So why do the media add phony polls to the mix?

When media sites ask members of the public to respond to a question they pose on-line, someone running the operation knows that the result is meaningless when it comes to telling you what the public thinks.

After all, you may even see a line noting that the results are “not scientific.” The Bangor Daily News does this when it prints the results in the newspaper (but it’s not on-line, at least not today).

If you don’t have a random sample — which doesn’t exist when people can self-select into a poll or survey — the results tell you nothing about public opinion.

Yet here’s the homepage of today’s Bangor Daily News with this:

Clicking on the link takes the reader to the “poll,” which looks like this:

And the results currently look like this:

Typically results from self-selected groups do not correspond with what real polls, using proper sampling techniques, find.

Just compare the above question to results from a recent CNN poll.

Now, the questions CNN asked are not identical to the one posted by the BDN and, admittedly, one would expect differences due to the divergent question wording.

For one, the BDN refers to “the Justice Department,” without tying the agency to a particular issue. Someone responding might be thinking of the investigation of the leaks by the Associated Press or they might thinking of something else entirely.

But both BDN and CNN asked about Obama’s relationship to and responsibility for the same issues.

CNN found that, on Benghazi and the IRS, conservatives and Republicans are harshly critical of Obama and do not trust him, but others think the president has been honest.

As Greg Sargent breaks it down:

* The IRS scandal: Among overall Americans, 61 percent say what Obama has said about the matter is mostly or completely true, versus only 35 percent who say it’s mostly or completely false. Among Republicans, 68 percent say what Obama has claimed is false, and among conservatives, 56 percent say this.But independents believe what Obama has said is true by 58-36, and moderates believe this by 71-25.

Meanwhile, among overall Americans, 55 percent say the IRS acted on its own in targeting conservative groups, while only 37 percent say the White House ordered it. Among Republicans, 62 percent say the White House ordered it, and among conservatives, 54 percent believe this.But independents believe the IRS acted on its own by 53-36, and moderates believe this by 65-29.

* The Benghazi story: Among overall Americans, 50 percent believe early statements about the attacks by Obama officials reflected what the administration believed at the time, while 44 percent believe they intentionally misled. Among Republicans, 76 percent believe they intentionally misled, and among conservatives, 65 percent believe this. But moderates believe the statements reflected the administration’s beliefs by 60-35. (Among independents this isn’t as pronounced, but still, a plurality sides with the White House, 47-44.)

Overall, a majority in the CNN poll thinks these are serious issues, but most (53%) approve of Obama’s job as president. Moreover, CNN reports that, “Only 43% say they have a great deal or some confidence in the people who run the federal government. But 56% say they have a great deal or some confidence in the system of government.”

Again, admittedly, these are all different questions. As such, they will pick up different elements of public views. If these were both polls done with proper sampling, that could lead to a nuanced analysis of how people respond to varied questions on the same topic.

But the real problem with the media on-line question is the lack of a random sample. People self-selected into the response group.

So different results from CNN and the BDN aren’t surprising

Question wording aside, consider this: Typically on-line questions spark interest from people with the strongest views.

And, as Gallup showed the other day, the most engaged on these issues are conservatives and Republicans.

54% of Americans are following the IRS investigation closely, but that’s true for 67% of Republicans. The numbers for Benghazi are similar.

Thus one could expect Republicans and conservatives to respond to this question disproportionately to their presence in the population.  Other questions on different issues would include disproportionately more of other groups.

My assumption is that media outlets run the phony polls because they may get clicks, get shared in social media, and generate more readership.

Walter Lippmann, 1889-1974

But are they news?

Decades ago, journalist and media critic Walter Lippmann defined news as, “A picture of reality on which citizens can act.”

Phony polls don’t give you a picture of reality, so they’re not news.

And no one in the news business should have anything to do with them.

When King ran for U.S. senator, almost all of what I heard him queried about involved domestic policy. People asked about jobs, the economy, the budget, health care, and education. Foreign policy was not much discussed.

Yet now Senator King, who sits on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees (among others), is speaking out on a variety of national security matters.

King has taken a clear stand for limiting the president’s ability to wage war without congressional constraint.

In a recent hearing, Sen. King questioned Pentagon assertions that the president’s military powers were extremely expansive.

