Category: public policy

The U.S. Senate: Unrepresentative

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

The United States was founded as an aspirational representative democracy. No taxation without representation. One man, one vote. Yet, the Senate was created at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to equally represent the states in the federation, not to equally represent the citizens. This was a compromise between the small states and the large states.

How the Great Compromise and the Electoral College Affects Politics Today – HISTORY

The Unconstitutional Implications of the Two-Senator-Per-State Rule — Northwestern Undergraduate Law Journal (thenulj.org)

Distortions

Recent critics focus on the extent of the distortions favoring the citizens of small versus large population states.

California’s 39M residents have the same representation as Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota who each have three-quarters of one million residents. This is a larger than 50 to 1 advantage for these four states. The California-Wyoming ratio is 68X, meaning that California citizens have just 1.5% as much power as Wyoming citizens.

A majority of states comprised of the 26 with the lowest populations represent 18% of the population. In theory, they could combine to outvote the other 24 states with 82% of the population. States with 57M people have more power than states with 269M citizens. The “lucky duckies” in the small population states, on average, get more than 5 times as much power as those in the large population states.

Distorted democracy: Change the Constitution or the states to fix it (usatoday.com)

The 9 most populous states contain more than one-half of the US population, but get only 18% of the Senators. The other 41 states with less than half of the people get 82% of the Senators. The filibuster rules that allow 40% of Senators to block Senate action give 41 Senators representing 11% of the country a potential veto. The two-thirds requirement for constitutional amendments and treaties gives this power to 34 Senators representing 5% of the population.

Abolish the Senate (bestdemocracy.org)

The 50/50 Democratic/Republican split in the Senate shows Democrats representing 185M residents versus 143M for Republicans. Democrats represent 40M more people with the same number of Senators. They represent 29% more citizens each. If California (D) and Texas (R) are removed from the calculation, Democrats have 30M extra voters to represent for the same number of Senators.

Demographers estimate that the disproportionate influence of small states will increase further in the next 20 years. In 2040, the 15 largest states will have 30% of the Senators (power) and 70% of the population, while the 35 states with 30% of the population will have 70% of the power.

‘The Senate is broken’: system empowers white conservatives, threatening US democracy | US Senate | The Guardian

Who Benefits from the Small State Advantage?

Republicans tend to be more popular in small states. In the 30 least populous states, Republicans have 35 Senators versus 25 for the Democrats, a 10 seat advantage. In the 20 most populous states, Republicans have 16 Senators versus 24 for the Democrats, an 8 seat disadvantage (2018).

Small states are getting a much bigger say in who gets on the court | CNN Politics

Most statisticians estimate the Republican advantage in the Senate to be the equivalent of 3%.

The Senate is a much bigger problem than the Electoral College – Vox

In 1950-1960, the impact of small states was more evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. The benefit to Republicans grew through time.

‘The Senate is broken’: system empowers white conservatives, threatening US democracy | US Senate | The Guardian

The Senate Has Always Favored Smaller States. It Just Didn’t Help Republicans Until Now. | FiveThirtyEight

Historically, small population states (mostly rural) have taken advantage of their relative power advantage to gain proportionately more federal spending, military bases and employment (earmarks, committee chair advantages). They have looked out for the interests of their citizens with distinctive federal policies for agriculture, natural resources/oil, highways versus mass transit, gun control/gun rights, criminal justice views, etc.

Lower population states have lower levels of immigration, fewer non-English speaking residents, higher per capita health care spending, higher % households with student debt, lower poverty rates and higher % of home owners.

the-senate-is-an-irredeemable-institution.pdf (filesforprogress.org)

Various calculations indicate that minorities lose representation and power versus Whites. Non college grad whites +12% extra representation. Non college grad blacks -20%. Non college grad Hispanics -30%.

the-senate-is-an-irredeemable-institution.pdf (filesforprogress.org)

As Blacks make up 11% of the 26 least populated states, but 15% of the 24 most populated states, they are 25% underrepresented.

Distorted democracy: Change the Constitution or the states to fix it (usatoday.com)

One author estimates that Whites get 0.35 Senators per 1M population, while Blacks get 0.26/1M and Hispanics just 0.19/1M.

