October 18-21, 2013
Oct 18 00:51 ISELF on KSTP Oct 18 08:10 The sinkable Affordable Care Act? Oct 18 14:01 Transcript silence is broken Oct 18 23:58 Destroying the Affordable Care Act Oct 19 17:57 Lawlessness + Incompetence = Obama administration Oct 20 00:19 A light shining in the darkness Oct 20 11:16 Affordable Care Act = modern day prohibition? Oct 20 22:07 Transcript silence is broken, Part II Oct 21 08:27 Mindlessness in less than 75 words
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ISELF on KSTP
This morning, I was interviewed by KSTP's Tom Hauser. Before going further, I'll just state that Hauser was polite and professional during the interview. Tonight, KSTP ran this story highlighting the virtually empty ISELF building. They also included this video of the segment:
Here's how LFR was mentioned:
A conservative blogger and frequent critic of spending at SCSU says taxpayers are getting "ripped off" after spending $45 million from the 2011 bonding bill to pay for ISELF. Gary Gross, writing in his " Let Freedom Ring" blog , features pictures of many empty spaces in the building he says were taken by an unidentified professor who questions the building's use. Gross blames university leaders "for selling legislators a grand vision that they didn't think through."
I've been a frequent critic of the University's spending because they've made some questionable financial decisions. Further, I'd add that I'm not alone in this thinking.
Most importantly, I'm skeptical of the timeline for filling ISELF because SCSU is facing some significant budget cuts. At the most recent Meet & Confer meeting, the administration announced that they're cutting their budget for this year "by $2.9 million." That's the minimum they'll cut, however. It'll be significantly higher that $2.9 million.
It's important to remember that the administration virtually admitted that they don't have the money to finish the Hockey Center renovation. It's imperative to remember that it'll literally cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars to properly equip ISELF. That's before talking about how much money it'll cost to install a topnotch security system. Without the right security, CEOs won't have SCSU do their research. Speaking of which, some CEOs were interviewed for the article:
Ned Tabat, CEO of Semaphore Scientific, says his company is close to signing an agreement with the university. His business card already features the address of the ISELF building. "There are capabilities here for doing advance nano-fabrication which is the cornerstone of some of the devices we're developing," Tabat says. His company is also hiring interns from SCSU.
The CEO of another St. Cloud company, Brad Goskowicz of Microbiologics, says his company has been working with university professors and students for several years, even before ISELF. They'll likely expand that relationship. "They have expertise in areas that we don't have and that helps us grow a lot faster," says Goskowicz.
Mr. Goskowicz just admitted that they were working with SCSU prior to the construction of ISELF, which raises the question of whether ISELF was needed. Would a less expensive option have been a better option?
Beyond what was in the interview, the administration hasn't answered some troubling questions. First, during the video, they showed Dr. David DeGroote cutting the ribbon. He was relieved of his ISELF responsibilities in March, 2013. First, why was he removed from those responsibilities? Second, why did President Potter give him the prestigious responsibility of cutting the ribbon at their high-profile event?
It's possible to properly equip ISELF while cutting the SCSU budget by $3,000,000-$5,000,000 this year. It just isn't the wisest decision because it'd significantly hurt other departments. Robbing Peter to pay Paul might make Paul your ally but it comes with a steep price. In this instance, there's reason to think Potter would have to rob Peter and Paul to pay to properly equip ISELF.
Posted Friday, October 18, 2013 12:59 AM
Comment 1 by James Rugg at 19-Oct-13 01:15 PM
Question: What is the purpose of our publicly funded universities, such as St. Cloud State University?
Is it to educate students to provide them with the tools to improve and grow theirs and the country's future?
That can be accomplished by programs that fill productive jobs for business and by efficient use of taxpayer funds. It is questionable whether either of these factors are occurring at St. Cloud State. The ISELF building and over 4 million dollars spent on social programs are examples causing concern.
The sinkable Affordable Care Act?
Michael Barone is one of the smartest columnists in DC. He isn't given to hyperbole. Mostly, he's a thoughtful man who only goes where verified information takes him. That's why the Obama administration should worry about Barone's latest column :
Klein fears Obamacare won't. It's not just a problem of overloaded servers. Everyone knew there would be lots of traffic in a nation of 312,000,000 people. Information technology folks say it's easy to add servers. It's harder to get software systems to communicate. And as Klein quotes insurance consultant Robert Laszewski, "the backroom connection between the insurance companies and the federal government is a disaster."
The reconciliation system isn't working and hasn't even been tested, Klein reports. Insurers are getting virtually no usable data from the exchanges.
Bloomberg.com columnist Megan McArdle, who unlike most Obamacare architects actually worked at an IT firm for a couple of years, sees the possibility of even more trouble ahead. She points out that the administration delayed writing major rules during the 2012 campaign to avoid giving Republicans campaign fodder.
