Milton Friedman, RIP

Milton Friedman was one of the three great economists of the last three centuries, measured both by his contribution to the development of economics and by his influence on public policy, in this country and around the world. In the 18th Century, there was Adam Smith; in the 19th Century, it was Alfred Marshall and in the 20th Century, it was Milton Friedman.

Smith, Marshall, Friedman, price theorists all. But, as every good economist knows, especially those who spent time at the University of Chicago in the last eighty years, all of economics, micro and macro, has its roots in price theory. This was the great oral tradition at the University of Chicago economics department in the last century, and especially from about 1930 to 1980, with much of that period dominated by Milton Friedman and his friend, colleague and professional ally, George Stigler.

On the other hand, Friedman was one of the few great economists in recent times who spanned both micro and macro economics, or as we called those fields at Chicago, price theory and “money.” Most academics outside of Chicago know Milton for his work in the area of Monetary Theory or the Quantity Theory of Money, i.e., MV=Py. That equation of exchange, as graduate students at the University of Chicago in the 1960s and 1970s knew it, could be used for all sorts of handy predictions. If V, that is the velocity of money were relatively constant and y, or real gross national product for the economy, was determined by other factors, we could predict that increases in M [the nominal money stock] by the Federal Reserve System would result in commensurate increases in the price level or inflation. Similarly, reductions in the rate of growth in the nominal money stock by the Fed would result in reductions in the rate of inflation.

The above described quantity theory of money led Friedman to advise President Reagan and Paul Volker, Reagan’s Federal Reserve Chief, in the early 1980s, to control and restrain the growth of the nation’s monetary aggregates. They followed Friedman's advice and rampant inflation was brought under control. Following Friedman’s and supply siders’ advice, Reagan successfully argued for tax cuts, and the economy boomed throughout the 80s: The result of sound economic theory and good economic policy.

Unlike his Keynesian competitors, Friedman saw macroeconomics, or Money, through the prism of price theory. He thought not so much about velocity or the “turnover,” of money, but of its inverse—the demand for real cash balances. When the government increased the supply of money, individuals would find their supply of cash balances exceeded their demand for real cash balances, so they would spend their excess balances. As they did so, if real output did not change, they would bid up prices, causing an increase in inflation. When government contracted the growth of the money stock, the reverse ensued and people would cut back on their spending to build back their real cash balances to their initially desired level, causing a decline in the general price level, i.e., a reduction in inflation or deflation.

When government contracted the growth of the money stock sharply as it did in the early 1930s, it would produce not only a reduction in prices, but also a reduction in real output, or y, in the above discussed equation of exchange. Thus the U. S. Government, not the private sector, was responsible for the great contraction in output and employment in the 1930s—and we at Chicago were careful not to refer to the collapse of the economy in the 30s as the depression, but the great contraction.

Much of the above, and much more [including how monetary policy in the U. S. helped contribute to China going communist], is chronicled in Friedman’s [and Anna Schwartz’s] treatise, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.

Friedman was always the empiricist. He had a collection of notes that he distributed for his class on price theory at the University of Chicago. For quite a while, he declined to publish the notes, stating that he would soon prepare a more formal version of his notes and then have that version published. After a while, he said the empirical evidence was strong that he would not devote the time to publishing that item-- instead focusing on many others—and he relented and agreed to publish the notes as they were, putting a title on the notes: “Price Theory, a Provisional Text.”

That item, along with a book titled, “The Theory of Price,” by Friedman’s colleague and friend at Chicago, fellow Nobel Laureate in Economics George Stigler, became the collective bible for students studying price theory to prepare for Ph. D. prelims at Chicago.

Most of the non-professional economist individuals in the world touched by Friedman felt his impact in what he said and wrote about the applications of basic economic theory, i.e., price theory--- or as he would put it, thinking like an economist. They found this wisdom in Capitalism and Freedom [two sides of the same coin, he said], an Economist’s Protest [a collection of Newsweek essays], Freedom to Choose [the book or the 13 part PBS series of the 80s] or in one of many other items Milton Friedman published or in his speeches given or classes taught around the world.

Friedman was the father of the school voucher-school choice movement, going back at least to his writing of the 1950s. That movement has blossomed in this century, with the Supreme Court confirming the constitutionality of School Vouchers in 2002, and strong voucher programs moving forward in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida and Arizona.