‘The Senate is broken’: system empowers white conservatives, threatening US democracy | US Senate | The Guardian

Another author says that rural residents get 37% extra say, Whites get 13% extra compared to the average voter while non-Whites get 22% less for a total 35% minority voter penalty.

The 2021 Senate Will be Unrepresentative | by Michael Ettlinger | Medium

Why is This Such a Hot Issue?

The Republican advantage is material and is likely to continue.

The country’s political parties are more clearly aligned on a single conservative-liberal dimension, making parties and voters more polarized and reducing the opportunity for compromises based on other dimensions.

Starting with Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party discovered the power of 100% party discipline in both the House and Senate, making trade-offs, compromises, deals and log rolling less likely.

While rural/urban differences have always existed in the US (Federalists vs Democratic Republicans, North/South, Farm populists), the alignment of cultural and economic interests with the 2 parties now reinforces these differences.

The electoral college includes a vote for each Senator, so distortions are reflected to a lesser, but material, extent in presidential contests. US Supreme Court nominees require Senate confirmation.

The White/minority power difference.

With a divided population, the legitimacy of government is threatened.

Not a Problem (Opposing Views)

US Congress has stood the test of time with its “checks and balances”, including the purposeful compromise between large and small population states.

In the long-run, the advantages to one political party have faded.

The Pareto Principle (80/20) rule applies to many calculations like these. The forecast 30% of people with 70% of votes is less distorted than 80/20.

The US was formed as a federation of states with equal rights, like the sovereignty rights of nation states.

Voters do get “equal representation” in the House.

Geography and property are valid dimensions of political power, with a right to be represented.

There are many dimensions to political power. Urban areas are over represented in the economy, universities, media and culture. This gives rural areas/citizens an opportunity to be heard.

Constitutional Amendment?

Article 5 states that “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate”. Hence, some would argue that no amendment can change these voting rules. Perhaps unanimous consent of the original 13 states would be sufficient. If a regular amendment was possible, it would require the support of two-thirds of the Senators and three-fourths of the states. Realistically, any amendment would require the potential support of 40 states, with only 10 left behind. This would require support from a majority of Republican states and all Democratic states. A Constitutional Convention with all options on the table may be required to change the basic 2 Senators per state rule.

The Senate is a much bigger problem than the Electoral College – Vox

Potential Solutions

Replace House and Senate with a unicameral legislature.

Abolish the Senate (bestdemocracy.org)

Allow states with some high ratio of the smallest or average state to divide into 2 or 3 or more states. “Encourage”/incentivize states with less than 1% of national population to merge with another state. Start with California and Texas.

The United States Senate was explicitly designed to be undemocratic. (milforddailynews.com)

Assign a “bonus” Senator to states with a population greater than 3 times the average population.

Redraw the whole state map to reflect natural economic areas with population differences of no more than 5 to 1.

Assign Senators based on 1 per state plus 1 per population with 110 total Senate seats.

The Unconstitutional Implications of the Two-Senator-Per-State Rule — Northwestern Undergraduate Law Journal (thenulj.org)

Change Senate election rules to have both Senators from a state be elected in the same election. Allow 2 candidates per party. If 1st place winner does not win at least 52.5% of votes, choose second Senator from party with second highest vote total.

U.S. Senate has fewest split delegations since direct elections began | Pew Research Center

Add District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states. Consider Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas and US Virgin Islands.

Finally, some “political” solutions.

Provide economic development assistance grants for 10 smallest states to increase their population, especially their urban population.

Target economic policies/incentives to small, rural states to support the Democratic party.

Examining America’s Farm Subsidy Problem | Cato Institute

Provide incentives for 400,000 Democrats to move from California to Wyoming (125K), Montana (61K), Alaska (45K), North Dakota (36K) and South Dakota (132K) to narrowly win elections in 5 small states!!

US Poverty Rate, 1965-2019

tomkapostasyLeave a comment
YearRateAdjusted RateAdjustSingle Female HOH Pov RateSingle % of FamiliesSingle % of PoorNon Single Rate
20199.07.41.62518515.4
201511.59.32.23119526.9
201010.68.62.02919526.2
20059.88.11.72818515.8
20009.98.11.83018535.6
199511.69.52.13518536.6
199010.68.91.73417526.1
198511.710.21.63516477.4
19809.58.31.13215495.7
19759.38.70.63313446.0
197010.610.40.23311347.9
196516.016.00.040102613.3

Table 13.

