Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics

Posted on February 28th, 2009

I was doing some basic research this weekend to attempt to see how Arkansas ACT scores have changed as a function of rising expenditures. While looking at the numbers I noticed a startlingly unfair comparison between the states created by the differences in the level of participation. Here is the raw data:

• ACT Data
• SAT Data

If you spend much time looking at that information you will notice that for several years Colorado & Michigan had 100% of graduates tested. Since research has shown that the ACT scores are an essentially “normal” statistical distribution and those states have a 100% participation, then the true statistical “mean” for each of those states would be virtually equal to the “Average Composite Score.”

However, now consider Massachusetts. That level of testing was 17% in 2008 and less in preceding years. While not precise, I think it would be fair for comparative purposes to assume that this 17% breaks down into 1% in upper 1st standard deviation, 14% between the upper 1st and 2nd standard deviations, and the remainder above the 2nd deviation. This means that the “true statistical mean” would probably be about 1 standard deviation to the left (lower!) of the Massachusetts “Average Composite Score.” This would mean that their ACS at 100% participation would be about 3 points lower or about 20.6 on the ACT.

From a policy perspective, the ability to compare the “true statistical mean” rather than an “average composite score of test takers” would be far more useful in making decisions. We have been led to believe that our policy decisions should be patterned after northeastern states with high composite averages, but if you consider the points above, I would bet on other states as better models. For example, consider Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Kansas have relatively high participation rates and relatively high scores. Would those states make better models than Massachusetts and Delware? I think so. However, even those states are probably suppressing their lower statistical “tails.” Not a practice that leads to good comparisons without a conversion process to convert the ACS to a “true mean.”

As further proof of what I suspect, consider the following point cloud graphs I created from the data. There is a cluster of states that only have a participation rate under 20% that probably only test their top performing students. There is a cluster of states that have a participation rate from 60% to 80% that probably test all but their lowest performing students. In a unbiased random sample, the trendline on these charts should have zero slope and a larger scatter at the lower participation rates. Clearly, there is substantial bias introduced by the testing participation policies of the various states, rather than the actual average performance of the students and teachers in those states.

Tags: education policy
Filed under Uncategorized | No Comments »

Arkansas Legislative Update – 2/27/2009

Posted on February 27th, 2009

Date: February 27, 2009
Contact: House Information Office, 501-682-7771
For Immediate Release

LITTLE ROCK – Lawmakers stiffened the state’s seatbelt law, made a move toward ending the state’s participation in the Electoral College, and unveiled draft legislation for lottery-funded scholarships during the General Assembly’s seventh week in session.

Senate Bill 78, which was presented in the House by Rep. Fred Allen of Little Rock, makes seatbelt violations a primary offense, meaning an officer can make a traffic stop on that violation alone. Until now, not wearing a seatbelt was a secondary offense, and the officer had to witness another violation before making a stop. The fine for not wearing a seatbelt will be $25.

Backers of the bill have tried to change the secondary-violation law for several sessions, never succeeding until now. The bill goes to the governor and takes effect immediately upon his signature. Passage of the bill assures the state of receiving $9.5 million in federal highway-safety grants. The violation is a primary offense in 26 other states, according to federal records.

The House also approved HB 1339, by Rep. Eddie Cooper of Melbourne, to change how Arkansas casts its six electoral votes for president every four years. The six votes now go to the candidate who carries the state. HB 1339 says the votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote.

Even if the measure is approved by the Senate and signed by the governor, it won’t take effect unless several other states pass similar legislation. Winning the presidency requires 270 of the 538 Electoral College votes. The Electoral College would effectively be abolished if enough states with a combined 270 electoral votes pass legislation like Arkansas’s. Five states have, so far.

Speaker of the House Robbie Wills of Conway and other legislative leaders unveiled a summary of how college scholarships to be funded by the new state lottery could be set up. Noting the vast differences in estimates of how much money will be generated by the lottery (from $55 million a year to more than $100 million), Wills said the state must be careful to not promise what it can’t deliver.