Milton Friedman denies it, because of his modesty, but he was the driving force behind Nixon’s and the country’s adoption of our all volunteer military in the early 1970s, an experiment that has worked well in terms of individual freedom, fairness, efficiency and in producing a stronger military.

Although not the only force, Friedman was a major force in the development of freer markets in several Latin American countries, including Chile; Eastern Europe, including Estonia; China, Russia, South Korea and Taiwan.

The most important notion that Milton Friedman staked his academic reputation on and that has been adopted in a variety of countries around the world is that societies that rely on the free market will improve the material well being of their people, much more so than if they relied on government to plan, motivate and guide their economics and the industry within those economies. Moreover, those free markets will be more conducive and compatible to the development of individual freedom and democracy.

So, students and readers of Milton Friedman tended to develop a belief in free markets, less government spending, lower government taxes, stronger property rights, more freedom for individuals, fewer restraints and regulation by government and in general an empowerment of the individual and a curtailment and distrust of government power.

In short, Friedman would say if you want to help people—give them the Freedom to Choose. Don’t spend money on a public school and require the parents to send their kids to that school. Instead, give them a school voucher for a little less than is being spent by the government on the child in the public school and let the parents choose which school is best for their child. Schools will compete for the right to serve that child and that competition will improve the choices of the parents.

If you want to help low skilled labor, don’t impose a minimum wage. Price theory and Friedman tells us that law will drive down the quantity demanded for labor and increase the quantity supplied, causing a surplus of labor or unemployment. Instead, through a negative income tax or earned income tax credit, supplement the low skilled worker’s income from what he can earn in the free market, without pricing him out of the market.

If you want to increase the availability of housing for low income people, don’t impose rent controls or price ceilings. Price Theory and Friedman tells us that will cause the quantity of housing supplied to decrease and the quantity of housing demanded to increase, causing a shortage.

On and on Friedman went, applying and inspiring students at the University of Chicago to apply Chicago School Economics, essentially price theory, to every nook and cranny of the real world. Theories were only as good as their testable implications. And, Friedman required his students to think logically and rigorously, and to always think about testing their theories. If the empirical evidence did not support the theory, it was the theory that was wrong, not the real world.

Always civil, always respectful and always demanding—of himself and his students. Milton Friedman will be missed deeply by his friends, colleagues, students, wife [Rose], children, readers and so many others around the world. Sadly, Milton Friedman, dead at 94, yesterday, in San Francisco, California.
*******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
******************

Tom Roeser slams Obama for the wrong reasons and falls for Mike Huckabee—the wrong man for the Republican Party for 2012

Roeser’s 2005 flirtations with Senator Bill Brady

My good friend Tom Roeser is at it again. He does this every once in a while, falling head over heels, temporarily, for some pol. Four years ago, about this time of the year, it was then Republican Primary gubernatorial candidate and State Senator Bill Brady and his “Irish Catholicism and… 12,000 watt smile,” that won a so-called “Conservative Summit.” Tom ultimately tires of the pol, as he did a while ago, with Brady, and reiterated that dissatisfaction recently, calling Sen. Brady “light as a Panama Hat.”

Roeser falls for Mike Huckabee

Today’s flavor of the moment for Roeser is Mike Huckabee. Tom was wowed by his “conversational, witty, brilliant,” talk show skills and his “strong base on the social issues.” For Tom, that seems to mean Huckabee, with ten years as a Governor of Arkansas, is less risky for movement conservatives than someone like Gov. Pawlenty [R-MN], who “seems far less experienced,” or former Massachusetts Gov. Romney who is “too smooth,” has gone through “too many contortions…to be credible.”

Roeser gets Obama wrong

And, according to Roeser, the nation is now ready for Huckabee because it has been “scared silly by Obama.” And “scared out of their wits by Obama.” Tom lists a number of his grievances of Obama and concludes Obama:

With his speeches… is coming very close to the caricature of Algonquin J. Calhoun, the fast-talking lawyer on radio and TV’s old Amos `n Andy…someone who can stretch definitions beyond the breaking point. [For a contra view to that of Roeser and a collection of criticisms of Roeser on "Obama, race and the media," see here].