The biggest contractor did not start writing software code until spring 2013. They were still fiddling with the healthcare.gov website in September.
Instead of subcontracting the responsibility for integrating the software of the multiple contractors, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decided to do it in-house, "a decision," she writes, "equivalent to someone who has never even hung a picture deciding they should become their own general contractor and build a house."
"If the exchanges don't get fixed soon," she writes, "they could destroy Obamacare." You need the exchanges to enroll enough young healthy people to subsidize those who are sick and old, which is one of the central features of Obamacare.
The conventional wisdom is that, eventually, the administration will fix the exchanges and that people will live happily ever after. I'm questioning the CW. What guarantee do we have that anyone will figure out how to get HHS systems to communicate with the IRS system and other systems?
The potential crisis that might sink the Affordable Care Act is that they can't get enough young healthy people to sign up for insurance through the exchanges. If that happens, which I think is a distinct possibility, the Affordable Care Act collapses because the government subsidies would be so substantial that it couldn't be sustained for any significant amount of time.
Posted Friday, October 18, 2013 8:10 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 18-Oct-13 08:44 AM
I like your theory, but it has at least one flaw, and that is that you consider the potentially large government spending on Obamacare subsidies as a fatal flaw. Since when do Democrats care about deficit spending?
No, if anything sinks this monstrous abomination, it will be a massive public uprising against the massive cost increases for those NOT being subsidized, the penalties for those who couldn't get through healthcare.gov to GET the subsidies, and the rapid decrease in quality and availability of actual health care for everybody. NONE of which will help unless these angry folks show up at the polls and vote for every Republican they can find.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Oct-13 08:55 AM
It isn't a flaw because it isn't like these subsidies will be routine in size. You're right that deficits don't get anyone's attention in DC.
If young people don't sign up, insurance companies won't have a choice to substantially increase the premiums for older people with health issues.
That, in turn, will make insurance too expensive for millions of people nationwide. That will require massive subsidies, not routine subsidies.
You're right that it'll require Republicans winning elections. That'll be made easier, not easy, when people can't afford health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Transcript silence is broken
How Easy Is It to Change A Transcript? You Decide!
by Silence Dogood
'In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot.' Czeslaw Milosz (Polish Poet)
The discovery by faculty of transcript adulterations, where a student's record of registration is removed from their academic transcript, was brought to the attention of the administration at a meeting on May 2, 2012 [Provost Malhotra, Registrar Sue Bayerl, Associate Provost John Palmer, Special Assistant to the Provost Phil Godding, FA President Mark Jaede, FA President-Elect Susan Hubbs, and Academic Affairs Committee Chair Jack McKenna were present].
The transcript adulterations were initially discovered because the chemistry department had recently instituted a policy where a student taking a class for the third time needs to have permission from the instructor to advance register for the course. During registration in the spring of 2012, two chemistry faculty were reviewing the enrollment for an upcoming fall organic chemistry course. They recognized a student who was enrolled that each of the faculty thought each had failed and they wondered how the student could have registered without prior faculty approval. A review of the student's transcript showed that the student's enrollment in organic chemistry in the Fall of 2011 was erased (none of the other classes the student had been taking that semester were removed). The faculty member has a copy of the grade roster submitted to the Office of Records and Registration showing that the student had received a grade of F in the course so this is a mater of fact not just the recollection of a professor.
What is important to note is that this adulteration was done without the knowledge of the professor. The use of the term adulteration may seem harsh. But removing the registration of a student from a class they attended and for which they received a final grade at it's completion without including the faculty member in the decision process is unethical and compromises the integrity of the grading process.
Data was presented at the May 2nd meeting by John Palmer, which showed almost an exponential growth in the incidence of such "drops," later called "poofs" by Provost Malhotra at a Meet and Confer meeting, increasing from 14 in FY07 to an anticipated 490* in FY12. Please note that the plot shows only 368 for FY12 but this number reflects data for only 9 months (calculation of the anticipated total was made by the author). Including the estimate of the number of drops in the missing three months increases the number of drops (assuming a constant rate of drops) to a total of 490. If the number of drops increases at the end of the semester when grades are reported as one might expect, the number would be higher than 490. Even without an exact number for FY12, the trend is quite evident and startling!
At that same meeting Professor McKenna directly asked Provost Malhotra to put his signature on all future drops. Provost Malhotra refused and instead suggested that additional data be collected and a meeting would be scheduled to discuss the results. That meeting never happened and no additional data was ever shared.
