by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Jan 18, 2025 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Vaccines may not be the most spectacular of all the miracles of modern medicine, but they are arguably the most beneficial. They have virtually eliminated the infectious diseases of childhood, including measles, diphtheria, mumps, rubella, smallpox, and polio that were once the sources of unimaginable worry and grief for parents everywhere.
Vaccines are estimated to have saved over 150 million lives in the last five decades, cutting infant mortality by 40% globally and over 50% in Africa. Closer to home, of all babies born in the U.S. in 2001 alone, a 2005 study showed that vaccines prevented 33,000 deaths and 14 million illnesses. Vaccines are also the most cost effective of all medical interventions, easily yielding the greatest amount of benefit received per dollar spent.
Like all medical treatments, vaccinations have side effects and risks, but they are rare and mostly insignificant, like a sore shoulder. There was for some time a concern that vaccines or the mercury in them caused autism, understandably so because autism was becoming much more frequently diagnosed just as vaccine use was expanding worldwide.
The scientific community took the threat seriously. Today, many exhaustive studies involving hundreds of thousands of children have all shown the same thing: vaccines don’t cause autism.
Yet in spite of the record of success and all the lives and dollars saved, experiences with COVID have led Americans to become less trusting of vaccines. Before COVID, America was a world leader in vaccination rates with 95% coverage. Since 2020, though, the percentage of children receiving the recommended vaccines has declined by 2% or about 70,000 children.
The result has been a resurgence of childhood diseases once considered vestiges of the past. Measles was considered to be entirely eliminated in 2020, yet last year multiple outbreaks sickened hundreds of children. Cases of chickenpox, whooping cough, and pneumonia are all on the rise. Trend lines don’t look good.
Clearly, millions of Americans have become skeptical of medical authority, especially that coming from government. What happened to cause Americans to adopt behaviors that re-introduced these diseases into the population and caused needless suffering?
The answer is that our public health establishment became politicized, shilling for approved government policy rather than acting as honest, reasonably humble stewards of the public good. The bonds of trust were broken because we were often manipulated rather than informed. We were proselytized rather than respected. Vaccines were rushed to market and their benefits oversold.
Fairly or not, the bulk of criticism has centered on Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Chief Medical Adviser to the President on COVID. Dr. Fauci was a respected, competent public health physician until he became a celebrity. Signature prayer candles, action figures, and other trappings apparently caused him to lose his way.
For example, Dr. Fauci early on warned against dependence on mask wearing, citing “unintended consequences” and noting that they didn’t provide much protection. Yet he later repeatedly overstated the known benefits of masks and never disavowed his previous declarations, leading many to conclude that his counsel seemed rooted more in shifting public perceptions than actual evidence.
Fauci also had the exasperating habit of changing his estimate regarding the percentage of the population needing to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, the point at which protection effectively extends to all, vaccinated or not. He finally admitted that he changed his statements based only on his assessment of what the public was ready to hear.
He recommended mandating six feet of distance from others in public, although he later admitted it was nothing more than a personal guesstimate. He initially was an enthusiastic supporter of gain-of-function research in China’s Wuhan lab, but later evaded questions and denied involvement when the consequences of the catastrophic lab leak became known.
What Fauci left unsaid was equally harmful. He neglected to point out that participating in a George Floyd riot was as unhealthy as mingling in any other crowd in 2020 and that there was no evidence supporting school shutdowns.
Fauci indignantly informed his critics that “I am the science.” But the days of authority-based science are past. Fauci’s self-serving deceptions broke the trust relationship with the American people. We may be reaping the consequences for years to come.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Jan 6, 2025 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
What accounts for the differences in academic achievement between inner-city poverty area schools and high-income public schools? We‘ve all heard of the dreadful schools in cities like Chicago and Baltimore with no children in the entire school able to achieve even baseline levels of competence in math or verbal skills and many other schools with a third at most achieving at grade level.
Many would assume funding is the major determinant, but the facts don’t back that up. American public schools have traditionally been funded by local property taxes, which provide a clear advantage to the wealthy. But that was then. Today, education funding is complex, with federal funding for special programs, equalization formulas, and other inputs making it difficult for even experts to determine the bottom line.
