ConservativeHome's Big Ideas blog

Nine non-military ways to show the Assad regime what the US government thinks of their phony excuses

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Despite the fact that nearly 1500 civilians have been killed in Syria and another 10,500 have fled, the Obama administration has remained conspicuously silent about the ongoing atrocities committed by the Assad government.

But while the White House continues to avoid the issue, at times even playing to the regime's propaganda, a growing number of foreign policy experts are urging immediate action.

One of those people is Richard Grenell, the longest serving US spokesman to the UN, who in in an op-ed last week in The Huffington Post outlined nine non-military actions that the US can immediately undertake to both isolate Assad and show support to those behind the opposition movement.

As the security crackdown in Syria continues, here's a look at Grenell's suggestions:

1. Order US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford home immediately, and shut down the Embassy.
2. Publicly call upon Assad to resign and ask other countries to do the same
3. Call upon the Europeans and others to pull their Ambassadors from Damascus too.
4. Restrict the movement of the Syrian Ambassador to Washington and the Syrian Ambassador to the UN to a small radius around their offices.
5. Ask European capitals to restrict the movement of Syrian Ambassadors in their countries too.
6. Force the UN resolution on Syria to a vote and dare the Russians to veto it.
7. Move USAid employees into southern Turkey to care for the Syrian refugees arriving daily.
8. Schedule an Al Jazeera TV interview with President Obama to explain our actions and why Assad must go. 
9. Demand the IAEA inspect Al Kibar and offer an immediate UN resolution authorizing it.

Grenell's original op-ed is available to read here.

Economic growth and growing families go together: a lesson from the latest Census

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Here's an indicator of growth that we don't hear much about but which is very important: the growth in the population of 5-17 year olds.

Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox have crunched Census data and given us a useful guide to where in America families are going, which is often where the economic growth is the most promising. They write:

So if there are proportionately fewer traditional households, do families still matter in determining how places and regions grow?

The answer is yes. Using Census data, with the help of demographer Wendell Cox, we determined the regions in the U.S. with the biggest increases in children ages 5 to 17. These family hot spots, which include Raleigh, N.C. (No. 1), Austin, Texas (No. 3) and Charlotte, S.C. (No. 4), are also some of the country’s biggest job generators. Many rank highly in the fastest-growing cities in the U.S. And seven of the ten leading regions for kids also have the fastest-growing foreign-born populations.

The three big megacities - New York, LA, and Chicago - have all lost youngsters.

Even though young professionals seemingly flock to the big and vibrant cities that many think of as our centers of opportunities, it turns out that once they find the person they want to marry or spend their life with, they head out to more affordable cities with a better selection of jobs.

Looking over the top 20 cities, it's a "who's who" of the cities that dominated the last round of Census winners and which have enjoyed the best economies.

It's worth recalling that the Greek word at the root of "economy" means household. Family, home, and economic opportunity go together.

Interview with Walter Williams: Unemployment among African Americans was lower when discrimination was worse

Walter Williams is a well-known syndicated columnist, prolific author, and professor of economics at George Mason University. His latest book, Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?, has already stirred up some controversy.

ConservativeHome's Ryan Streeter asked Dr. Williams a few questions about his new book:

RS: Thomas Sowell has called your new book "a demolition derby on paper" because of how you take on fallacies about race in America. One of the fairly shocking findings along these lines is that unemployment among African Americans was lower during periods of greater discrimination than today. Why is that?

Williams: A lot of my research has shown that the unemployment rate among  black workers was much less many years ago than it is now. That is, it was lower when discrimination against blacks was higher. Now, I’m not saying that discrimination wasn’t an issue or problem. It was. The point, rather, is that it doesn’t explain all that a lot of people think it does.

A big factor that does explain why unemployment has risen in the black community was the institution of the minimum wage, followed by its subsequent expansion to cover just about every job out there. Not long after it was created, the minimum wage covered around 50% to 60% of all jobs. Now it covers most.

The effect of the law is to discriminate against low-skilled people. This hits teenagers especially hard. Black teens share the handicaps of teens in general in this regard, but they also have a disproportionate share of other challenges. The result is very high levels of unemployment among younger workers. The unemployment rate for blacks between the ages of 16-24 is 55%, and among whites it is about 27%.

RS: Talk a little more about how the minimum wage law discriminates against low-skilled workers.

Williams:  The law has eliminated a number of good jobs. For example, when I was a young person, you go to the neighborhood theater, and you’d see teen ushers at work. You don’t see those jobs anymore because the minimum wage destroyed them. In the 1940s and 1950s, there was always a young person at a gas station to pump gas and wipe down your car’s windows. That job went away because of the minimum wage, not because motorists suddenly decided they enjoyed getting out of their cars and pumping gas themselves amidst the fumes.

RS: Are there other factors driving unemployment worth mentioning beyond the minimum wage?

