison), and Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee.

While all Democrats want to get rid of Governor Walker, some of the unions have a preference as to which Democrat gets to try.  Josh Eidelson at Salon.com reports:

“Barrett’s run was actively discouraged by some unions that had held union contract negotiations with both him and Falk. … In an April 7 statement, WSEU [Wisconsin State Employees Union] wrote that whereas Falk had a history of ‘working with our members to solve problems,’ Barrett ‘wasn’t interested in working with us’ to get a collective bargaining agreement signed in the weeks before Walker’s anti-union bill passed ….  Wisconsin Education Association Council president Mary Bell says that Falk distinguished herself last year both by negotiating in good faith with union members to reach agreements before Walker’s bill passed and by traveling the state in support of recall efforts afterward.”

Let me see if I understand this argument.  The unions are supporting Ms. Falk because she rushed to get new contracts signed with them before the new law came into effect, so that these contracts could, among other things, cover things and do things that the new law wouldn’t allow. 

The unions and their supporters, of course, think this was a win-win for public employees and the public.  Their view is that it lets public workers negotiate with their employers on terms of employment, which is good, and which is just what workers in private industry get to do.  They dismiss the view that public employment is different than private employment because private sector unions don’t get to elect the people they are bargaining with.  In the public sector, however, unions can wind up negotiating with people they endorsed and helped elect to office, and maybe even contributed to, while it is the taxpayers who pay the bills.

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, tells about the time he heard then-Governor Jon Corzine tell a public employee union rally that he would fight to get them a good contract.  Governor Christie says he thought to himself: “[W]ho’s he fighting with?  Once he says that, the fight’s over.”*

Some people say that Governor Walker has gone too far in his law restricting public employees’ bargaining rights.  He had some good points, but he went too far.  I don’t live in Wisconsin, so I don’t know for sure.  What I do know is some of the things that have come from the new law.  Before the law was passed, the Wisconsin Education Association could, and in some cases did, negotiate for a clause in teachers’ contracts that required local school boards to buy health insurance from the WEA Trust.** 

One of the things Governor Walker’s new law provided was that unions couldn’t negotiate for that kind of a clause.  Which meant that school districts whose contracts came up for renewal after the new law took effect couldn’t be forced by contract to buy the health insurance for their teachers from the WEA Trust.  A number of school districts switched to other insurance companies, and some of them saved upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  One school district kept the WEA Trust as its health care insurer but got the WEA Trust to cut its price to meet a lower offer from another company.  Some districts used the savings to avoid teacher layoffs.  Others were able to avoid tax increases in a weak economy. (Here and here.)

So, did Governor Walker go too far?  I don’t know.  But when you hear public employee unions saying Governor Walker is right next to the devil (I don’t know which side), think about those school districts that aren’t laying off teachers or raising taxes because Scott Walker’s law let them buy the health insurance for their teachers from the most cost effective provider, instead of being forced by the union to buy it from the union’s own carrier.

And when unions praise Ms. Falk for rushing to get new labor agreements signed before Governor Walker’s bill came into effect, think about those school districts that didn’t have a choice to buy their health insurance from somebody other than the WEA Trust – and wonder who it is really good for.

---------
* Jennifer Rubin, “What is it about Chris Christie?”, Right Turn Blog, February 28, 2011 (printed), Washingtonpost.com.

** According to the WEA Trust, less than 30 school districts had such a clause.  Of course, less than 30 is more than zero.