A recent study from the Urban Institute confirmed other research showing that “when considering federal, state and local funding,” all states but three “allocate more per student funding to poor kids than to non-poor kids.” Moreover, researchers from Harvard and Stanford found that each extra $1,000 per pupil spending is associated with an annual gain in achievement of 1/10 of one percent of a standard deviation. In other words, more spending and more learning are essentially unrelated.
If more spending did produce more achievement, we would be morally obligated to provide it. As it is, we must look for other reasons to explain the achievement gap, examining how well the allocated funds are used. Education researcher Jay Greene observes that “wasteful schools tend to hire more non-instructional staff while raising the pay and benefits for all staff regardless of their contribution to student outcomes.”
Effective schools, whenever possible, prioritize the learning interests of students, eschewing the fads and misconceptions that plague the public school establishment. When a Stanford education professor helpfully developed an “equity-based” curriculum proposal, gullible California educators issued guidance against students taking algebra courses before high school.
After decades of the promotion of “context-based” reading instruction, it became obvious that the old-fashioned phonics instruction produced better readers. The Columbia University center that pushed context-based instruction was finally closed in 2023.
The devastating COVID closures demanded by the teachers’ unions disproportionately affected low-income public school students. The closures lasted longer and caused more learning loss for poor students than for those in private schools and more upscale districts.
The different, more “lenient” treatment afforded to low-income kids is evident also in the cellphone bans proliferating in the schools. Educators are suddenly realizing, after 20 years or so, that daily staring at a small screen bearing social media messages is not healthy for the developing brain.
According to advisories from the Surgeon General, UNESCO, and others, adolescent cell phone usage impairs academic achievement by distracting students’ attention from classroom instruction. Chronic cell phone overuse is also isolating and interferes with normal social development. Widespread cell phone use is associated with higher rates of teenage depression and suicide.
Eight states and many school districts have imposed cell phone bans, and others, including Arizona, are considering legislation. But there are objections. Parents feel the need to “keep in touch” with their children. Phones are also needed to locate friends in the lunchroom (yes, really). More seriously, parents worry about not having contact in a school shooting, even though the chances of any student encountering even one during their entire school life is vanishingly small.
The bigger problem is that legislative cell phone bans are typically so loose and riddled with exceptions that they are practically useless. California, with great fanfare from Governor Gavin Newsom, passed a bill that only required schools to “adopt a policy limiting or prohibiting smart phones by July 2026.” Any school with even an insignificant modification in cell phone usage would be legally in compliance, and enforcement would be a snap. Helicopter parents would still be in business. Florida’s ban is limited to classroom time only.
Private schools and high-end public schools pushed ahead with their own rules, which typically are more comprehensive and tightly written. Strict, uniform restrictions are easier for both teachers and students to understand. Meanwhile, poor students once again are saddled with misdirected compassion and low expectations.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Dec 20, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Americans of all persuasions have reached a rough consensus in favor of cutting government spending. We all, with the possible exception of hard-left Democrats, know that our present course is unsustainable and will lead to fiscal ruin.
Yet so far, no politician in a position to do so has been able to accomplish the feat. Ronald Reagan’s heart was in the right place, but he wasn’t able to get a reluctant Congress to go along without giving up his dream of ending the Cold War.
Most presidents and congresses since have been MIA in fiscal discipline. Donald Trump, although successful in many policy initiatives, failed utterly in this most critical area of all.
But now there is suddenly hope arising from an unexpected quarter – Argentina. Javier Milei, their new president, has shown after one year that it is in fact possible to reduce the size and scope of the state. It takes clear vision and resolve, not just bluster and campaign slogans that melt under populist pressure to spend.
Milei’s political persona is brash and flamboyant. He sported a chainsaw during his presidential campaign to dramatize his zeal for cutting spending. But he is a serious economist, a former university professor who has published over 50 academic papers. He fully understands the relationship between free-market principles and economic growth.
He doesn’t pander. During his campaign, he was candid about the effect of the large cuts in spending he contemplated including the termination of tens of thousands of jobs, the elimination of government agencies, and the loss of regulatory protection many would experience.
Here’s the key. Unlike most politicians who make extravagant promises, he did what he said he would. The International Monetary Fund confirms that in his first year, he cut government spending by an astonishing 30%, he eliminated or downsized 12 government ministries, he canceled 80% of public infrastructure projects, and he reduced the public payroll by 20%.