Williams: Certainly. One would be unemployment compensation. The size of the subsidy and the duration that one receives it are contributing factors. A number of people will remain unemployed as long as they get the checks, and once the checks run out, they will go looking for a job. The problem is that the longer one is unemployed, the harder it gets to find a job later.

RS: Given our history of failed job training, what can policymakers do today, if anything, to help promote work and employment?

Williams: Policymakers simply need to acknowledge that job training programs, the CETA [Comprehensive Employment and Training Act] programs of the 1970s and the like, have produced disappointing results. The federal government ought, first, to get out of the business of destroying jobs through policies such as the minimum wage, and second, stop spending money on phony programs that don’t work.  Just because academics and elites like these programs is no reason to keep them going.

Government creates problems at all levels. Consider this. What should it take for someone to get in the taxi business and earn, say, $45,000 per year? It’s not a huge investment: a car, insurance, knowledge of the city. But in most cities, you need to have a license to own and operate a taxi. You need the medallion in your car showing you’re a legitimate taxi provider. In May 2010 the getting such a medallion in New York City would have cost you $603,000. This kind of law discriminates against anyone without that kind of money – which is a lot of people. One thing’s for sure, you don’t see many taxis owned by blacks in New York.

In Washington, DC, by contrast, you can get the license for less than $200, and the result is that a lot of taxis are owned by blacks.

The point of all of these factors is this: there are a whole host of reasons that explain high unemployment in the black community. Discrimination does not explain as much as people think it does. Surely there was a lot more discrimination back in the 1940s and 1950s, and yet you can’t deny that unemployment among blacks was quite a bit lower back then.

Mike Gerson and Pete Wehner consider what lessons today's faithful can learn from first century Christians' engagement with government

Pete Wehner and Mike Gerson go on Focus on the Family's Daily radio show to talk about how early Christians engaged government, which they cover in their book The City of Man.

The early church demonstrates the "paradox of Christian involvement in the world," Gerson says, in how early Christians took care to improve the welfare of even those ordinary Romans ignored, and yet they were persecuted because they didn't bow their knees to the Emperor. They took care of the sick as plagues swept through the empire, and yet they were strangely detached from Rome because they didn't expect the state to achieve what was the business of the Kingdom of God.

 

Mike Gerson: The morality of capitalism can be found in how it has alleviated poverty by creating a middle class and intergenerational wealth transfers

Washington Post columnist Mike Gerson has a fine piece at Capital Commentary, which is published by the Center for Public Justice.

There is a moral value to economic growth.  In difficult economic times, it is important to pursue policies that serve the disadvantaged.  It is also important to pursue policies that increase wealth more broadly—policies that encourage the creation of private sector jobs, which are a source of personal independence and dignity.  Policies that reward effort, enterprise and investment.

Sometimes Christians view the creation of wealth as a second order concern.  And there are many biblical warnings about the spiritual dangers of greed and materialism.

But a respect for facts requires another recognition.  Capitalism—the economics system in which the means of production are privately owned—has been history’s greatest engine of economic growth, wealth creation and prosperity.  And this should mean a great deal to anyone concerned about the poor and oppressed.

In our book, The City of Man, my coauthor and I argue that capitalism has produced two things that for much of history were regarded as inconceivable: a large middle class and intergenerational wealth-building.  In doing so, it has lifted untold numbers of people out of poverty and misery.  The medical, scientific and technological advancements associated with capitalism have brought greater health, longer lives and relief from backbreaking labor.  By contrast, where capitalism has not yet taken root, we often find destitution, widespread misery, illiteracy and much early death.

Because of the wealth created by capitalism, charity and generosity are increased.  The moral philosopher Adam Smith put it this way: “If our own misery pinches us very severely, we have no leisure to attend to that of our neighbor.”

Read the rest of the article here.

Giles Whiting: Four key elements to making us smarter investors in education

This post is part of an occasional series co-hosted by ConservativeHome and Upside, a group of Republican Harvard alumni who are committed to taking a thoughtful, deeper look into the issues than the daily political fray allows.

Giles Whiting is the EVP and COO of the Baton Rouge Area Chamber, a private economic development organization representing 1,500 investors and roughly one million people. Prior to this role, Giles worked in private equity and spent four years as a consultant with McKinsey & Company. Giles is a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School where he was a Presidential Scholar, and a Distinguished Graduate from the U.S. Air Force Academy.  Giles is a native of South Carolina.

I’ve spent the last few months in Louisiana, a state that received an “F” in Education Week’s 2011 K-12 Achievement indicator scoring.  I moved here to take the COO position of an economic development organization representing just under a million people and 1,500 businesses. In my many discussions with community and business leaders concerning the future, economic competitiveness, crime, poverty, and wages, each has cited, without fail, the critical need for a strong public educational system.