Historical Poverty Tables: People and Families – 1959 to 2019 (census.gov)

I summarized the data in this table into 5 year buckets, just 4 years for the most recent 2016-19 period, to make it easier to review.

The poverty rate is the number of families out of 100 who meet the Census Bureau’s evolving standard of being poor, based on family size and location. For the last 4 years, 9.0% of families were considered poor.

The adjusted rate in the 3rd column calculates what the poverty rate would be in each period, if the nation had a constant 10.2% of families in the female head of household, no spouse present category (single moms), as was the case in 1965.

The adjustment is shown in the fourth column, reducing the average measured poverty rate.

The poverty rate for only single moms is shown in the 5th column.

The share of ALL families headed by single moms is in the 6th column.

The share of all POOR families headed by a single mom is displayed in the 7th column.

The poverty rate for families headed by a male is listed in column 8.

The OVERALL poverty rate dropped sharply (by 42%) from the early 1960’s at 16% to nearly 9% in the early 1970’s. The overall poverty rate was finally a shade lower in the 2016-2019 period, down to 9%. The overall poverty rate was in the 11% range throughout the 1980’s and first half of the 1990’s. It improved to 10% at the turn of the millennium, but rose back to 11% for the next decade. Overall, the rate was roughly flat for 50 years, ranging from 9-11%.

Partisans love to argue about the “war on poverty”. This data indicates that the early war was effective, but the enemy fought the proponents to a draw for the next 50 years.

Table 13 highlights the growing number and share of single female headed households. Single moms were just 10% of all households in 1965. They increased by 80% to 18% of the total by the early 1990’s, and have stayed in the 18-19% range thereafter.

The single mom poverty rate was unusually high in the early 1960’s at 40%. From 1970 through 1995 it averaged one-third. Single mom poverty rates were reduced by 10% to 30% for the next 20 years. The rate has fallen again, to 25% in the latest period. However, the single mom poverty rate has consistently been 4+ times as high as the male head of household group. Single mom headed households doubled their share of all poor households, from 26% to 52% in the last 50 years..

The male head of household group started with a 13% poverty rate. It dropped to 6% by 1970 and generally remained there for 40 years, aside from 7% rates in the 1985 and 2015 periods. Note that this is a greater than 50% reduction in the share of poor families. The “war on poverty” appears more successful from this vantage point. The rate edged down to a record low of 5.4% in the most recent period, as the extended economic recovery reduced unemployment and started to increase wages for lower skilled workers. This is a 60% reduction in poor families since the early 1960’s for this subgroup.

Column 4 shows the negative impact (mix variance) of having nearly twice as many families in the 33% poverty rate group versus the 6-7% poverty rate core group. By 1980, this change increased the poverty rate by 1%. By 1995, the impact was 2% and has remained in this range.

The adjusted poverty rate, standardized at the 1965 10.2% share of single moms may be a better measure of the effectiveness of overall policies and economic results. The adjusted rate starts with the same 16%. The effective poverty rate drops to 10% in 1970 and further to 8.5% in 1975-80. There is a spike back up above 10% in 1985 before falling back to 9% for 1990-95. The revised rate drifts down to 8% for 2000-2005 (50% reduction from 1965). It pops back up to 9% for 2010-15, before falling to 7.4%, a record low, finally less than half of the starting rate.

Adjusting for the mix of single mom households versus others provides a better view of the country’s effectiveness in reducing poverty. The adjusted poverty rate has been reduced by 60%, not just by 44%.

We can review poverty rates by age, race and education another day. The recent COVID-19 funding bills appear to be very effective at further reducing the US poverty rate. A relatively small amount of money seems to be working. The causes of more single mom headed households and focused policy solutions is also a topic for another day.

Good News: US Air Pollution Declines

tomkapostasy2 Comments

Long-term Trends

The EPA provides consistent raw data from 1980 to 2020 showing very rapid improvements from 1980-2000 and continued, but slower improvements in the last 20 years on 7 measures of air quality. For each item, reductions from 1980-2020 and from 2010-2020 are listed.