According to one account:

Pentagon officials today claimed President Obama and future presidents have the power to send troops anywhere in the world to fight groups linked to al-Qaeda, based in part on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress days after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Speaking at the first Senate hearing on rewriting the AUMF, Pentagon officials specifically said troops could be sent to Syria, Yemen and the Congo without new congressional authorization. Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, predicted the war against al-Qaeda would last at least 10 to 20 more years.

King noted that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. The president implements military power as commander-in-chief.

SEN. ANGUS KING: Gentlemen, I’ve only been here five months, but this is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, clearly says that the Congress has the power to declare war. This–this authorization, the AUMF, is very limited. And you keep using the term “associated forces.” You use it 13 times in your statement. That is not in the AUMF. And you said at one point, “It suits us very well.” I assume it does suit you very well, because you’re reading it to cover everything and anything. And then you said, at another point, “So, even if the AUMF doesn’t apply, the general law of war applies, and we can take these actions.” So, my question is: How do you possibly square this with the requirement of the Constitution that the Congress has the power to declare war?

This is one of the most fundamental divisions in our constitutional scheme, that the Congress has the power to declare war; the president is the commander-in-chief and prosecutes the war. But you’re reading this AUMF in such a way as to apply clearly outside of what it says. Senator McCain was absolutely right: It refers to the people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11. That’s a date. That’s a date. It doesn’t go into the future. And then it says, “or harbored such organizations”–past tense–”or persons in order to prevent any future acts by such nations, organizations or persons.” It established a date.

King went on to repeat his constitutional qualms and to note that the law passed immediately after the September 11 attacks is more narrow than the way it is being used.

Questioning the witness, he said:

I don’t disagree that we need to fight terrorism. But we need to do it in a constitutionally sound way. Now, I’m just a little, old lawyer from Brunswick, Maine, but I don’t see how you can possibly read this to be in comport with the Constitution and authorize any acts by the president. You had testified to Senator Graham that you believe that you could put boots on the ground in Yemen now under this–under this document. That makes the war powers a nullity. I’m sorry to ask such a long question, but my question is: What’s your response to this? Anybody?

While the witness held that the post-September 11 authorization to go to war gave the president the ability to take military action all over the world, Sen. King argued the law is being stretched in a way that “renders the war powers of the Congress null and void.”

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Senator, let me take the first response. I’m not a constitutional lawyer or a lawyer of any kind. But let me talk to you a little–take a brief statement about al-Qaeda and the organization that attacked us on September 11, 2001. In the two years prior to that, Senator King, that organization attacked us in East Africa and killed 17 Americans in our embassy in Nairobi, with loosely affiliated groups of people in East Africa. A year prior to 9/11, that same organization, with its affiliates in Yemen, almost sunk a U.S. ship, the U.S.S. Cole, a billion-dollar warship, killed 17 sailors in the port of Aden. The organization that attacked us on 9/11 already had its tentacles in–around the world with associated groups. That was the nature of the organization then; it is the nature of the organization now. In order to attack that organization, we have to attack it with those affiliates that are its operational arm that have previously attacked and killed Americans, and at high-level interests, and continue to try to do that.

SEN. ANGUS KING: That’s fine, but that’s not what the AUMF says. You can–you can–what I’m saying is, we may need new authority, but don’t–if you expand this to the extent that you have, it’s meaningless, and the limitation in the war power is meaningless. I’m not disagreeing that we need to attack terrorism wherever it comes from and whoever is doing it. But what I’m saying is, let’s do it in a constitutional way, not by putting a gloss on a document that clearly won’t support it. It just–it just doesn’t–it just doesn’t work. I’m just reading the words. It’s all focused on September 11 and who was involved, and you guys have invented this term “associated forces” that’s nowhere in this document. As I mentioned, in your written statement, you use that–that’s the key term. You use it 13 times. It’s the justification for everything. And it renders the war powers of the Congress null and void. I don’t understand. I mean, I do understand you’re saying we don’t need any change, because the way you read it, you can–you could do anything. But why not say–come back to us and say, “Yes, you’re correct that this is an overbroad reading that renders the war powers of the Congress a nullity; therefore, we need new authorization to respond to the new situation”? I don’t understand why–I mean, I do understand it, because the way you read it, there’s no limit. But that’s not what the Constitution contemplates.