Because of that uncertainty, the draft legislation suggests a sliding scale for scholarships with their values based on the revenue actually generated. Scholarships to four-year colleges would range from $2,500 a year to $5,500, depending on revenue. Scholarships to the less-expensive two-year colleges would be half of those amounts. Ticket sales could begin late this year, and the first scholarships would be available for the 2010-2011 school year. The number of college students receiving scholarships will increase from about 8,000 to 35,000, and many of those recipients will be nontraditional students, Wills said. Eligibility requirements, under the draft, are a 2.5 grade point average or an ACT score of 19. Financial need, as well as academic accomplishment, will be considered.

Also during the week, the House approved:

• HB 1459, by Rep. Barbara Nix of Benton, to double the amount of time a judge can consider previous DWI convictions in setting a drunk driver’s punishment. It also gives prosecutors the same flexibility in determining what charges to file. The so-called “look back” period currently is five years, but HB 1459 would double that to 10. Most states have five-year periods, while a few others have no time limit at all. Under HB 1459, a person with at least four DWI convictions within a 10-year period could receive a felony enhancement in his sentence for another drunk driving conviction. The bill goes to the Senate.
• HB 1404, by Rep. Kathy Webb of Little Rock, to clear up confusion on the ballot. For last year’s general election, Arkansas voters faced three very different measures: Initiated Act No. 1 (limiting adoptions), Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 1 (cleaning up election laws), and Referred Question No. 1 (to issue water bonds). The bill, which now goes to the Senate, will require the measures to be numbered in sequence, with no number being repeated. Constitutional amendments referred to the people by the General Assembly would get the first numbers, followed by proposed amendments placed on the ballot through citizens’ petition drives, any initiated acts placed on the ballot by the people, and by any acts referred to the people by the General Assembly.
• HB 1464, by Rep. Jim Nickels of North Little Rock, to raise the minimum wage from $6.25 an hour to $6.55, matching the federal minimum wage. Most minimum-wage earners in Arkansas already are getting the federal rate. The last time minimum-wage hike in Arkansas was in 2006, going from $5.15 an hour to $6.25. The bill goes to the Senate.
• HB 1402, by Rep. Steve Harrelson of Texarkana, to require Arkansas retail stores to sell only “fire-safe” cigarettes. The cigarettes extinguish themselves if they’re not actively smoked, and supporters of the bill say it will help prevent fire deaths. The bill goes to the Senate.

Along with the scholarship work, lawmakers in the coming days will consider a bill that sets up the state trauma network and identifies which hospitals will have major roles in that network.

Tags: legislative update
Filed under Uncategorized | No Comments »

Laffer and Rahn Curve Discussion

Posted on February 25th, 2009

eLwood, The Stateman, and I are continuing the topic of the Laffer and Rahn Curves in the “Questions, Questions…” post Check it out and leave your two cents worth. Click here!

I hope to have a post up about the Tyranny of the Majority sometime tomorrow evening.

I have to apologize for the horrible formatting in the comments section. I can’t seem to get the CSS for the multiplex5 theme to recognize line spaces or breaks. That is what I get for being too cheap to just buy a quality theme. I am sure I can fix it with a completely irrational amount of time invested.

Oh yeah, the Lottery Issue is the hot topic in the legislature right now. Can you tell I have very little influence over how that all gets worked out? Luckily for me, it seems that I care less about any of it than any other legislator here. As someone who was opposed to the whole idea and voted against it, I really don’t see where I have much right to anyway. Not that I don’t have an opinion, I just figure I will wait until tomorrow night when I once again unsuccessfully attempt “to take over the world” before I do anything about it.

Tags: economic policy
Filed under Uncategorized | No Comments »

Milton Friedman – Economic Self Interest

Posted on February 23rd, 2009

Sometimes when the debate gets heated we can lose track of basic principles and start cutting deals just to resolve a dispute. As necessary as that may be from time to time, it is important not to lose sight of the essentials.

At the end of the video Milton Friedman asks, “Just tell me where in the world do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?”

My answer is that I don’t even trust myself to do that. But I do trust what Adam Smith metaphorically called the invisible hand, that is, the self-regulating nature of the marketplace.