What was not known to the faculty at the time was that the data that John Palmer was referring to was actually generated by the business office because any time a grade is dropped, it triggers a refund to the student. It was also later determined that a number of withdrawals ('W') also led to a tuition refund. A plot of the total number of drops and withdrawals that led to a tuition refund is shown in the plot below.
Comparison of the data contained in these two tables clearly shows that not all drops led to a tuition reimbursement. As a result, the number of drops in the first table may actually under report the number of drops because only drops which led to a tuition reimbursement are counted. Clearly the process utilized by the administration was not consistently applied since not everyone receiving a drop got their money back.
However, what is even more disconcerting, at least to the faculty, is that the administration seemed to be concerned about grades being removed from transcripts because it was costing them money, not because it was a matter of academic integrity! The total cost for each year is shown in the chart below.
The total cost for tuition refunds from FY07 through FY12 was $1,797,554. If the administration had properly processed tuition reimbursements for all of the drops, the total tuition refund would be even larger. Considering that this substantial increase in tuition refunds was occurring during three years of significant Fall enrollment declines (F'11 -5.94%, F'12 -4.49%, and F'13 -5.6%), there are obvious consequences for the university's budget.
Clearly, there are reasons it is quite legitimate for a course to be removed from a transcript. However, it is almost impossible to believe that the changes observed since FY09 are anything other than the result of a change in behavior on the part of the administration regarding drops and withdrawals rather than a consistent application of a process. Had the administration not had a significant financial consequence in allowing tuition reimbursements, it is unlikely that they would have had any interest in the impact on drops and withdrawals on the academic integrity of St. Cloud State University. Had the administration been concerned about the issue of academic integrity, they would have shared the information with the Faculty Association rather than have the Faculty Association discover it for themselves.
This spring, Justin Burt, a representative of the Department of Education, accompanied by FBI Special Agent Shane A. Ball, were on campus to investigate whether or not the refund of tuition to students violated federal financial aid guidelines. When Special Agent Ball was asked whether or not the FBI was concerned that some of the international students receiving 'poofs' or withdrawals might have been in violation of their student visas, he responded "that would be a matter of interest to Homeland Security--we are only focused on whether or not federal financial aid guidelines were violated."
Data provided by John Palmer in his report of May 10, 2013 indicated there were 1,197 cases where academic petitions were submitted between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012 (FY12). Of the 1,197 cases a subset of 237 cases (19.7%) were selected for further review. Analysis of this subset indicates that the outcome for the largest number of cases (57.4%) were requests for late withdrawals that were granted. A late withdrawal is where a student does not withdraw from the course by the date where 80% of the class has been completed. In this case, a "W" is entered on a student's transcript. The second largest outcome was for a drop (35.9%) where the record of the student's registration in the course(s) is erased from their transcript. The third outcome was that 6.3% of the requests were denied and no change was made. The percentages don't total exactly 100% because the data for one record is missing.
The data indicates that the most likely outcome in 93.6% of the cases was that the student's request was granted. Analysis of the reasons given for the requested change show that the majority of the requests (53%) were for medical, family, or financial reasons. The data also shows that 39.7% of the requests were for a change to all courses for a given term. This means that in 60.3% of the cases, only a subset of courses were changed. Without further information, it is not possible to analyze whether or not some of these cases were 'scams' of the system or not. Clearly, a student who has broken their arm might reasonably ask to be dropped from a bowling or drawing class. It might not make as much sense to drop the same student from an online history class. However, without further information, not much can be determined from the data.
Most faculty clearly recognize the financial impact of the tuition reimbursements for dropped courses. However, most faculty will also be probably more concerned about the possible impact of the adulterations of student's academic transcripts on the academic integrity of SCSU. All along, the administration has maintained that there is no problem with student drops. It was recently mentioned that only when Channel 9 was interested in doing a story did it became a 'problem.' Too bad the administration didn't take the advice of university faculty on the seriousness of this issue because once the reputation of a university is tarnished, it takes a LONG time, if ever, to restore the original luster. And the administration has yet to take the necessary first steps on the way back. Let's all hope that they don't wait too long.
Posted Friday, October 18, 2013 6:45 PM
No comments.
Destroying the Affordable Care Act
When your opponents are destroying themselves, the best strategy is to step aside and let the destruction continue. Let their fingerprints be the only fingerprints found at the scene of the crime. That's how I preface this video of Ted Cruz vowing to do anything he can to "stop the trainwreck that is Obamacare":
Frankly, the best thing Ted Cruz, Jim DeMint and others can do to hasten the death of the Affordable Care Act is to step aside and let the exchanges destroy public confidence in the Affordable Care Act. With Democrats like Robert Gibbs saying that people should get fired for their incompetence in putting together the federal health insurance exchanges, the best strategy is to let them criticize it.