Under our Constitution, the president and Congress both have powers with respect to war.

In the Nixon years, and largely in responses to the Vietnam War and to newly released information about secret military and CIA endeavors, Congress tried to restrain the president’s war powers.

Senator King has become part of this decades-long effort to bring back constitutional balance.

However, the questions are phrased in a highly biased way and so are not reliable measures of public opinion.

Here are two examples:

DO YOU THINK THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD AGREE TO PAY OFF THE HOSPITAL DEBT WITHOUT STRINGS ATTACHED OR DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD ONLY BE PAID IF THE STATE AGREES TO INCREASE WELFARE BENEFITS WITH INCREASES IN MEDICAID?

In this case, public health insurance is characterized as “welfare,” a term that has come to be seen in negative terms.

Moreover, using the word “welfare” could lead respondents to think that those receiving the insurance don’t work for a living. However, those to be covered by a Medicaid expansion are working people who earn little.

In addition, the question implies that a Medicaid expansion would increase costs to Maine taxpayers. However, the Kaiser Foundation and the Heritage Foundation say that costs will decrease.

Imagine how different people would respond if that information was included and if the word “welfare” was not used.

Here’s another question:

BY LAW, MAINE MUST HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET. EVERY YEAR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE STATE BUDGET IS SENT TO TOWN AND CITY GOVERNMENTS. DO YOU THINK TOWN AND CITY GOVERNMENTS SHOULD CUT SPENDING TO HELP THE STATE BALANCE ITS BUDGET?

Quite a lot is wrong with this question as well.

In its phrasing, the municipalities could “help the state.” After all, the state sends them “millions of dollars from the state budget.”

The state sounds so nice! In return from getting money from “the state budget,” maybe the municipalities could help them out.

But the question doesn’t say the state is under an obligation to send this money, as they are supposed to share sales tax revenue.

Municipal revenue sharing has been around in Maine for a long time — since 1972.

The question doesn’t say that Gov. LePage has proposed cutting that municipal revenue sharing. These were just the sort of cuts the governor decried when he was Waterville’s mayor.

_______

Interestingly, not a single question mentions Governor LePage by name or even uses the word “governor.” Yet the press release accompanying the poll release includes both the governor’s name and a reference to his position. It’s certainly possible the questions would have gotten different responses if “governor” or “Governor LePage” were included.

 So what do such biased poll questions show?

These questions (and others not discussed) demonstrate how people react to particular framings of issues, the ones LePage offers.

But in the real world, people hear additional information and presentations of the same issues. In those circumstances, they often reach different judgments.

The questions are not reliable measures of public opinion.

This week’s radio address from Gov. LePage included a shocker toward the end — an endorsement of part of Obamacare.

LePage’s positive words about this policy element could — just could — open the door to a less common way of expanding Medicaid.

Gov. LePage has refused to support Medicaid expansion.

But, in his talk, Gov. LePage seemed to support the subsidies to buy insurance through insurance exchanges.

These are not just for very low-income individuals, by the way. A family of four with an annual income of $40,000 would get a $10,000 subsidy.

In arguing that rapidly paying back hospitals should not be tied to Medicaid expansion, LePage said:

[U]nder ObamaCare, low-income Mainers will qualify for federal tax subsidies to buy private insurance. Let me repeat that: low-income Mainers will qualify for money from the federal government to buy health insurance.

The Supreme Court ruled that Medicaid expansion is optional. The court also revealed that if states expanded Medicaid to cover the uninsured, those same people will qualify to get tax subsidies to buy health insurance. . . If more Mainers in 2014 will get tax subsidies to become insured, why is Democratic leadership holding up the hospital bill? [Source]

If the subsidies are ok with LePage, logically he could accept a less common way of expanding Medicaid.

If the subsidy system is ok with the governor, he just might accept an approach Arkansas is using to expand Medicaid, which relies on the insurance exchanges and subsidies.

In the so-called “private option”

Arkansas would accept the money allocated for Medicaid expansion under the federal health care law, but would use it instead to buy private insurance for about 250,000 eligible low-income residents. Those individuals who earn up to 138 percent of the poverty line — or $15,415 per year — would purchase subsidized private insurance through the state’s insurance exchange. . .