The trouble with Tom’s analysis is that it starts with the proposition that if Obama differs with Tom—or me, for that matter—Obama must be stupid (or worse) and is probably quickly becoming less popular than George W. Bush, meaning there is a great opening in the country for someone like Huckabee, whose views (on many matters) and style differ greatly from President Obama.

Disagreeing without becoming disagreeable

But, people can differ with each other and still be plenty smart. I differ with Tom Roeser and Barack Obama on many things but I don’t think either is stupid. Far from it. I should be “so stupid.” As to Obama’s popularity, his approval minus disapproval margin has tumbled from about 40% at the start of his Presidency to about 11 %, but Obama is still plenty popular, even if more so than many of his policies.

And, many of Tom’s conclusions about his Obama grievances are simply premature. For example, when Tom asserts that America gave up, to please the Russians, the land based missile shield in Eastern Europe for nothing, we just don’t know that yet. There may have been a tacit deal for the Russians to help the U. S. with Iran. And, they may do so. We’ll see. But calling Obama another Neville Chamberlain, as Roeser does, based on the above, is simply not warranted by the facts.

Writing about Obama in bad taste

Analogizing Obama’s speeches to the caricature of an Amos and Andy character is not close to reality. Further, it is in bad taste and damages the credibility of Roeser, not Obama.

What President Obama has done wrong- doubling down on President Bush.

But the worst part of Roeser’s analysis is that it completely misjudges Huckabee and his competency to be the standard bearer for conservatives in 2012. If President Obama has gone wrong, it is on economics. It is that he agreed with Bush on the 700 Billion dollar financial sector bailout and the bailouts of AIG, etc. It is that he helped engineer a 1.4 trillion dollar 2009 federal budget deficit. It is the 800 billion dollar stimulus, which had little if any stimulus. It is the 9.8 % unemployment rate. It is the fact that these problems can only be cured by a sharp drop in federal spending and a sharp drop in tax rates, especially marginal rates of taxation on income and capital gains tax rates.

In short, many, but not all, of Obama’s economics policy mistakes come from his “doubling down,” on President Bush’s, Treasury Secretary Paulson's and Fed Chief Bernanke’s bail out policies. Unfortunately, Obama appears likely to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010-- and the Bush Tax cuts are the policies that Bush got right. [Watch Art Laffer and Steve Moore on these issue].

Bernanke: the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Moreover, Obama unfortunately compounded Bush’s mistake by re-appointing Bernanke, the Princeton educator and MIT trained economist, to another four-year term as Federal Reserve Chairman... If ever the country needed a University of Chicago trained economist, it is now. Too bad Presidents Bush and Obama never took a course in economics from Milton Friedman, the greatest economist of the 20th Century, or from anyone in the University of Chicago economics department. How different things would be. As we say, ideas have consequences.

Huckabee: a bad choice for Republicans

In light of the above, it is hard to think of anyone worse than Huckabee as a 2012 Presidential candidate. The sad fact about Huckabee’s “experience” as Governor in Arkansas is that he was a tax raiser, not a tax cutter. He was a spender as a Governor, not someone as Roeser suggests who simply spoke of increased spending in 2008 to offset his socially conservative stances.

It’s the Economy, Stupid

In short, Tom, with all due respect, in 2010, as Bill Clinton said in 1992,“it’s the Economy stupid.” And, on the economy, Mike Huckabee is as wrong as wrong can be.

Cap and Tax

Also, Tom, you have ripped Cong. Mark Kirk (R-IL, 10th CD) for voting for Cap and Trade. And, rightfully so. But, your boy, Mike Huckabee, along with John McCain, was for Cap and Trade. On morality grounds, no less. So, if you are going to rip Kirk, you had best rip Huck. Fair is fair.

Why God put Republicans on this earth

But, most importantly, as the late Bob Novak said repeatedly, “God put Republicans on this earth to cut taxes.” If the Republicans are going to come back in 2010 and 2012, they had best start migrating toward conservatives who believe in and have a record of cutting income and capital gains tax rates, not raising them.

