Translate

Showing posts with label Cato Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cato Institute. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

The Libertarian CATO Institute Ranks Texas Last in Personal Freedoms. This IS an Anti-Democratic, Extremist National Agenda

If you don't feel a little bit less free in Texas, you haven't been paying attention. This piece will refresh you and all Texans on the matter. Relatedly, it's important to know the levers, the Wizards of Oz, behind the curtain. This post, these two articles, and a must-see documentary offer a good primer.

This comes straight out of the CATO Institute that's happy for us and the rest of the nation to lose every other freedom except to be a capitalist. Notably, reproductive and transgender rights aren't factored into the ratings. And these are huge for young people, in particular in our state.

I do encourage you to learn about this well-organized, work-shopped, strategically planned, well-funded agenda to take away our rights for the benefit of the one percent. Treat yourself to an in-depth exploration with these two well-researched texts by Jane Mayer (2017) and Nancy MacLean's (2017) award winning text, Democracy in Chains. You can also read both of these in Audiobooks. 

Trust me, this is the history that the CATO Institute, the Koch Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Farris Wilks, Tim Dunn, Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, and others who don't want you to know. 

A little bit of education and an organized response, after all, might disrupt their stealth plan to not just deprive us and all of America of our rights, but to make it near impossible to break out of their devious, well-conceived shackles that are instrumental to their design. 

-Angela Valenzuela

References

MacLean, N. (2017). Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America. Penguin.



Texas Ranks Last in Personal Freedoms, According to the Libertarian CATO Institute

The think tank, founded by a conservative billionaire who supports Greg Abbott, ranks Texas 39 places behind California. 


by  Dan Solomon | December 1, 2023 | Texas Monthly


Getty/Texas Monthly

Speaking at a meeting of Bell County Republicans in 2017 in Belton, about sixty miles north of Texas’s capital, Greg Abbott opined about the freedoms enjoyed in the state he governs. “As you leave Austin and start heading north, you start feeling different,” Abbott told the crowd. “Once you cross the Travis County line, it starts smelling different. And you know what that fragrance is? Freedom.” 

Leaving aside Abbott’s swipe at Austin, there’s a question now about what he smells when he passes into Williamson County these days. According to a recent study by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank cofounded by prominent Abbott donor Charles Koch, Texas ranks dead last among the states when it comes to personal freedom. (Probably of some relief to Abbott, Cato rates Texans highly on a few particular freedoms: chiefly economic ones. Based on our lack of a personal income tax and our right-to-work laws that ensure a worker cannot be required to join a union, Texas ranks number six on the think tank’s index of economic freedom.)

Cato relies on twelve metrics, each weighted differently, to create its personal freedom index. Almost across the board on those categories, Texas fares poorly. We rank thirty-fifth on educational freedom, thirty-ninth on gambling, forty-second on asset forfeiture, forty-third on incarceration, forty-fourth on marriage freedom, and dead last on both cannabis and travel freedom (see below for fuller definitions). Alcohol, gun, and tobacco rights; the right to give large sums to political campaigns; and the right to engage in activities that harm no one, such as safely setting off fireworks, are the only categories in which Cato finds Texas doesn’t rank in the bottom half of the states. Notably, the institute doesn’t factor key issues such as reproductive or transgender rights into its ratings. 

Cato finds that the fragrance of Texas freedom right now stinks. Let’s take a closer look at how and why the institute thinks Texans might need to hold their noses, whether they’re driving through Austin or elsewhere. 

Arrests and Incarceration

Cato’s ranking assigns a heavy weight to incarceration rates, which are adjusted for violent and property crimes, to look at whether each state incarcerates more individuals than the crime rates suggest it should. Cato also considers such factors as how often a state makes arrests for victimless crimes—which the study lists as including drug, sex work–related, and “gun” offenses (presumably possession-related only); driver’s license suspensions for such offenses; and whether a state has passed reforms regarding qualified immunity, which protects police officers from most civil lawsuits. 

Texas’s low ranking here isn’t surprising; our incarceration rate dramatically outpaces that of the U.S. as a whole and puts us firmly in the top ten states in locking up residents per capita. A drug offense triggers an automatic six-month suspension of a driver’s license, which requires classes and fees to restore. An attempt in the Legislature in 2021 to end qualified immunity went nowhere in the face of opposition by police unions; a similar attempt in 2023 was another flop

Criminal justice reform in Texas was once a popular, bipartisan issue championed by Republicans such as former governor Rick Perry—but in recent years, it’s grown much more difficult to advance reform-minded legislation in the state. 