If the federal health insurance exchanges aren't fixed by mid-December, when the next hostage-taking is scheduled, the GOP will have a compelling argument that the individual mandate should be postponed for a year. Tonight on the Special Report Roundtable, Juan Williams complained that "Republicans haven't provided the monies that the administration asked for for this rollout." Bret Baier, Howard Kurtz and Charles Krauthammer each criticized Juan, with Bret Baier gettin in the sharpest hit in this exchange:
JUAN WILLIAMS: Baucus was complaining that they didn't have enough money to fully advertise and explain this complicated system.
BRET BAIER: I'm telling you, Juan, if you had all the advertising money in the world, the website still wouldn't be working.
Bret Baier's reply hit the heart of the matter. This isn't just a PR nightmare. Putting lipstick on the Affordable Care Act pig won't shift public opinion. As long as the exchanges don't work, the Affordable Care Act's exchanges won't be popular. There's no question that the rollout of the Affordable Care Act has been disastrous on multiple fronts. The HealthCare.gov website isn't ready for primetime :
LUKE CHUNG: It wasn't designed well. It wasn't implemented well. It looks like nobody tested it.
JAN CRAWFORD: Luke Chung's company builds online database programs. He supports the new health care law. He says it's not demand that's crashing HealthCare.gov. The entire website needs a complete overhaul.
LUKE CHUNG: It's not close. It's not even ready for beta testing from my book. I would be ashamed and embarassed if my organization delivered something like that.
The story shouldn't include anything about Republicans. The story should be about people not being able to access the Affordable Care Act's exchanges' websites, the expensive health insurance premiums and high deductibles on the bronze level plans.
If a reporter asks for a Republican's opinion, the response should be simple: "The facts speak for themselves. The exchanges don't work. When people accessed the exchanges, people found that their health insurance premiums were high, the deductibles were expensive and they couldn't keep their plan even though they liked it."
Let everything point back to the disasters of the Affordable Care Act. Don't bring politicians' names into it. If it's constantly about the policy provisions, Republicans sound like solutions-oriented public servants, not bitter politicians.
Howard Kurtz made the right observation when he said that it's time to retire "the g-word -- glitches." He's right. This isn't about a few minor software adjustments that drive the website. It's about a system that the government didn't have the expertise to implement, much less run efficiently.
Health insurance policies bought through the exchanges are too expensive, even with the subsidies. The website doesn't work. In too many instances, people can't keep their existing plans. Finally, families' health care costs will rise significantly thanks to the Not That Affordable Care Act.
Posted Friday, October 18, 2013 11:58 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Oct-13 08:51 AM
My initial reaction is I dislike this argument greatly, because I don't think it moral or sensible to let all Americans "learn the hard way," by coming to great harm, what we already know-- that Obamacare is a disaster.
On the other hand, we seem powerless to prevent the tragedy, and half measures only permit these would-be Commissars to blame US when the thing comes apart like a dime watch. Better to be the innocent bystanders but, on the third hand, it would be more to our credit if we could be seen as at least having fought the battle. In other words, I wouldn't fight for a delay of the individual mandate! I have argued, in fact, that Republicans should insist that the law be implemented exactly as Congress wrote it, with no delays or exemptions for anybody. Let Democrats oppose THAT!
The other thing Republicans should be trumpeting is the fact that people are losing their insurance now, and many more cannot afford the Obamacare-compliant policies NOR can they even get through to purchase on the exchanges. Therefore, millions of people will be FORCED, because of Obamacare, to pay the IRS penalties come Jan. 1, as well as being involuntarily uninsured.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Oct-13 10:33 AM
Don't overthink this, Jerry. First, let's stipulate that we're powerless in stopping the calamity. Second, we don't have to fight it to gain credibility. We just have to be specific in our criticisms, then say 'I told you so' when it happens. Specifically, highlight how expensive the Affordable Care Act is and how limited the networks are. Third, we have to have a single, well-thought through proposal to replace this trainwreck.
Finally, it's imperative that we stop calling it Obamacare. A recent Bloomberg poll showed that 70% of people hate Obamacare but that same amount think the Affordable Care Act is alright. People apparently don't know that the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare are the same thing.
We've already bloodied up Obamacare. Now it's time to give the Affordable Care Act the same negative reputation that Obamacare has.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 19-Oct-13 12:11 PM
Gary:
I think part of the problem is that in order for the public to understand all of the problems and in order to make them ready for the replacement product we have to be vocal and visible attacking it.