GOP supporters of the idea described it as a conservative approach to reforming Medicaid and a way to help businesses avoid penalties under the federal health law for not providing insurance to employees. [Source]

In addition, this approach enables Arkansas to get the larger federal match for expanding Medicaid while not including more people in traditional Medicaid.

Now, there are various advantages and disadvantages to this approach and those are worth discussing should it gain more attention.

Gov. LePage administration hasn’t endorsed this potential policy path, but it should be asked about it, since it’s consistent with the governor’s endorsement of federal subsidies.

Maine Education Commissioner Stephen Bowen and Gov. Paul LePage discuss their new ABC Plan for education reform on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 in the State House in Augusta (Bangor Daily News, Christopher Cousins)

After Gov. LePage and his Department of Education released their grades for Maine schools, many looked at the metrics they used.

Specific analyses were critical of the measures used.

While I wrote a critique and pointed to research on why the school grades correlate to family income, probably the best analyses were produced by the editorial page of this paper and by Professor Emily Shaw, who wrote two excellent posts [first here and second here].

Maine Democrats released this proposal for school grades:

The evaluation system must include:

• Accurate measures of student progress over at least 5 years
• Interviews with parents, school board members, teachers, and other education leaders about the overall school climate and environment
• College attendance and attainment rates over at least 5 years, including enrollment in the US Armed Forces
• Peer group comparisons based on characteristics like special education, free and reduced price lunch, and ELL rates
• Attendance rates
• Evaluation of graduation rates based on 95% graduation, not 100%
• More substantive rule making
• Evaluation of performance targets, not penalization for student participation rates in standardized tests.

The evaluation system will not include:

• A bell curve”

Now that Democrats have proposed items for school grades, opponents should step up and produce a detailed analysis

Thus far critics of the Democratic proposal have focused on process.

Their major criticism involves the suggestion the plan was developed quickly, although one legislator characterized it as having “no substance.”

However, the Democrats’ plan is full of specifics. It doesn’t lack substance.

It has a number of clear differences from the LePage approach. Some are:

1. The governor used one year’s test scores, while the Democrats would use five years.
2. The LePage approach lowered grades if student participation in testing fell beneath particular thresholds, while the Democrats will not.
3. Democrats won’t force grades into a bell-shaped curve, unlike the governor’s approach.

Looking at those three, the Democrats’ approach makes more sense. Using a bell-shaped curve is poor practice and lowering grades based on participation is arbitrary. One year worth of data is problematic and multiple years provide a better picture, less affected by one-time issues.

Critics of the Democrats’ plan should explain which of these they prefer – and why. 

Since the administration won’t issue new school grades for another year, it’s time to assess all approaches with rigor.

Perhaps administrative officias will weigh in, or Republican legislators, or the Republican-allied Maine Heritage Policy Center.

The latter includes a staff member who is their education policy analyst, although her job description focuses more on implementing a certain approach to education, not analyzing it.

Amanda joined The Maine Heritage Policy Center in 2010. As MHPC’s Education Policy Analyst she works to implement customized learning into Maine’s educational system whether public, private, charter or online. Prior to joining MHPC, Amanda served for seven months as an English-speaking teacher’s assistant for a high school in Normandy, France. She graduated from Bob Jones University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and a minor in French. While a university student, Amanda researched welfare and education policy as a domestic policy intern with The Heritage Foundation of Washington D.C. which further inspired her desire to engage in a career that promotes the age-old principles and values upon which our nation was founded. [Source]

Whoever weighs in, it should be substantive and focused on the particular elements of the Democrats’ metrics.

Minnesota Capitol

On November 6, 2012, Maine people voted for marriage equality. The same day voters in Maryland and Washington did the same, as Minnesotans rejected a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between a woman and a man.

Today the Minnesota House of Representatives is debating and voting on a bill for marriage equality.

It is expected to pass and Minnesota’s Senate will be voting on Monday. Governor Dayton has said he would sign the bill. Assuming this occurs, Minnesota would become the 12th U.S. state with marriage equality. Gay and lesbian couples can also marry in the District of Columbia.