Cannabis

Texas, which bans THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in virtually all cases and has harsh sentencing laws, ranks dead last on the Cato Institute’s list. The metric also considers other factors, such as whether laws that stop short of legalization drive up consumer costs for cannabis and economic impacts on producers. 

Civil Asset Forfeiture

If you have an asset that officials deem suspicious, and they decide it may have been acquired in relation to criminal behavior, they can seize that asset and are under no obligation to give it back—even if you’re never charged with, let alone convicted of, anything illegal. Most often, this type of asset forfeiture plays out when police officers, during traffic stops or other encounters with the public, find large sums of cash. (Here’s a story about a man who drove with $42,000 to Houston to buy a tractor trailer and lost it after being accused of following the vehicle in front of him too closely in his rental car.) Federal law enforcement is also able to engage in the practice. In Texas, state law not only protects asset forfeiture but allows law enforcement to share the proceeds of assets claimed by federal agencies. For these reasons, Cato ranks the state forty-second.  

Civil asset forfeiture is a rare issue that can unite both libertarian- and progressive-minded Americans in opposition. This practice is unpopular among Americans nationally, who believe that, say, a person may have a legitimate reason to carry a large amount of cash while driving. But civil asset forfeiture is popular among police, whose departments often enjoy receiving the additional funds, as well as among politicians who wish to demonstrate their support for police. In 2017, Donald Trump offered to “destroy” a Texas lawmaker who opposed the practice. 

Educational Freedom

Now we’re getting into something that has sharply divided the state: “educational freedom”—which the study considers mainly in terms of laws establishing education savings accounts (voucherlike programs in which public tax dollars help parents, primarily upper-income ones, pay for private schools), tax credits for private schools, and direct vouchers. Education savings accounts have been a key issue in the civil war between factions of the Texas GOP. 

Despite Abbott’s efforts, Texas has not passed a law creating education savings accounts or vouchers. The governor has demanded that lawmakers do so several times this year, but many rural Republicans and Democrats have blocked each effort in the Texas House, in large part because many rural areas lack affordable private school options, and because the public schools serve as centers of community life in such areas. 

Gambling

Texas ranks low here because most forms of gambling are illegal. The state makes limited exceptions for horse and greyhound racing, certain charity events, “social gambling” (say, an office March Madness bracket contest), and the state lottery. That didn’t change in the 2023 legislative session, despite the House approving a bill that would have put the issue directly to voters, as the bill died in the Senate. 

Marriage Freedom

Previous editions of Cato’s personal freedom index focused primarily on same-sex marriage; for as long as the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized those unions nationally remains in effect, that’s a nonissue for these purposes. Now Cato focuses mostly on cousin marriages, which are outlawed in Texas, at least among first cousins, half first cousins, and adopted cousins. Texas here ranks forty-fourth, which is actually last place—it shares that ranking with six other states that also discriminate against cousin lovers.

Reproductive Freedom

Actually, this doesn’t factor into Cato’s analysis at all. 

Travel Freedom

While this issue doesn’t weigh heavily in any state’s ranking in the index, Cato does partially consider the freedoms of drivers. Texas, which restricts texting while driving, requires the wearing of seat belts, uses cameras to read license plates on toll roads, and mandates that motorcyclists wear helmets, is at the bottom of the list on this category as well. 

Notably, “travel freedom” does not, in Cato’s estimation, include the freedom to travel for the purpose of taking an action that’s legal in one jurisdiction but illegal in another. Some cities in the Lone Star State have begun testing that proposition by restricting travel for Texans who pass through to seek abortions. While most legal scholars consider such restrictions a violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, theoretically, similar laws could be created that would ban Texans who wanted to, say, drive to Las Vegas to gamble. (What happens in Vegas stays in Lubbock!) At that point, perhaps, the Cato Institute will take notice. 

Monday, October 23, 2023

Good Example of an Armchair Theorist Working as Handmaiden to the Race-Evasive, Privatizing, Far Right

This person who works with the Cato Institute doesn't know the first thing about discrimination. His argument of "healthy," as opposed to "unhealthy" discrimination is not anchored in any actual history or context of either race or class relations, but rather, hypotheticals.