Mind you I heard on Rush's show this week a liberal blog on a very left wing blog site put up a negative post on the law and was posted quite heavily in a negative manner by people who didn't understand the law. If we're not visibile in attacking it people will still not understand (like the label reference you mentioned) how it's not working.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 19-Oct-13 08:02 PM
My thought is that we can criticize it all we want but, like a tree falling in the forest, if that criticism doesn't hit somebody, nobody will hear it. By fighting quixotically, the media are forced to report our criticisms. Even though they will claim we're crazy extremists, the critical message will at least get out.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 19-Oct-13 09:11 PM
The easiest way to get it noticed is through hearings, asking questions, then making Youtube videos of the foolish replies the administrators make.
Don't overthink things. This isn't that complicated. Let the idiots make the case against themselves with their own words.
Lawlessness + Incompetence = Obama administration
If we know anything about this administration, it's that a) they're highly ideological, b) they don't hesitate in ignoring laws and c) they're utterly incompetent. Now that it's confirmed that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is refusing to testify , it's time to subpoena her and force her testimony.
The Affordable Care Act's botched rollout has stunned its media cheering section, and it even seems to have surprised the law's architects. The problems run much deeper than even critics expected, and whatever federal officials, White House aides and outside contractors are doing to fix them isn't working. But who knows? Omerta is the word of the day as the Obama Administration withholds information from the public.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is even refusing to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in a hearing this coming Thursday. HHS claims she has scheduling conflicts, but we hope she isn't in the White House catacomb under interrogation by Valerie Jarrett about her department's incompetence.
The department is also refusing to make available lower-level officials who might detail the source or sources of this debacle. Ducking an investigation with spin is one thing. Responding with a wall of silence to the invitation of a duly elected congressional body probing the use of more than half a billion taxpayer dollars is another. This Obama crowd is something else.
Secretary Sebelius is acting like she's above oversight. That's unacceptable at any time but it's especially unacceptable when she's overseeing the biggest trainwreck in recent history. This paragraph is telling:
No doubt a hearing would be a spectacle - with TV cameras on hand - but Mrs. Sebelius can't hide forever. Even pro-entitlement liberals want to know about what went wrong and why, how much if any progress is being made, and whether the ObamaCare website Healthcare.gov will be usable in a matter of months - or years.
Let's summarize what we know and don't know. First, it's indisputable that the federal health insurance exchanges don't work. Second, we don't know how long it'll take to get the federal health insurance exchanges fully functional. Third, we aren't certain that people purchasing insurance through the federal exchanges are eligible for federal premium support payments. Thanks to this federal lawsuit , it's anything but certain that people purchasing health insurance through federal-run health insurance exchanges will get premium support.
Fourth, we know that Kathleen Sebelius has time to attend a gala the night before the committee hearing. Fifth, we know that IT experts have stated that they'd be ashamed if their work was this big of disaster :
LUKE CHUNG: It wasn't designed well. It wasn't implemented well. It looks like nobody tested it.
JAN CRAWFORD: Luke Chung's company builds online database programs. He supports the new health care law. He says it's not demand that's crashing HealthCare.gov. The entire website needs a complete overhaul.
LUKE CHUNG: It's not close. It's not even ready for beta testing from my book. I would be ashamed and embarassed if my organization delivered something like that.
Despite all that we know that's disturbing and all that isn't known that we need to know, Kathleen Sebelius apparently thinks she's beyond congressional oversight questioning. It's time she learned, harshly if needed, that she isn't.
Posted Saturday, October 19, 2013 5:57 PM
No comments.
A light shining in the darkness
Most Almanac Roundtable panelists think that conservatives are lunatics who couldn't do anything right if their life depended on it. Friday night's panelists were Larry Jacobs and Kathryn Pearson from the U of M, David Schultz from Hamline and Steve Schier from Carlton College. Predictably, the subject was identifying the political winners and losers from the government shutdown. Most of the conversation was about bashing conservatives, especially TEA Party activists. Just when all hope for an informative conversation seemed lost, Larry Jacobs provided this insight:
You know, it's very interesting. We tend to be very short-term oriented. November, 2014 is the date that's really going to really make a difference. That's a long way off. When you look back at the 1995 shutdown, there was a big focus on 'Did Clinton get a boomerang in his favor in the 96 election'? Research doesn't really show that and, when you look at this more carefully, I think the news for the Democrats is not so rosy. There could definitely be some Republicans looking at the data thinking that 'we're gonna bide our time here. The main thing that I see happening on the Democratic side is President Obama's approval rating sliding down. There's been a little bit of an uptick but the general trend has been downward. The bigger point is that 71% of Americans are now saying that the economy is worse off. That's going to further drive down the president's approval rating. And we know, probably, that the drop in consumer confidence and other factors will further drive down. All of that will likely create a drag on Democratic candidates going into 2014.
When Christopher Stevens was killed in Benghazi, the administration knew they'd be protected by their media allies. That meant they could stonewall investigators until after the election. That isn't the case here. There's tons of time for reality to set in. People are already noticing the expensive insurance premiums, the unreliable health insurance exchange website and the high deductibles.