A Minnesota farmer-legislator recently went from undecided to supporting the bill. This is what he wrote to his constituents [Source]:

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Tomorrow the House of Representatives will be taking up a bill to legalize same sex marriage in Minnesota. I know this has been and continues to be an emotional issue for both sides of the debate. First and foremost, the bill (HF 1054), deals explicitly with civil marriage as defined in Minnesota Statute:

§517.01 MARRIAGE A CIVIL CONTRACT
Marriage, so far as its validity in laws in concerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman two persons, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential.

The bill does not force a religious institution to marry two individuals of the same sex. Furthermore, language has been added to the bill to offer additional comfort that no religious institution will be forced to act in violation of its own religious beliefs.

Throughout this legislative session, many constituents, on both sides of the issue, have provided faith based rationale(s) in support of their position(s). Who is right? Whose faith, interpretation, or religion is correct?

Our federal and state Constitutions protect and embrace religious autonomy and the freedom to exercise our own religious beliefs or lack thereof; all with equal protection under the law. We have a separation of church and state in this country for a reason.

As constituents have voiced their concerns about allowing same sex couples to marry, I have respectfully asked how this proposed change in the law would impact that individual’s life. In addition, I have asked what would be a legal, rational argument that would allow the continued discrimination of one group of citizens over another. While I do not question any individuals’ motivations or the sincerity of their views, the arguments I have received against same sex marriage thus far have been primarily biblical in nature or simply due to the fact that the person does not like people who are gay or lesbian. Neither of which are substantive arguments when deciding law in a secular institution that grants equal protection to all citizens under the law.

Frequently the issue of children is brought up as a reason to prohibit same sex marriage. The non-partisan American Academy of Pediatrics does not support this position. Their report, “Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian [i],” complied from more than 30 years of data, rather recommends that civil marriage for same-gender couples become legal for the benefit of children. They state, “The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports civil marriage for same-gender couples – as well as full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation – as the best way to guarantee benefits and security for their children.”

Not a single person opposed to same sex marriage has stated how allowing two individuals of the same sex to marry will impact either his or her own marriage or life in a legitimate manner. Simply stating, “I don’t like it” is not a compelling argument to continue to allow the denial of happiness and equal rights to same sex couples.

The arguments have also been presented that being gay or lesbian is a lifestyle choice. It is not. Nobody chooses to be gay or lesbian; you either are or you aren’t. I never chose to be heterosexual. I just am.

GLBT rights are the civil rights issue of today. This is no different than the yesteryear movements to expand the rights of women, workers, and minorities. History has always looked favorably upon those who have stood on the side of expanded rights and freedoms.

Last summer, I married the person I love. I didn’t marry Marnie because she was a person I could live with; I married her because she was a person I couldn’t live without. We found each other and we knew we had something special.

How do I in good conscience not support that same right for all Minnesotans? A right that most of us take for granted. Marriage is about love. Marriage is about commitment. Marriage is about equality. Marriage is about finding the person that you cannot live without.

With that said, I will be voting to legalize same sex marriage in Minnesota.

Best regards,
Andrew Falk

Rep. Andrew Falk

Sometimes when I first meet a class, I tell them, all of you could get A’s. While that’s never happened, it’s possible – if everyone does the studying and works to earn the top grade.

Now, if this is an introductory course on American government, the most usual outcome is that final grades, graphed out, will fall in two peaks. There will be a cluster that goes from C+ to A, with most in the B range. And then there’ll be another cluster from F to C, with most around D+.  But, truly, they all could be A’s.

Students’ grades determine what the grade distribution looks like, not the other way around.

Yet LePage’s grading scheme turned that basic rule on its head. Before any school was graded, the Maine Department of Education decided how many would receive A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s and F’s.

This rather odd approach to evaluating schools led to strange headlines, like the one this paper ran: “Three-quarters of Maine schools at, below average, under controversial new state grading system.”

It would be just as accurate to write, “Three-quarters of Maine schools at, above average, under controversial new state grading system.” More important, it overlooks the reality that it’s true because the Department of Education made the grades fit that distribution.

Even stranger, the system used by the state has a built-in blind spot. You literally can’t see how well Maine is doing compared with other states.