While many economists have turned their attention to long-run growth, politicians unfortunately have shorter time horizons. We (politicians) often combine little knowledge of economics with a large appetite for providing quick fixes to a perceived crisis. We (politicians) should be more skeptical of quick fixes and grand governmental schemes.

While these quick fixes can indeed delay economic downturns beyond an election, it does not provide long-term success and in fact makes the problem worse, often much much worse. Just ask former President Bush. It amazes me that President Obama would dare continue those same failed policies (big government & deficit spending) but on a grander scale this early in his Presidency. The tactic might save a few Democratic seats in 2010, but history suggests that the piper will come to claim his due around 2011 when even a seriously massive expansion of the failed Bush economic policies won’t be able to delay the inevitable.

By reforming entitlements and reducing government spending President Obama might cost the Democratic Party a few seats in the U.S. Legislature in 2010 but would virtually insure his re-election in 2012. Just ask former President Clinton, who worked with the Republicans in Congress to do just that in the early part of his first term. (More about the Clinton-Republican welfare reform successes in a later post.) Clinton failed to maintain this policy and Republicans forgot their basic principles. They delayed the inevitable with government deficit spending which resulted in the recession and “bubble bursts” that probably helped George W. Bush be elected in 2000. Over the following eight years, Bush and the Republicans, (with the assistance of Democrats mind you) continued the spending spree that “patched” up the economy enough to allow Bush to be re-elected in 2004. Nonetheless, “the chickens eventually came home roost.”

Even though that wellspring is almost – if not completely – dry, I doubt President Obama will turn away from the same failed policies of the last eight years. Republicans had better turn away, or there will be a lot of conservatives/libertarians who turn away from the Republican party in the futile hope of forming a more principled minority opposition. Both political parties need to stop thinking in terms of short-term economic “patches” that may or may not temporarily benefit our party for the next election and start thinking more in terms of the long-term solutions that benefit all of us.

We now know much more about the factors that generate long-run economic growth and the ONLY thing we can trust is the invisible hand of the marketplace. Those are the basic principles / essentials that we must not forget.

Reference: The Troubling Return of Keynesianism

Tags: economic policy
Filed under Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

The Case For Civility

Posted on February 23rd, 2009

This book and the linked discussion below discusses the principles of civility and will help many understand why I really did need to apologize for shouting out “It’s the law” in the house chamber.

In our public life, America is struggling to live up to its national ideals. The Case for Civility: And Why America’s Future Depends On It is a proposal for restoring civility around the world. Influential Christian and speaker Os Guinness makes a passionate plea to put an end to the polarization of American politics and culture that—rather than creating a public space for real debate—threatens to reverse the very principles our founders set into motion that have long preserved liberty,diversity, and unity in this county.

America, with it’s rich history and robust cultural resources, is the very best place to begin to search for answers on fostering civility, argues Guinness—even in the wake of near constant “stupidity and destructiveness of the culture warring over religion and public life—on both sides.”

Rich with historical anecdotes that unlock the genius of the American experiment, Guinness also takes on the contemporary threat of both the religious right and the secular left to construct a new way forward in the midst of the buildup to the 2008 presidential elections.

Os Guiness talks with Michael Horton over at the White Horse Inn:

• Part 1

• Part 2

Tags: statesmanship
Filed under Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Arkansas Legislative Update

Posted on February 20th, 2009

Date: February 20, 2009
Contact: House Information Office, 501-682-7771
For Immediate Release

Lottery, Clinton visit highlight 6th week of session

LITTLE ROCK – A draft of a bill outlining the structure of the state lottery drew members’ attention during the sixth week of the 87th General Assembly’s regular session in Little Rock. Up next: a similar draft setting up scholarship programs to be funded by the lottery.

Arkansas voters approved a lottery last fall, and it has been lawmakers’ responsibility this session to set up legislation implementing it. Speaker of the House Robbie Wills and a Senate colleague, Sen. Terry Smith of Hot Springs, led an ad hoc group of lawmakers in beginning the work, and the result is a bill of about 100 pages.