There's no question that President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Jay Carney and allies like Nancy Pelosi will attempt to hide the fact that the Affordable Care Act isn't working and isn't workable. It's junk. This administration's spin won't work. Eventually, reality catches up with the spin. Jay Carney's and Kathleen Sebelius's insistance that things are working or that they're working around the clock to fix things won't mean much when the conversation at water coolers across the nation is that HealthCare.gov isn't workiing.
As people find out that the flaws in HealthCare.gov's aren't glitches, people will take it out on Democrats since they're the only ones that voted for the Affordable Care Act. When people find out that the Affordable Care Act's exchanges aren't working because the software is deeply flawed, they'll have reason to think that the Party of Big Government is inept. Once that sinks in, Democrats will have a difficult fight on their hands.
Schultz, Schier and Pearson can think Republicans are big losers and that Democrats will retake the House because of that but that isn't reality. The reality is that Republicans can point to some votes that Democrats cast against extremely popular things. That's especially true in the Senate, where Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Mark Begich and Mark Pryor voted against delaying the individual mandate, against repealing the medical device tax while voting for giving politicians a subsidy for health insurance that isn't available to other people making the same salary.
People don't like politicians who expect special treatment while shafting working people. Democrats should expect a particularly bumpy road through next November.
Posted Sunday, October 20, 2013 12:19 AM
No comments.
Affordable Care Act = modern day prohibition?
Each Sunday morning, I can't wait to get to the computer in anticipation of reading George Will's column and Salena Zito's columnn. There are other columnists I enjoy reading, of course. It's just that Mr. Will and Ms. Zito are especially skilled at their craft. They're both skilled at not losing track of Main Street. Ms. Zito's column today is especially thought-provoking. The premise of the article is that the Affordable Care Act isn't doing what it promised to do, much like Prohibition didn't live up to its promises:
In 1923, five years after the implementation of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that effectively banned alcohol, Americans felt disillusioned with Prohibition. None of the grand promises of what would follow its passage had come to pass - not even close.
Drunkenness and spousal abuse had increased, as had crime in general; the cost of federal and state government had grown at a pace no one foresaw, and respect for the law at all levels had largely evaporated.
Those and other effects of Prohibition contradicted every reason given for enacting the constitutional amendment.
The economic impact on Main Street was strikingly harmful as well: Breweries, distilleries, hotels, restaurants and pubs closed, leading to the loss of thousands of jobs. Those losses were compounded by cutbacks in industries that supported those businesses, such as truck drivers and skilled tradesmen.
While Ted Cruz, Mike Lee or Michele Bachmann insist that this was the last, best opportunity to stop the Affordable Care Act, I've respectfully disagreed. The Affordable Care Act is riddled with difficulties that won't be fixed anytime soon.
Back during my poker- and cribbage-playing days, I got some hands that were terrible. That's why I coined this phrase:
The only right way to throw this hand is away.
It's amazing that that saying fits the Affordable Care Act perfectly. President Obama and his allies point to a few provisions that people like, like dealing with insuring people with pre-existing conditions. Other parts of the Affordable Care Act hurts the economy, hurts families and doesn't improve people's lives. For every person the ACA helps, families get hurt.
This isn't a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's a case of robbing Peter, Pamela, Joanie and Johnny, aka the PPJJ familiy, to pay Paul. To pay for Paul's insurance, insurance premiums for the PPJJ family must necessarily skyrocket. They have to make money from someone and they can't make it off of Paul.
This section of Ms. Zito's article is the literary equivalent to a punch in the gut:
Just like Prohibition, ObamaCare promised from its onset to change the world: It would provide universal health-insurance coverage at a lower cost without any reduction in coverage choices or quality care, and all of it easily accessed through a government website.
So far it has been nothing short of a disaster.
It is not lower in cost (premiums for many middle-class purchasers are double those of their current plans, with deductibles tripling), nor is it easily accessed. It has been riddled with exceptions and loopholes benefiting federal employees, labor unions and big businesses.
It also has chipped away at our economy: Many companies are reducing full-time staff to part-time hours, in order to skirt ObamaCare's mandate that employers must provide health-insurance coverage to employees who work 30 or more hours per week.
Those 4 paragraphs encapsulate what's wrong with the Affordable Care Act. It isn't just that the exchanges aren't operating properly. It's that insurance is significantly more expensive than it was before. It's that people's policies are getting dropped, then replaced with more expensive policies. It's that people are starting to trust government less as a direct result of the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act's exchanges.
Those facts don't guarantee the Affordable Care Act going the way of Prohibition. They just strengthen the case that it should.