That dog won’t hunt

Your boy, Huckabee, might have given a Hell of a speech. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. My good friend, Senator and 2010 Republican Gubernatorial Primary canidate Kirk Dillard, didn’t invite this journalist to be his guest at the show in Rosemont. [Hell, this journalist can’t even get guv candidate Dillard out to do his TV show,"Public Affairs," even though Dillard promised him four months ago he would do so]. No matter how good Huck’s speech was, his ten years as Governor were not good economics and they were not good for taxpayers. Mike Huckabee for President? Sorry, Tom. That dog won’t hunt. Cornpone, or not cornpone.
************************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com. *************************************************************
"Public Affairs," is a weekly political interview show airing in Chicago on CANTV, in the Chicago metro area, Aurora and Rockford on Comcast and also often on the Illinois Channel. You can watch the shows, including archived shows going back to 2005, here.
**************************************************************
More than 100 of our shows from the last two years are posted on the Public Affairs YouTube page .

Chicago's Big Box Living Wage, RIP

Revised and improved at 12:40 pm on Friday.
*********************************************************
Archpundit, who usually is more thoughtful than this, is way wide of the mark in his discussion of the politics and public policy of Chicago's thankfully short-lived, Big Box Living Wage ordinance.

First, let’s look at the politics of the Mayor’s veto of the living wage ordinance [sustained by the City Council earlier this week]. This is a plus for Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. if he runs for Mayor in 2007? I don’t think so. Junior needs a united African-American base behind him to win. For starters, Daley will keep a significant portion of the black vote, even if Dock Walls, Dorothy Brown and Junior are all in the 2007 Mayoral race. That is just a matter of Daley’s history of working with all ethnic and racial groups and spreading around the spoils of victory, as illustrated, for example, by the way John Stroger and he traded support for each other over the years. Stroger supporting Richard M. Daley over Harold Washington, Hynes over Obama, Dixon over Moseley Braun, etc. Former Cook County Board President John Stroger is one of the few African-Americans I know who has always voted like an Irishman.

About half, or maybe more, of the black aldermen voted against the Big Box living wage law. Some of that may have reflected playing footsie with the Mayor. But, a good chunk of it was voting their Ward. Whatever, an issue that divides the African-American community and their aldermen can’t be good for Junior. Cong. Jackson can’t mimic what one of Illinois' most colorful Senators, Everett Dirksen, said, “Some of my friends are for this bill, some against it and I am for my friends.”

SEIU will try, but they are not going to chase the aldermen out of office over Big Box, and they aren’t going to hurt the Mayor much on this issue. Economic development is good for white wards, Hispanic wards and Black wards. In short, it is good for the City. Yes, economic development has not been evenly distributed through-out the City, giving minorities on the south and west side of the City the short end of the stick. However, the Big Box living wage would only have made things worse, inhibiting Big Box stores and their ancilliary commercial development from coming to the City. This would have been especially true with respect to Big Box stores avoiding the south and west sides of the City, where the Living Wage would have put the labor pool in those areas [relatively unskilled; a number of ex-offenders] at a major disadvantage relative to other parts of the City and nearby suburbs. Of course, Ald. Moore's 49th ward is not too close, in any sense, to the south and west wards. How is that for a coincidence?

Mayor Daley may be a Johnny-come-lately to doing something about economic development on the south and west sides of Chicago, but as Judge Easterbrook[7th Circuit Court of Appeals]says, wisdom come lately is better than wisdom not come at all. Advantage Daley.

Even if Daley doesn’t get a majority of the vote on the first round of the Mayoral election in February, 2007, unless he gets indicted- or somebody very, very close to him does-- he wins the election run-off with the runner-up in April, 2007. And, Big Box doesn’t help Junior or hurt the Mayor. Yes, it helped Joe Moore [the Alderman from "Big Labor"], Acorn and their Lake Front liberal supporters get their fifteen minutes of fame—and gave SEIU a rallying cry, but that is it. The living wage law might play in Santa Fe and San Francisco, but neither location is a good model for Chicago or any other City. Perhaps the phrase Sante Fe Democrats will become as popular with Republicans as San Francisco Democrats.

In terms of public policy, the Big Box Living Wage hurts those it purports to help, no matter how good SEIU is at organizing. The black majority wards are starved for economic development and jobs-- and the people, as well as a number of their the aldermen, in those areas get it: People are not better off being unemployed at $13 per hour than they are being employed at $7.70. A modern day Adam Smith might write, "Empower the people." And, there is nothing more empowering of individuals than the free market.