And Maine is doing well. For instance, in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Maine’s scores in fourth and eighth grade are better than the nation’s in science, reading and mathematics. (In contrast, Florida, which somehow has become the governor’s touchstone for education policy, has scores that usually are below or just average in those fields. Florida’s eighth graders are always below average in math.)

Or look locally, at Bangor High School. This is a school with hundreds of kids on the math team, a team that regularly beats the state magnet school for science and math. For six consecutive years, a Bangor student won the state’s Stockholm Junior Water Prize. (This year’s winning research project examined the impact of an “estrogen-mimicking compound” from personal care products on fish, and the student will represent the state at the national competition.)

Based on an extensive assessment that used far more than the two test scores plus graduation rates used by the state, Bangor High earned the national designation as a Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. And U.S. News and World Report, which also eschewed a simplistic grading scheme, stated that Bangor was in the top 10 percent of all high schools in the country. You’d think if any high school in Maine would earn an A, it would be Bangor’s, but not so.

The oddities and blind spots of the grading scheme make me yearn for a world in which policy was based on quality analysis.

Beyond education, we’ve seen policy failures arising from flawed research. Two economists and Harvard University colleagues Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, who argued that high levels of government debt led to slow economic growth, were faced recently with a devastating critique. It turned out their findings were wrong because they left out data from some countries over particular years. Because policy-makers believed them – perhaps motivated by anti-government ideologies – budgets were cut, leading to fewer public sector jobs and the slowing of our national economy. 

Rigorous health care research, comparing those newly able to access care through Medicaid to those who couldn’t, shows gains in physical, mental and financial health. Yet, in Maine, ideologues have claimed that expanding Medicaid would hurt people who would gain access to health insurance.

Since people have different values, proper research wouldn’t mean that we’d all agree about our situation and what policies to adopt. For instance, Maine’s chief executive worries a lot about the state’s dependence on the federal government, while showing little concern for people with undiagnosed, untreated cancer, diabetes and high blood pressure.

But rigorous research helps us begin with a rational basis, so we can avoid blind spots and determine how to improve student learning, the economy or people’s health.

A recent example involves transparency in the Maine Legislature, which currently has Democratic majorities and leadership.

An article in the on-line newsletter of the Maine Heritage Policy Center suggests the public won’t be able to know when there are legislative public hearings and work sessions. It buttresses this with comments from Republicans, but none from Democrats, and with a partial quote from a memo from legislative leaders.

Assistant House Republican Leader Alexander Willette (R-Mapelton) said the Democrat’s [sic] decision does not bode well for the creation of sound public policy. “Anytime you stop advertising public hearings, you’re hindering the public’s ability to weigh in on important issues and, as a result, hindering our ability to craft good public policy,” he said.

Indeed, it would be wrong if there wasn’t a way for the public to find out what the legislature is doing and when it is doing it. But that’s not happening.

What’s wrong with the claim there’s a lack of transparency?

Two things:

First, notice to the public will still occur. It won’t be in the newspaper, but will be on-line — and therefore widely accessible — as well as posted in committee rooms.

You can see what the legislative website looks like just below.

Notice of Maine Legislature’s Public Hearings and Work Sessions, as seen at http://mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/phwkSched.html

Second, the very same process was followed in the last Legislature, when Republicans held majorities and were in control. At the end of the session, there wasn’t enough time to publish a notice in newspapers two weeks ahead of committee work sessions and hearings, so Republican leaders waived the requirement.

Aren’t there enough real areas of conflict and disagreement without creating one out of whole cloth? 

Why so?

Because the federal government expects states to carry out their responsibility for this program in a fair and unbiased way.

More broadly, if the governor pressured the officers to change decisions, this would undermine the appeals system and raises issues about executive power.

Our founders created a separate judiciary, meant to be independent from political pressure, whether from the public or elected officials. As Alexander Hamilton put it (quoting French philosopher Montesquieu), “There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” [Source]

Now a lawyer from the Department of Labor, Leticia Sierra, will be interviewing people involved in this meeting.

As Steve Mistler reports:

The decision to send a representative to Augusta suggests that the federal government may have concerns about the adjudication of unemployment hearings in the wake of the controversy, according to a national labor law expert.