Posted Sunday, October 20, 2013 11:16 AM
No comments.
Transcript silence is broken, Part II
An Attempt at Restoring Academic Integrity
by Silence Dogood
At Meet and Confer on October 18, 2012, the Faculty Association (FA), almost six months from the initial meeting on May 2, 2013 to discuss transcript adulterations where the evidence that a student had registered for a course is removed from their academic transcript, officially asked for the data for all "poofs" (a term coined by Provost Devinder Malhotra) granted from FY07 to FY12 including the reason for the request and the person who approved the request for removal from the transcript. The FA also asked for a committee to be formed that would include faculty to review all future drops. Provost Malhotra said that this matter was an administrative prerogative and he would not consider participation of the faculty.
The Faculty Association was later informed by the administration that the data requested was stored in multiple locations and multiple formats and would be prohibitively expensive to obtain. What the administration agreed to provide was an analysis of a representative sample of one year's data. The administration stated that for FY 2012, there were 1,197 academic petitions submitted requesting a change in status. Data provided by John Palmer in his report of May 10, 2013 indicated that out of the 1,197 cases where academic petitions were submitted between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012 (FY12), a subset of 237 cases (19.7%) were selected for further review.
Late in Spring Semester, a copy of the original data set without identifying information was obtained. Identifying information was removed so that it would not violate FERPA (Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act). It is important to note that this data was not provided officially by the administration. Until the Palmer report, the only data provided by the administration was provided by President Potter at Meet and Confer on February 21, 2013 when he listed the number of grades that had been changed from "F" to a "W". President Potter seemed quite pleased to cite how small a percentage these represented out of the total number of grades reported. What is curious is why President Potter was answering a question that was not asked by the Faculty Association.
At the last Meet and Confer of the year on May 2, 2013 (coincidentally the same day one year earlier that this issue had been brought to the attention of the administration by the faculty), John Palmer, who had been tasked with the process of analyzing the data, began his report with about 5 minutes left in the meeting. At 5:00 p.m., Provost Malhotra (who was chairing the meeting) said "in the interest of time what we'll do is we'll put this item back on the agenda for Meet and Confer next time we meet." With Meet and Confer over, he and President Potter got up and left the room.
What is surprising about these events begins with the fact that Associate Provost Palmer has always provided a written report prior to giving his review. In this case, he was reading his report without providing a written copy. Later, it was learned that he was directed not to provide copies of the report because "the Provost had not had time to review the report." Eventually, John Palmer's report was forwarded to the Faculty Association on May 10, 2013.
Dr. Palmer's report contains a large amount of information about the 1,197 academic petitions submitted and much information has been gained. Despite the disappointment of not having complete data going back to FY07, it was a beginning in good faith to understand scope of the "issue." The administration is loath to call it a problem. However, whatever you call it, the process is certainly not complete. The administration promised information for FY13, which has yet to be shared.
On July 1, 2013, John Palmer was removed from his position as Associate Provost of Faculty Relations (something that almost everyone on campus knows but something that has yet to be announced to the campus). With John Palmer's departure, the investigation of transcript adulterations has essentially ended without providing data for FY13. It is apparent that, in the eyes of the administration, the "issue" is closed. I guess I wouldn't want to keep talking about disappearing grades that at first I had said was not a problem, then had admitted it was a 'small' problem.
Excuse me! Disappearing grades is a HUGE PROBLEM. Whether you call them 'drops' or 'poofs,' the idea that the record of registration is removed from a student's transcript without the faculty member's knowledge is simply unacceptable. And yes, even the administration's own data shows that in over 30% of the cases, faculty are not consulted.
So the issue has now shifted from trying to understand the scope of the problem of disappearing grades to finding a way to create a process going forward that will insure the integrity of the faculty member's role is assigning grades and the administration's responsibility of maintaining a record of the grades assigned. A document was brought to the Faculty Senate on September 10, 2013 by Professor Jack McKenna, Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee:
Proposed Joint Committee on Late Withdrawals and Drops
On January 14, 2013, Provost Malhotra's memo Re: Petition Process for Late Withdrawals and Drops lists 10 individuals as "decision makers." John Palmer's Summary Analysis dated May 10, 2013 lists 16 people as "Authorized Decision Maker (ADM)." Even with "guidelines" provided by Provost Malhotra, this number of individuals, whether it is 10 or 16, making enrollment transcript change decisions cannot help being inconsistent.