For the record, there is no such thing as healthy or unhealthy discrimination. There should be NO discrimination against people, period.

Tests, to which the author alludes, are a somewhat different matter. They are SUPPOSED to discriminate—that is, between a correct and incorrect answer to a question. INSTEAD, however, they systematically discriminate by race and class. This is well established in the research literature. However, the author is positing a form of "choice making" that is not sustainable as an argument in light of a prevalence of dog whistle politics that seek to engineer individuals' choices via processes of "othering" and boundary maintenance.

The author could have really benefited from the Ethnic Studies classroom in order to make a compelling, well-reasoned argument. It all sounds so patronizing and ultimately deceptive. Minimally, it doesn't pass the sniff test. In this vein, on X or Twitter, I sided with @NILSHeadley on this one:







What about community values? Where do school boards that reflect communities' values come in? Oh yeah, the Koch Foundation, Wilks and Dunn, and Moms for Liberty and other organizations got that covered. Or at least they think they do with all the fiery political conflagrations they're setting off in school boards across the country. Not being cynical. Just real.

In sum, this piece is a good example of pseudo-scholars making pseudo arguments, getting paid to work as handmaiden to the power- and race-evasive, privatizing agenda of the extremist right dressed up as "school choice."

-Angela Valenzuela


Legalizing Discrimination Would Improve the Education System

Policy makers should realize that there are types of discrimination that are actually beneficial for teachers, students, and the rest of society.

School choice programs around the world prohibit discrimination in hiring employees and enrolling students. While discrimination policies aim to protect employees and children, the result is the opposite. Discrimination in hiring employees increases the likelihood that children are educated by teachers that are aligned with their interests and abilities. Discrimination in enrolling students increases the probability that all students are in a successful, specialized learning environment.

Unhealthy Discrimination Hurts Producers

We can all agree that the intentions behind this policy are well-meaning. We don’t want public funding to go to schools that are run by malevolent people. For simplicity, let’s assume that people running private schools are indeed racist, sexist, evil individuals. Even if we allow all types of discrimination, the evil individuals in charge of the private schools will financially pay for the act.

For example, let’s assume that the people in charge of school X are racist. They can choose to hire a teacher of race 1 or race 2. If they are racist against race 2, they will likely choose to hire race 1, regardless of the actual quality of the teacher. If an alternative school, Y, does not practice the same discrimination, they will benefit by having a larger pool of teacher candidates. Ultimately, this would lead to a competitive advantage for school Y for not being racist! Families would recognize this advantage, choose school Y, and force school X to face a shutdown condition. Allowing families to choose their schools will only work to eliminate unhealthy discrimination such as racism in hiring.

Healthy Discrimination

Some types of discrimination are actually beneficial to teachers, students, and the rest of society. When a school has a specialized mission and focus, it needs to be able to hire specialized individuals. Protecting candidates that would not help achieve the specialized mission of the organization harms the other teachers and students in the school.

Imagine a given school that has a mission of academic success for various types of athletes. Forcing the school to hire teachers and enroll students that do not have a sports-related background will work against the overall mission. Since the students are interested in academics and sports, it may be desirable to relate class lessons to different sports activities. For example, a physics teacher could incorporate exercises that are based on the movement and force of a football or softball over time. If a candidate is unable to demonstrate sufficient background knowledge on sports, they will not be able to make classes engaging for the students. Protecting candidates from this type of discrimination will only hurt the students.

Additionally, the school would need to be able to discriminate based on the ability levels and learning styles of the incoming students. If we forced the school to accept all athletes, the academic mission would be sure to fail. Protecting the students with low academic abilities will hurt the advanced students and make the teacher’s job extremely difficult. Perhaps even more importantly, protecting these students may actually result in hurting them the most. Placing these low-performing students in this environment would not likely be suitable for their individual academic needs. Being exposed to this highly-competitive academic environment could actually hurt their confidence levels and prevent them from learning.

Although there are certain types of unhealthy discrimination, it is not optimal for bureaucrats to determine which types are permissible for the rest of society. Instead, we should allow families in society to choose the schools that do not partake in the discriminatory practices that they deem to be non-permissible. Additionally, policymakers should realize that there are types of discrimination that are actually beneficial for teachers, students, and the rest of society.

Corey DeAngelis

Corey A. DeAngelis is the Director of School Choice at Reason Foundation and an adjunct scholar at Cato Institute.