Smith might also write, today, about the dignity of getting and holding a job. There is a great benefit to having a real job even if it is only "entry level." It gives you on the job training, lets you learn some universal requirements for getting and keeping a job; and lets you move up from there. Alderman Ike Carothers [29th Ward] made eloquent arguments of this type when he spoke at the first City Council vote about the detrimental impact of the Big Box Living Wage.

You don’t need a Ph. D. in economics to figure these things out. Indeed, Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, remarked recently that some people earn a Ph. D. in economics and never learn to think like an economist [Paul Krugman of the New York Times comes to mind, as Paul is constantly trying to repeal the laws of supply and demand] and others have little or no formal training in economics and they get it from the get go. [7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner comes to mind]. If you want to help low income people, it is better to understand the laws of supply and demand than to try to repeal them.
**************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Show Host/Producer of "Public Affairs," and Executive Legal Recruiter doing legal search can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
**********************
.

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune Columnist and Blogger, pays off on his losing wager regarding the timing of the George Ryan Indictment and appears on "Public Affairs," to debate School Vouchers and school choice with show host, blogger and legal recruiter Jeff Berkowitz. Berkowitz and Zorn also discuss the "evolution" of George Ryan, the Democratic and Republican U. S. Senate primaies and whether the Illinois GOP is ready to be rebuilt. The show was recorded on March 6, 2004 and it is being cablecast this week in the suburbs and will air this Monday night, March 29, at 8:30 pm through-out the City of Chicago. See suburban airing schedule of “Public Affairs,” on Comcast Cable, in March 22, 2004 entry, below.

A partial transcript of the show is included, below.

Jeff Berkowitz: … The thing I have to say… is that Eric Zorn is one of the fairest people in discussing ideas that I know and where do they go to see your rhubarb patch where these issues are discussed?

Eric Zorn: Well, there is Ericzorn.com/rhubarb which has a very good discussion between George Clowes and me on this topic …

Berkowitz: This topic meaning this very discussion of school vouchers that we will be having tonight, and there are various other discussions [in the rhubarb patch], pro and con, for gun control, etc…The point is… Eric Zorn is a very fair guy…he is somebody who thinks about ideas- I think he is somebody who likes to carry ideas out to their logical conclusion. You agree with that?

Zorn: I do. Totally. Totally.

Berkowitz: I learned to do that at the University of Chicago. You learned to do that at the University of Michigan,

Zorn. Yes.

Berkowitz: Where you were a creative writing major, an English major.

Zorn: English major.

Berkowitz: But also creative writing…
*****************************************************
Berkowitz: …The one thing that we have to thank George Ryan for is that because George was indicted [in Dec., 2003], Eric Zorn is here to talk about school choice and school vouchers… I have this backpack, which was nicely personalized with the name, “Public Affairs,” and provided to me by my [older] daughter and here is of course the real [larger] backpack. Now, the backpack has acquired a lot of symbolism during this show. Indeed, it has spread around the City [of Chicago]. …You know the topic of this show is “Free to choose, “ which comes from Milton Friedman [the Godfather of School Vouchers and Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics who taught graduate school economics for many years at the University of Chicago] who has written on that topic. In a free market, people are free to choose. Very simply put. So… that is roughly $11,000 per student [per year, being spent] in the City of Chicago Public Schools, on average. If you take out the capital costs, it is about $9,000 [being spent, per year, per student in the CPS]. …We won’t count the capital costs, we’ll take our $9,000 …and $9,000 is put in the backpack…so we go to each parent of every child in the CPS; if they have two kids, they get 2 backpacks, they get $18,000 per year…so how is that a problem?…

Zorn: What’s wrong with this idea? When I look at the [school] voucher idea, I see this utopianism on the part of people who are advocating this [idea]…
The World Church of the Creator, Matthew Hale, what if he starts an Academy… teaching White Supremacy, does my $9,000 send my kid there…

Berkowitz: In large part, you are given freedom to make mistakes, I think we can set up some regulations that would say when you are out of bounds. Matthew Hale’s school might be one of them…
*************************************************
Zorn: …Why are schools on the North Shore such good schools? Why are the public schools up there good?