This spring, the Academic Policy Working Group (a joint administration/faculty advisory committee) brainstormed with Assistant Dean of University College Nancy Mills several mechanisms for dealing with late withdrawals and drops. No formal proposal as to the process was agreed to at the time. However, the suggestion was for a committee to review all late withdrawals and drops for the purpose of standardizing the process and providing consistency in the decisions being made. It was suggested that a committee of five individuals be formed for the purpose of developing a process and basis for making these enrollment decisions. A suggested makeup of the committee was suggested: Assistant Dean of University College (Nancy Mills); A Dean or Assistant/Associate Dean (selected by the administration); Director of Financial Aid (Mike Uran); Faculty Director of Advising (Steven Klepetar); and a faculty member (selected by the Faculty Senate). Additionally, a member from the Office of Records and Registration would be a non-voting ex-officio member. The committee would provide a report of summary data at Meet and Confer each term.
From the minutes of the Faculty Senate on September 10, 2013: 013 8.c.1-8.c.3) - McKenna spoke to Faculty Senate.
Motion to approve the formation of a grade change policy working group to make policy and recommendations, comprised of six members: Assistant Dean of University College, a Dean or Assistant Dean appointed by Administration, Director of Financial Aid, Faculty Director of Advising, and two faculty members appointed by Senate - (Karasik/Hubbs). Amended and passed unanimously.
Motion to change one faculty to two faculty appointed by Senate - (Hubbs/Hergert). Passed
The amended motion passed the Faculty Senate unanimously - something that does not happen too often!
The motion was presented to Provost Malhotra by FA President Steve Hornstein on Monday, September 16, 2013. The motion was also presented at Meet and Confer on October 9, 2013, where Provost Malhotra said he would respond "within ten days." Why it should take from September 16, to October 23 to respond is a mystery to me. However, all editorial comments aside, the faculty await the Provost's response by October 23, 2013.
There are many definitions of integrity; a popular one says that integrity is the "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty."
It's time for the administration to step up and do the right thing. The removal of the record of registration of a student in a class is something that should not happen as a routine matter of course. It is something that should happen only in extreme circumstances. If this is not the case, then the very foundation of the academic integrity of the university is called into question.
President Potter and Provost Malhotra, form the Academic Petition Review committee and begin the attempt to restore academic integrity to SCSU.
Posted Sunday, October 20, 2013 10:07 PM
Comment 1 by Patrick at 21-Oct-13 06:45 AM
another great article from Silence Dogood (minor correction - shouldn't it read At Meet and Confer on October 18, 2013 not 2012)
Mindlessness in less than 75 words
People say it's a challenge to get a message through via Twitter. As people know, Twitter affords people 140 characters to make a point. Despite the limits of Twitter, people still get their message across. Apparently, Joan Vincent won't master Twitter anytime soon:
What should Minnesota voters do next in the wake of the deal to end the federal shutdown and raise the debt ceiling?
Minnesota voters should not elect a tea party member to Congress.
We've had experience with one, and it hasn't been good.
Joan Vincent
It's predictable that a DFL activist like Vincent couldn't resist taking another shot at Michele Bachmann before she retires from Congress. Still, I'm betting Ms. Vincent doesn't know a thing about the TEA Party. I'm betting she only knows what Democrats and the media (pardon the repetition) tell her the TEA Party is about.
First, the TEA Party insists on not spending money foolishly and in such gigantic amounts. Originally, that meant the TEA Party opposed the UAW bailouts. The bailouts saved union pensions at a time when legacy costs (pension payments) exceeded GM's and Plymouth's monthly payroll. In other words, the companies overpromised, the taxpayers funded the bailout and the UAW enjoyed the benefits.
Other than UAW members, who thinks that's a great idea?
Later, foolish spending was defined as guaranteeing loans to dying companies like Solyndra. Other than the people on Solyndra's board of directors, who thought that was smart?
TEA Party activists believe that the Founding Fathers got it right when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Likewise, they're certain that the Constitution isn't a living, breathing document. As KrisAnne Hall points out in her presentation on the geneology of the Constitution, the Constitution started as a compact between the states. They were the sovereign governments that birthed the federal government. That means the states dictated the terms under which the federal government was authoriized to operate because the sovereign states were essentially the federal government's employer.
Ms. Hall rightly notes that a compact is just a contract between states. When was the last time that a judge ruled that the terms of a contract were living, breathing suggestions subject to change?
Had the Supreme Court been faithful to the Constitution, we wouldn't be dealing with the Affordable Care Act.
In other words, TEA Party activists think that the Founding Fathers were especially wise in setting up a government that limited the federal government's authority, influence and scope. The Founding Fathers were wise in establishing that type of government because they didn't want the federal government to become the oppressive leviathan it currently is.
Posted Monday, October 21, 2013 8:27 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 21-Oct-13 03:58 PM
Gary:
Is this short enough for Twitter since I'm not on Twitter:
Joan:Federal government spends $40,000 has income $27,000 and debt $170,000. Tea party wants to correct that problem!
Walter Hanson