It also suggests that recent visits by federal auditors, and a subsequent telephone call between LePage and Seth Harris, acting secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, may not have been as routine as the administration originally stated.

This entire process appears to be unusual, even unprecedented.

Rick McHugh, a national labor law expert and attorney for the National Employment Law Project in Ann Arbor, Mich., said Wednesday that questions about the unemployment appeals process are typically handled by the federal Labor Department’s Employment and Training Administration division, which audits unemployment claims.

“I’ve never seen a situation where the solicitor’s office did the investigation directly with the state officials,” said McHugh, who said he has 30 years of labor law experience. “My sense is that because this involves a legal concept — the concept of a fair hearing — and an impartial tribunal, that they’re being very careful.”

He added, “To have the governor personally involved like he was in this meeting, regardless of whether it was friendly banter or outright pressure, that’s unprecedented in my knowledge. Having the governor involved in this kind of thing and having the solicitor involved are both unprecedented in my experience.”

This initial probe — which defenders of the governor had suggested was ridiculous to think might happen — is certainly just one step.

The lawyer conducting the interviews may not wish to investigate further. It’s certainly not known what the attorney will conclude or, if wrongdoing is determined, what will result.

But the fact that the federal government is concerned enough to take this step demonstrates there is enough of concern that warrants investigation.

As Tipping points out, this is expected. It’s exactly what could be predicted by reams of past studies using high-quality data.

Bangor Police Chief Ron Gastia (from left), Bangor Superintendent of Schools Betsy Webb and Penobscot County Sheriff Glen Ross read to students at the Penquis CAP Head Start Center at the Penobscot Job Corps Academy in Bangor on Tuesday, August 28, 2012. Ross, Gastia and Webb were on hand to promote early education programs that cut crime. [BDN photo - Kevin Bennett]

But why does such a correlation exist?

It’s important to know. Understanding this gives the prospect of improving all kids’ educational prospects.

Research points to differences that grow out of different conditions, resources and opportunities by class.

Professor Helen Ladd of Duke University explains:

Disadvantaged children often suffer from poor health and nutrition – which can be corrected by high-quality early childhood and preschool programs. School-based clinics, nurses, and mental health counselors can also help older children.

Early exposure to rich language boosts cognitive development, so we need to help poor parents and other caregivers read to children and engage them in conversations.

Poor families cannot give children the enrichment experiences privileged families routinely provide. Public after-school and summer programs matter most for the poor.

Because of this, Ladd contends, “to be successful, education in impoverished areas must deliver to disadvantaged students the supports and experiences middle-class children usually get at home.”

Cuts in programs like Head Start make this problem worse.

As two top corporate executives recently wrote:

The Institute for a Competitive Workforce, an affiliate of the United States Chamber of Commerce, found in a 2010 report that “for every dollar invested today, savings range from $2.50 to as much as $17 in the years ahead.” Research by the University of Chicago economist James J. Heckman, a Nobel laureate, points to a 7- to 10-percent annual return on investment in high-quality preschool.

Therefore, these two executives contend:

Universally available prekindergarten is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do. Raising lifetime wages (and thereby tax revenues) and reducing the likelihood that children will drop out of school, get involved in crime, and become a burden on the justice system more than make up for the costs of early childhood education.

Other countries have realized this. China reportedly has set a goal of giving 70 percent of all children three years of prekindergarten education — far ahead of the modest one year proposed by President Obama — by the year 2020. Our greatest deficit in this country — the one that most threatens our future as a nation — is our education deficit, not our fiscal one.

We know this in Maine, but policy has been going the wrong direction.

Early childhood education clearly has the backing of Maine’s education commissioner, prominent Maine businesses through the Maine Early Learning Investment Group, police departments, many local governments and agencies and the U.S. Department of Education. Several proposed bills for the 126th Legislature seek to address operations and funding related to early childhood education, but some legislators may still need convincing. Last spring, they cut half of Head Start’s state funding — about 6 percent of its overall funding — resulting in eliminated positions and classrooms. They also cut child care subsidies. [Source]

Those cuts hurt Maine’s kids and Maine’s future.

Putting out grades that show what everyone knew already does nothing.

We know what matters and what works.