Berkowitz: A variety of reasons. One, the kids get a better environment for learning.

Zorn: Where

Berkowitz: In the home…

Zorn: Okay, Good.

Berkowitz: That’s one. They have parents who, on average, read to their kids more before they go to school, at ages 0 to 6..,

Zorn: This has nothing to do with the schools, yet, and I agree with you and I agree with you on those points…you ask why aren’t kids reading in these [CPS] schools? Because their parents are letting them down.

Berkowitz: …I can’t change that.

Zorn: Why does the school change that?

Berkowitz: Didn’t you ever hear the saying, “Allow me to work on the things that I can change; The ones that I can’t, I won’t worry about…I can’t give everybody a good, family home with two parents who have time and are willing to spend time with their kids. I can’t do that and you can’t do that and we are not doing that in the CPS. I want to give people a choice to find the best mechanism to compensate for the fact that they don’t have that. Right now, we say to people—

Zorn: These parents don’t care enough about their kids

Berkowitz: Excuse me

Zorn: to read to them and you expect they are going to go out and comparison shop to find good schools. Why? What gives you that faith in those parents?

Berkowitz: If you worked two crummy jobs—

Zorn: Well, then, how are they going to find a school for their kids?

Berkowitz: It is lot easier to find a school than it is to spend two hours a night reading to your kids.

Zorn: You want to know why I am against school vouchers? It is that I think rather than it doing what you want it to do which is to raise the level of all of these kids—I think it is going to leave [behind] some kids, certain kids, kids whose parents aren’t on the ball enough to get them into the right schools. I think it is going to leave them way behind, it is going to—

Berkowitz: They are behind now. How are they worse off [under school vouchers]? Are you afraid—

Zorn: Because, take this baseball [Zorn picks up the baseball on the “Public Affairs” set table]. They may have a baseball at some public school now, but because Jeff Berkowitz has got to give his $9,000 to all of the kids that are going there now, and half of them leave—we don’t have a baseball anymore, it’s gone [Zorn throws the baseball off the set]

Berkowitz: No, No, Eric.

Zorn: You have taken away money for extra-curriculars. You have taken away money for—

Berkowitz: We are taking away [the tax revenue equal to] their operating costs [for each kid who leaves]. We are not taking the [the tax revenue equal to] their capital costs. Their [tax revenue equal to their] operating costs [for each kid who stays there] stays there. If it costs $9,000 to operate that school for that kid, and we take away the $9,000 for the kid who left [and there is one fewer kid who has to be taught], I don’t see how the school is worse off, because they still have [the tax revenue equal to] as much as they had to pay for their total capital costs, and fewer kids [and the same tax revenue to cover the operating costs of each kid who stayed]…
**********************************************
Berkowitz: …You keep worrying that this could happen, that could happen—do you understand that there was a school, Dodge School [in Chicago] that had 10% of the kids reading at grade level. Now, the CPS administration wanted to close it. I don’t know if they did—the parents didn’t want it closed because they knew that they were just going to send them three miles down the road to another school [a public school] that was performing as poorly [as Dodge], Nobody said to them [the Dodge school parents],”you have $9,000 and you can go try to find a parochial [or non-sectarian private] school. We respect your ability to do better than we did.” But, you don’t respect that, Eric.

Zorn: What is the parochial school doing? What is the public school not doing? ….When I talk to voucher advocates, I say to them—what is it that you think the [public] school is not doing? What is the school not doing that you think that the school should be doing? Why does the private school do better?

Berkowitz: It doesn’t even matter. We could study it forever.

Zorn: Why does the private school do better?

Berkowitz: We could study it forever, but the main thing is that [we know] it is doing something better because the kids are performing better.

Zorn: But, you have to look at the mechanism—why are the kids performing better? Here is my

Berkowitz: Why do I have to do that? If an auto company does better than another auto company--

Zorn: Because you want to basically rip down public education

Berkowitz: I am not going to rip down anything.

Zorn: It will, It will destroy it. This is something you want to turn into a private system. This is your whole thing of privatize—

Berkowitz: I am trying to help kids and you are trying to preserve a decadent system that is falling apart, that is not performing—

Zorn: Why is it falling apart?