Also during the week, the House and Senate convened in a joint session to hear remarks from former President Bill Clinton, who called on members – and all Arkansans — to keep faith in their country during tough economic times. “In 200 years every single soul that bet against America lost money,” he said, predicting that the economic stimulus bill and other measures eventually will work, probably in 12 to 15 months. Mr. Clinton’s last visit to the House chamber was in 2001, just a couple of days before he left the presidency.

The key elements of the lottery structure so far:

• A nine-member commission appointed by the governor, Speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The commission will hire a director and staff, with all salaries to be set by the General Assembly.
• The commission will decide what type of lottery games, including multi-state games such as Powerball, will be conducted, the number and payout of prizes, and how winnings are paid out. However, casino gambling and video lotteries are prohibited.
• Former members and employees of the commission can’t become lottery lobbyists, vendors or retailers for two years. Members and employees and their families also are prohibited from receiving gifts from lottery vendors, and can’t purchase lottery tickets or win a prize.
• The commission would be subject to the state Freedom of Information Act.
• Retailers receive commissions of no less than 5 percent of gross sales.
• Lottery ticket sales to those under 18 are illegal, and any prize-winner who is under a court-ordered lien will see those debts deducted from winnings of more than $500.
• Up to $200,000 in unclaimed prize money would go each year to the state Department of Health for the treatment of people with compulsive gambling problems.

“We need to ensure that we’re doing everything we can to have people running this that are going to be above reproach,” said Speaker Wills.

Also during the week, the House approved HB 1111, by Rep. Tracy Pennartz of Fort Smith, to eliminate the state excise tax on charitable bingo. The bill goes to the Senate.

Arkansas voters in 2006 approved a constitutional amendment allowing charities and non-profit groups to operate the games once they register with the state and are licensed. To pay for regulating the games, the state levied a tax of 1 cent per bingo playing card. That tax raises about $1 million a year, well above the state’s costs. Supporters of eliminating the tax say it was cutting into the amount going to charity. Opponents said the tax was one way of ensuring that legitimate charities, not out-of-state private enterprises, operate the games.

In other business:

• the Senate gave final approval to HB 1113, by Rep. Dawn Creekmore of East End, to ban partial-birth abortions in the state. The bill goes to the governor. The late-term procedure is very rare in Arkansas, according to testimony. The bill says any doctor who violates the ban can receive up to six years in prison; there is no similar penalty against a woman who undergoes the procedure.
• The governor signed HB 1013, by Rep. Ray Kidd of Jonesboro, to ban text-messaging while driving. It is now Act 181.
• The House approved HB 1461, by Rep. Monty Davenport of Yellville, to stiffen the fine for the abuse of “transporter” plates used by auto dealers to transfer vehicles to other dealers. The fine will go from $25 to $500 on first offense. A second offense would bring a fine of $1,000, and a third offense brings a $1,500 fine. Sometimes the transporter plates are used on personal vehicles, which is against the law. The bill goes to the Senate.

Tags: legislative update
Filed under Uncategorized | No Comments »

Questions, Questions …

Posted on February 20th, 2009

I have been pondering the current structure of the state government in Arkansas. This has led me to start asking questions. Alot of questions. I will share them and perhaps you will have a few to add in similar fashion. Hopefully, as this blog develops, I will be able to provide answers.

Questions that could help us determine where we are now:

• In 1996 the estimated number of state employees was 65,000. How many state employees does Arkansas now have?
• Is Arkansas’ state government still the largest single employer in the state?
• Besides the state government, how many people are employed in city, county, public school/college, and other local government entities?
• How many people in Arkansas are employed by the Federal government?
• What is the ratio of the remaining employees to the total of all government employees?
• What percentage of the remaining employees are involved in value-added goods and services contributing to the Gross State Product?
• Does a graph of the Arkansas inflation adjusted GSP compared to the growth in all goverment employees reflect an inverse correlation?
• How does the growth in state employees compare to the growth in overall population?
• How does the number of state employees per capita compare to other states?
• How many executive branch agencies now comprise the state government?
• How many boards and commissions are now part of the state government?
• How many distinct operational units are structured into state government’s various divisions and agencies?
• Does the state keep organizational charts of it’s agencies, divisions, operational divisions, boards, and commissions?
• What is the total state payroll for all state employees?
• What is total cost of payroll and benefits for all state employees
• Are public school and college employees included in the calculations of the payroll? If not, what are those values?
• How much does the total compensation of state employees (inclusive of public educational organizations) cost the taxpayers of Arkansas?
• How has the state government’s holding of acreage, buildings, vehicles, and airplanes changed over the last 50 or so years?
• What does a graph of state spending (inclusive of federal funds) over the last half century look like?

Questions that could help us reach a consensus of where we need to go:

• Is there sufficient data to marginally construct a Laffer Curve and a Rahn Curve for the Arkansas economy?
• Democrats typically favor a Laffer optimum, while Republicans prefer a Rahm optimum. Could a consensus be established at a point in between?
• Could Arkansas be on the left side of the Rahm optimum where additional state expenditures would produce additional economic growth?
• What if Arkansas is on the top side of the Laffer optimum where lower state expenditures would produce additional tax revenues for social services?
• Are we spending an insufficient amount in the proper segment of the Arkansas economy to reach the Rahm maximum thereby causing the Laffer curve to be flatter. (Smaller Laffer optimum = less tax revenues.)
• Does anybody really care that Republicans and Democrats could somewhat objectively work toward a consensus that would maximize economic growth AND maximize social spending with only a small window between the Laffer optimum and Rahm optimum for genuine debate? Will we work together to put that fence up around our playground?

Rahn Curve

Laffer Curve

Tags: economic policy
Filed under Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

Interesting Emails

Posted on February 19th, 2009

The following emails were in reference to:

HB1446: AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE FINANCING OF PUBLIC NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.

From a propane industry representative:

We, in the propane industry do not like the thought of the natural gas industry getting new very expensive supply lines run at state expense. If they want to expand their territories, let them pay for it and do the heavy lifting themselves and leave the taxpayers out of it. This is an excuse, under the guise of a “public facility board”, to do something that is not necessary or cost effective and creates a whole new layer of governmental intrusion into private industry. Let us compete with them on a level playing field. We do not need to compete against the state also in order to make a living.

We would appreciate you helping us out again in voting “no” on this very bad bill.

From a propane company:

The propane industry has provided rural Arkansans with propane gas service for decades without public support. This bill would allow natural gas transmission lines to be built at taxpayer expense then “leased” to private natural gas retailers. This would be a very dubious use of state funds and would subsidize private companies who seem to be doing very well all on their own. If natural gas retailers want to expand their service area, they should be required to provide their own infrastructure just as any other private business would.

This is a terrible bill for the taxpayer and a terrible bill for the propane industry, an industry that has served rural Arkansans well for many, many years.

Here is an inside look at the process I follow when I receive emails like this:

Given my own personal biases those are very persuasive emails, but now I will need to research the topic today anyway. After reading the bill through once, I will talk with the sponsors of the bill and get the other side of the story and an explanation of their intent. Next I will try to determine if the bill was brought to the legislative sponsors by an organization or industry. If so, I will attempt to make contact with representatives of that group (usually a lobbyist, company president, or organizational executive director) to get their “take” on the topic. Then I will make contact with those who professionally represent the concerned party (again usually a lobbyist, company president, or organizational executive director) who sent the email.

At this point in the process, I have been well served by attempting to keep my personal bias tempered until I have evaluated the facts as presented. Often, things “on the marble” are more “complex and nuanced” than they first appear. Once I have gathered the information from the various parties, it is time to read the bill one more time, this time paying close attention to the referenced and surrounding code sections.

Sometimes, after reading the code, I have to contact an attorney in the Bureau of Legislative Research for help with legal language. Othertimes, I just filch legal advice from another legislator who is an attorney. (Maybe someday, they will need some engineering advice in return.)