The results already speak for themselves. Argentina has a balanced budget for the first time in 10 years. The first quarterly surplus appeared in April. Significantly, inflation has been reduced from an intolerable 25% monthly in 2023 to about 2% per month currently. Argentina’s credit ratings are starting to improve. Output is beginning to expand.
Once Argentina’s banks ceased printing money to cover chronic deficits, economic pain was bound to ensue. Massive debt is still out there. As Milei warned, unemployment is up and the poverty rate has jumped to nearly 50%.
Yet Argentines seem willing to stick with the program. The amazing drop in inflation (they have their money back) and the belief that the pain will be worth the gain seems to be keeping up morale. Milei’s approval rating is 55% and rising, with few signs of widespread discontent.
It helps that deregulation has already produced benefits. The Milei government has improved everyday life by slashing red tape around things like air travel, divorce, and satellite Internet. A housing boom has developed with rent deregulation. Rents have stabilized and mortgages are once again available. The poverty rate is already falling.
The left is not impressed, of course. Al-Jazeera calls Milei’s presidency a “disaster.” The BBC worries that he is “influencing” America’s new policy makers, asserting that “taking inspiration from Milei to reduce the size of government doesn’t make any sense.” The New York Times frets about the hardships being forced on Argentines.
The tantrum on the left is understandable. Argentina, once a wealthy nation, has been brought low by decades of autocratic, collectivist economic governance. Milei convinced voters that Argentina should not follow Cuba, Venezuela, and other failed economies down the “soak the rich” path.
He preached not more government but less, not more trade barriers but fewer, not higher taxes but lower. If Argentina succeeds, leftists have some serious explaining to do.
The incoming American administration seems interested in learning from Argentina’s experience. “The deficit was the root of all evils – without it, there’s no debt…no inflation,” Milei counsels.
There is no secret sauce either, just the basic sound economic principles that are the known roots of prosperity. We don’t need more study at this point, just the steely determination to do the right thing.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Dec 7, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
America’s friends of limited government have had a rough go lately. Government bureaucrats and spenders of all stripes have been living it up.
Since 2001, the last time the federal budget was balanced, federal revenues have shown healthy growth of 3.9% annually, while inflation averaged only 2.5%. These figures would normally signify a sound, sustainable economy. But spending has grown at a rate of 5.5%, so instead we have a destabilizing gross federal debt of $36 trillion.
The response of the Biden/Harris administration to this looming catastrophe was to double down on spending. In an era of relative peace and prosperity, they kept mindlessly passing out money to win political points.
The hope now is that the Trump/Vance administration can reverse this madness. If so, the Department of Education (DOE) would be a good place to start. It is a prototype bureaucracy that has grown and prospered despite a complete lack of mission success.
The DOE was created in the 70s, ostensibly to improve the chronically ailing achievement scores in government schools. But in spite of the hundreds of billions spent, it has totally failed. Instead, it has provided steady employment for thousands of education bureaucrats who administer federal grants and programs, and write jargon-laden academic papers, yet have made no discernible difference in the quality of American education.
Remember Goals 2000, Every Student Succeeds, or No Child Left Behind? What about the Office of Safe and Healthy Students, the Education Facilities Clearinghouse, or offices dedicated to American-Asians, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Hispanics, African-Americans, and other hyphenated groups singled out for special treatment? Of course you don’t, unless you are one of the lucky recipients of their largess.
But DOE has been worse than useless. It provides a platform for the teachers’ unions, by far the most influential protector of the status quo and obstruction to school choice. The damaging COVID shutdown was the latest blow to union-run public schools delivered by the DOE/unions dynamic duo.
Most private schools and charters, with access to the same medical information, kept their schools mostly open. Their students didn’t suffer the crippling learning loss that the unfortunate wards of the DOE did.
Ronald Reagan was the first of many leaders to advocate for the DOE’s elimination. But like bureaucracies everywhere, DOE is dedicated above all else to its own preservation, which is the one goal in which it has succeeded. It won’t be easy, but returning education policy to the states would be a great service to future generations of students.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has a similar failed history. When it was created in 1964, the U.S. homeownership rate was 64%. After six decades of HUD stewardship, the homeownership rate is still 64%.