Berkowitz: I don’t know. I don’t care.

Zorn: You don’t even want to perform an analysis.

Berkowitz: I didn’t ask an auto company when it went out of business why it couldn’t produce cars as well as Toyota. You want to go ask that auto company? Just let them compete.

Zorn: You see a house on fire and you say let’s privatize the fire department.

Berkowitz: I am not privatizing anything. I am giving the kids money. Don’t you care about these kids?

Zorn: I care about the kids.

Berkowitz: Not enough to give them any choice.

Zorn: You don’t care enough even to try to ask the question- what is the school not doing?

Berkowitz: We could study that forever. I want change now. It is March 6. I want change on March 7. I don’t want to make it better in 20 years.

Zorn: But, you are going to take these kids and put them into these private schools- what you are going to do is you are going to end up- you are just going to transfer some of these problems over to these other schools—these schools aren’t going to do as well

Berkowitz: No, it is working in Cleveland, It is working in Milwaukee, it is working in Colorado.

Zorn: Those are test programs. They are marginal test programs.

Berkowitz: They are all working. They are all working. You want to start with the whole program? Let’s start with the whole program.

Zorn: I will stipulate. You take some kids and put them into private schools—you give them money and put them into private schools. That will work. That will work. You know why? Because the private schools have more flexibility. We should give schools more flexibility. They have more parental involvment.

Berkowitz: It will cause more competition. Then the public schools will have to have more flexibility.

Zorn: No, that’s not true.

Berkowitz: Okay, we are going to continue to speak as the credits roll but I very much want to thank Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune columnist and once again where can they find your column?

Zorn: Chicago Tribune newspaper, itself; ChicagoTribune.com/Zorn and my web log [Blog] is ChicagoTribune.com/Notebook and it links to your

Berkowitz: to my [political and media analysis and buzz blog which is Jeffberkowitz.blogspot.com]—Eric’s Blog is very much worth reading—you will see daily entries there [as you will on mine] and you will want to keep up with it. Okay, back to school choice and school vouchers…Don’t you have a little concern that maybe you are wrong- that we should take this backpack, give people the $9,000, let them choose, maybe I an right, maybe kids will learn how to read and write and do better than they currently are. Or, we could spend a lot of time talking about why I think those schools will do better; maybe it’s the competition, maybe it’s the flexibility, maybe its the threat that if they [the schools] don’t perform, they know the parents will go somewhere else. Lots of reasons, Okay. But, the main thing is—Let these people go. Give them some freedom.

Zorn: The risk of doing it wholesale is way too high. My concern is not that these kids—

Berkowitz: Free at last, Free at last. Thank God almighty, Free at Last.

Zorn: Not true. You may leave kids in schools that are much worse off.

Berkowitz: How are they worse? They have more money per kid.

Zorn: Because all of the kids whose parents were involved—

Berkowitz: They could all go. Why would they stay [if the CPS schools were worse than the private schools.]

Zorn: Because their parents aren’t with it enough to read to them or teach them their ABCs.

Berkowitz: You have such a low opinion of people in the inner city.

Zorn: No, you are the one who agreed that they don’t even read to them.

Berkowitz: You have to get out more. You [almost] live in the inner city. You need to get out there.

Zorn: They don’t even read to them, Jeff. They don’t read to them, so you expect them to find the right schools for them. You are going to have these little inner city schools whose parents don’t give a darn about them who are going to bring down the level of these schools and you are going to leave kids behind and those are the kids I really care about.

Berkowitz: So, keep it the way it is now. It is doing so well. Two out of every three kids not learning how to read. Great. Don’t try anything else. This is so out of character for you. I am so disappointed.

Zorn: No, its perfectly in character.

Berkowitz: You are so much better than this. You are doing this just to give me a tough time.

Zorn: No, I’m not. I am absolutely sure of this. I know that what you are—[end of show].

Eric Zorn, interviewed on the Public Affairs,” show which was recorded on March 6, 2001, and is being cablecast on Comcast Cable this week (Week of March 22) in the suburbs and will air through-out the City of Chicago on Monday, March 29, 2004. See suburban airing schedule of “Public Affairs,” on Comcast Cable, in March 22, 2004 entry, below.