As I go through the process described above and subsequent steps, I will keep you updated with a shockingly frank “inside look” at the saugage being made inside my head.

Tags: email bag, legislative process
Filed under Uncategorized | No Comments »

1484 – But Who’s Counting?

Posted on February 19th, 2009

The table below is a breakdown of the number of positions added to the state government since the session started. I will try to keep the table updated as more bills pass this session, but hand coding html tables to make it look pretty is somewhat of a pain. It may end up comma delimited as we go along and I will clean it up as I have time.

David Kinkaide: Stop reading here, the rest of the article is just “something, something, blah, blah, something, something.”

Max Brantley: Skip to the bottom, all you need to know for a proper ArkTimes article is that “Mark Martin (R-Twilight Zone) said that we all know the Earth is flat.”

Jason Tolbert: Trust me, this won’t be more interesting even if you capture it on that fancy flip video thingy.

For you budget hawks out there, I have to admit to having voted for all of these. In the current legislative culture, I really don’t know the proper way to confront this problem. A smattering of grouchy “no” votes without a public outcry to fix the problem is not productive. The large minority, Republican and Democrat, who would otherwise desire to take a stand simply do not have the political capital to do so for more than a couple of budget bills. Even to do that brings about undesirable and unintended consequences. I am not talking about the public outcry and discord from leftists. The consequences of which I speak is that fraction of the group who legitimately need the service and perhaps more of it. Which of those budget bills below don’t have at least a portion of people, however small, that would truly be hurt and have nowhere else to turn?

The solution is probably more fundamental. Rather than debating and creating hate and discontent about this particular bill or that, we should be taking a more long-term view. We should be asking long term questions and forging long term consensus on commitments to hard-set long term solutions.

I suggest the following questions: Can we agree on a hard and fast maximum percentage of income / wealth that government cannot cross in the involuntary tranfer from one person to social welfare programs? Can we agree on preset declines in this percentage if certain benchmarks are met by societal voluntary giving? Will we have to grant a compromise to our liberal friends that a hard and fast minimum also be established?

You see, most conservatives are not anarchists and most liberals are not totalitarians, but each side lives in fear of being dragged over the cliff at the other extreme. If we could build a fence around our playground, neither side would experience the panic that results when the natural oscillations of political dynamics drag us to the other edge of what we all know is a flat Earth.

Finally, here is the table I promised with the count up to totalitarianism.

Tags: government growth
Filed under Uncategorized | No Comments »

A Little Bit of Both

Posted on February 18th, 2009

Some of you may be wondering about the meaning of the blog title: “Off the Marble.” The name comes from an euphemism sometimes used by those who work in the capitol building. When someone is in the capitol building it can be said they are “on the marble”, referring to the fact that the floors and much of the building is made of marble.

“Off the Marble” in this case means two things. First, I intend for the blog to be a source of news and commentary coming off or from the state capitol. Second, it is intended for those who are not on the marble – those grassroot Arkansans who are off the marble.

When I was running for election the first time a voter warned me, “All that marble down there gives off some kind of fumes that causes otherwise good people to go completely insane.” He would probably wonder if the title meant “off my rocker” or “lost my marbles.” When one considers the wisdom of a legislator writing news and commentary on every imaginable topic, I’d probably have to answer that it’s a little bit of both.

That having been said, I think that Rep. Steve Harrelson has demostrated that a legislator can produce an informative blog in a statesman-like manner. Indeed, his blog Under the Dome is the inspiration for this one. Since I intend to provide more opinion and commentary than he, I will need to be evermore and even-more diligent in maintaining a spirit of statesmanship.

The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality. – Ronald Reagan

What does the word statesmanship mean? Tell me your definitions. Do you think opinions can be expressed in a statesman-like manner? Can it be done perfectly? If not, what is the proper response from a politician who fails? Do politicians grow in statesmanship as they practice it and gain experience or is it something that some people are born with? Why aren’t more politicians these days more concerned with becoming statesmen? Is a statesman disadvantaged in the rough and tumble arena of politics in today’s political climate?

Tags: statesmanship
Filed under Uncategorized | 2 Comments »