The United States recently fell to an “average” rating in international education rankings by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.  U.S. scores in reading, science, and mathematics landed us in 14th, 17th, and a “below average” 25th place (out of 34) in each subject area respectively. Speaking about the results, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told the Associated Press, “this is an absolute wake-up call for America, […] We have to get much more serious about investing in education.” Before we start “investing,” though, let’s figure out exactly what that means.

In spite of widespread acknowledgement of education’s importance for our future, we’re struggling to make significant improvements.  Why?  We have focused too much on the direct inputs to schools – students and teachers/staff – and not enough on other dynamics that are related to those inputs.  This is not to say that these areas and their associated metrics are not important – they are very important.  However, an exclusive focus on figures such as funds per student, or teacher headcount, ignores other vital dynamics ranging from socioeconomic factors to the parent-student relationship.  The chart below highlights four.


Understanding this system makes it clear that a strategy of “investing” in teachers/staff and students is incomplete.  This writing, the first of two parts, is intended to help break down and identify the problems in a new, straightforward light.  We need to think critically about all four elements identified above, before we can develop real solutions to our educational crisis.

Element 1:  In many cases, cultural, social, and economic influences have preserved teachers and staff in their roles for the wrong reasons.  Unions, collective bargaining, and tenure have created a profession where job security is linked to seniority, and too often allow the wrong teachers to coast through paycheck collection despite poor performance, while holding back rewards for great performance. Out of a misplaced sense of loyalty, these unions routinely protect their members from any reforms, instead of protecting their students. Examples can be taken from around the country, including, famously, the public schools in our nation’s capital.  The teacher’s union in Washington, D.C. is threatening a class-action lawsuit to undo the dismissal of 241 ineffective teachers. (Former D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee has already been forced out of her position.) We as communities have allowed this to happen.  We hold the ideal of teaching in abstract awe without demanding from teachers and staff the values and performance that comprise this ideal.  We’ve shied away from any criticism of teachers at the fear of our own disabuse.

Element 2: Our culture needs to, in honest reflection, ask itself whether it fosters and encourages parents to value and be involved in education.  Historically, community schools did this well – small communities where parents couldn’t help but run into the principal, or their son’s or daughter’s teacher in the grocery store, church, etc.  This model now outmoded, we have outsourced education to the school district with the expectation that no other involvement is needed.  Too many communities, faith groups, and families have stopped holding parents accountable – this is critically amiss and the effect becomes amplified in the parent-student relationship.  Communities need to become actively involved in education.  Faith groups – imbued with centuries of leadership in many forms of education – must lead here too.  Those whom we elect to school boards need to promote such involvement in their districts and set aggressive goals for improvement.  Parents need to go beyond discussing problems with their children and friends, to discovering and implementing solutions.  Parents also have a role to play as the foremost advocates for their children.  Who better to hold the school board accountable? This is not to say that communities, churches, school boards, or parents will take the place of the teacher.  It is to say that they are part of the process – and that their involvement is important and valuable.

Element 3: In some places it’s finally cool to be smart – but usually not among the students and communities where this is most needed.  Silicon Valley’s Mercury News reports that Sandra Romero and Bibiana Vega of San Jose were called “whitewashed” and told they were “losing their culture” because of their high GPA’s. Another story was retold to me of a Louisiana boy in an impoverished neighborhood who was bullied after school for bringing books home.  This issue is subsiding in some areas.  Programs like the FIRST Robotics Competition and movies like “The Social Network” excite young people about what’s possible when you’re young and smart.  But these programs are too few, and Hollywood won’t solve this.  Nationally we need to renew our campaign, especially in low-income communities, to demonstrate the value, importance, prestige, and opportunities associated with education. Parents also have an important role to play in defining students’ cultural expectations.

Element 4:  Parents need to be actively engaged in encouraging the educational success of their children, every day.  The literature from developing economies shows that one of the most important factors in the next generation of women’s economic well-being is the literacy rate of their mothers. The same rules apply here in America.  Parents who read with their children at an early age, and remain engaged with their child’s education throughout school, will have higher performing students. Going back to our outsourced education attitude mentioned earlier, this is more than just showing up to a parent-teacher meeting, or reading the school newsletter.  This is checking up on homework, helping on homework, and limiting TV and video games.  More than just checking a box – this is real engagement.  This is also difficult, especially in single parent households, and households where work schedules may limit the amount of time parents can spend with their children.  In these cases, reliance on the community becomes even more important.

The interplay between all of these elements is obvious.  With the problem more structured and illuminated, my next essay will look at concrete examples of how people are addressing these problems comprehensively – and effectively – all around the U.S.

Solving any singular element isn’t going to fix the entire problem, just as continued focus or “investing” in teachers, staff, or students does not provide a complete solution.  In the pockets of fantastic reform and success that have developed around the country, you will see that multiple issues have been addressed in parallel. It’s time for this approach to become the model: for reform to occur along all avenues of influence and input, and for all us to recognize our part to play, to commit to reform, and to get involved.