It’s not like they haven’t tried. HUD’s mortgage companies – Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae manage multiple housing programs with federal finance agencies, all with the goal of controlling costs and boosting home ownership.
Yet under HUD’s “leadership,” home prices have far outstripped inflation. When HUD was created in 1967, the average home price was $22,000, about three times the average family income. Today the average home costs $500,000, seven times income. Meanwhile, European households without a comparable bureaucracy average 69% home ownership.
HUD has spent about $4 trillion since its inception with little to show for it. The housing market would function at least as well if the government simply got out of the way.
As these and other bureaucracies have grown and prospered, we have developed a very centralized form of government. In the land of the free, we have grown comfortable sending our tax money to Washington for faceless bureaucrats to return to us, always with strings attached.
We get the healthcare, the education, the roads and other goodies that government decrees. Government buys or subsidizes everything from unpopular electric cars and trains, state and local government public safety departments, “climate initiatives,” and much more.
Reforming an entrenched bureaucracy, much less eliminating it, is extraordinarily difficult. Yet the present could be a rare opportunity to repair this destruction to our way of life. We must be fearless and strategic in reducing government excess and providing a successful economic future for our descendants.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Nov 22, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Democrats in the last election insisted that re-electing them was necessary to “protect our democracy.” But it turns out that for many of them, democracy only deserves protection when the democratic process produces their preferred result.
Prop. 314 was proposed to allow police to arrest immigrants who don’t cross the border at a legal point of entry and to deny public benefits to illegal immigrants. It was approved by over 60% of the voters. Sounds like democracy at work, right?
Not to Phoenix councilmember-elect Anna Hernandez, who vowed that the “Phoenix Council must move immediately to protect immigrant refugee residents in the city from the violence of 314… I am ready for this fight.” Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, like many others, was also on board with the resistance, promising that neither the Phoenix Police Department nor “any city resources whatsoever” would be involved in enforcing this particular law. So much for respecting the democratic process.
Yet more Americans are beginning to realize our immigration policy sorely needs major corrections. In 1995, the Chairwoman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, Barbara Jordan, herself a civil rights icon, told Congress, “Deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summarized in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave…For the system to be credible, people have to be deported at the end of the process.”
She’s right. There is no way to fix Kamala’s “broken immigration system,” (her words) that doesn’t involve deportation to undo the damage done.
Here’s where we are. The low hanging fruit is the 1.3 million aliens who have been given their due process and are legally qualified for deportation. They are part of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “non-detain docket” of 7 million aliens, including criminals, who have not yet been processed but otherwise are eligible for deportation. Congress already has authorized ICE to deport all these individuals.
The obstacle is that their “recalcitrant” home countries refuse to provide the travel documents needed for the return of their own nationals. (Hmm. Wonder why.). The Supreme Court has ruled that all those, even the criminals, who are not deported within six months must be released.
However, under U.S. law, once the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has notified the State Department that a foreign country “denies or unreasonably delays” the return of its nationals, the Secretary of State must order consular officials to discontinue granting all visas to that country. That would surely get the attention of “recalcitrant” like China and India. Yet the Biden/Harris administration, ever loathe to stem the inflow of future Democrats, refused.
Despite the massive surge at the border following the 2021 inauguration, fewer than half as many aliens were removed by the Biden/Harris administration as during the previous four years. Instead, they alternated between laughably claiming the border was safely closed and that the only way to “fix” the problem was a comprehensive amnesty program combined with greater funding at the border but only to expedite the processing of immigrants.
There are other remedies that would mitigate the damage. The DHS secretary is allowed by law to require all aliens without a green card to be registered and fingerprinted. This would not only get a handle on the “gotaways” and criminals who have melted into the population. History suggests it would also trigger voluntary departures.
Finally, we could enforce the E-Verify program and compel employers to check on their workers’ immigration status. Many employers prefer cheap, compliant employees, but the long-term costs to our nation are too great. Absent the economic incentives, both public and private, few illegal immigrants would remain.
We are inviting many long-term economic and political problems by accommodating a cohort that will inevitably demand increased government support as they age. But more importantly, the Rule of Law is our legacy as Americans, the key to our freedom and prosperity. Ignoring the law at our border is a horrible mistake.
Border control and deportation don’t require more funds, more laws, or military action. It is a matter of simply enforcing the law for the protection of us all.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