Carbon monoxide: -81%, -12%

Lead: N/A, -86%

NO2: -64%, -21%

Ozone: -33%, -10%

Particulate Matter 10 (medium): -26% since 1990, +9%

PM 2.5 (fine): -41% since 2000, -18%

Sulphur Dioxide: -94%, -74%.

More details at this website:

National Air Quality: Status and Trends of Key Air Pollutants | US EPA

Decade by decade data.

Air Quality – National Summary | National Air Quality: Status and Trends of Key Air Pollutants | US EPA

The EPA publishes an annual report/web page to summarize results. In addition to the colorful graphs, its shows sources of pollution and describes the effects of individual pollutants. It provides statistics that normalize pollution measures against GDP which has grown greatly across 40 years, highlighting the even greater achievements by that measure. It shows pollution by city. It details EPA program areas and improvements. It notes that measures of more than 100 “toxic” air pollutants are down (but not zero). It shows that annual “unhealthy days” in the nation’s 35 largest cities have fallen by two-thirds, from 2,100 to 700/year between 2000 and 2015. It shows that “visibility” in scenic areas continues to improve. This report provides significant extra detail in an easy to drill down format.

Our Nation’s Air 2021 (epa.gov)

Our Nation’s Air – Air Quality Improves as America Grows (epa.gov)

Comparisons

Based on the fine particulate measure, the US ranks 84th best of 106 countries (top 20%).

World’s Most Polluted Countries in 2020 – PM2.5 Ranking | AirVisual (iqair.com)

US state measures vary quite widely. Indiana ranks 45th, 46th and 48th by 3 measures.

State Pollution Rankings | US News Best States

Air Quality By State 2021 (worldpopulationreview.com)

see national air pollution tab.

Explore Air Pollution in the United States | 2020 Annual Report | AHR (americashealthrankings.org)

Recent Concerns

The particulate matter measures have historically had the slowest reductions of the 7 measures. The medium particle (10 microns or less) rate increased between 2010 and 2020. The fine particles measure stopped falling at the end of the decade.

w26381.pdf (nber.org)

Bad Air Quality Plagues California, Washington, Oregon Cities : NPR

The Trump administration has loosened regulations, reduced funding and attempted to limit the ability of states to set tougher standards than those at the federal level.

What is the Trump administration’s track record on the environment? (brookings.edu)

NACAA2021PresidentialTransitionDocument-01152021.pdf (4cleanair.org)

Opportunities for Improvement

Interest groups, like the American Lung Association, portray the data to show that the glass is half-empty. The ALA focuses on the two weakest measures (fine particles and ozone). They drill down to daily peak events rather than average annual rates. They drill down to the city or county level to highlight the lower performers. They take the national quality standards and construct a “grading system”, so that the worst “F” cities and their scores can be emphasized. They use these results to show how many people are negatively effected by poor air quality. They emphasize that most of these cities are in the west and southwest. They point out that minority groups are disproportionately impacted by pollution. They link extreme heat and wildfires as causes of recent pauses in progress, noting that global warming is the underlying driver.

Key Findings | State of the Air | American Lung Association

Air quality in US dramatically worse, says new ‘State of the Air’ report – CNN

A recent United Nations article evaluates the last 50 years in the US, highlighting the improvements summarized above. The article emphasizes the health costs of poor air quality and the economic benefits of improved air quality. The “tone” and the “title” are negative. The report highlights the recent uptick in particle measures. It points to the lack of a decrease in CO2/greenhouse gases. It notes that the US is one of the top 10 worst air polluters ranked by number of deaths (not per capita). Finally, it says that the US EPA also agrees that there are major problems.

The United States Clean Air Act turns 50: is the air any better half a century later? (unep.org)

Overview of Greenhouse Gases | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Pollution and Health Metrics: Pollution by country data and rankings (gahp.net)

The EPA website lists 4 challenges.

  1. Meeting increased science/health based standards.
  2. Climate change
  3. Reducing toxic pollutants
  4. Protecting the ozone layer

Air Pollution: Current and Future Challenges | Overview of the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution | US EPA

Summary

Like many public policy issues, especially environmental issues, there are competing ways to assess the current situation. The big picture data clearly shows ongoing improvements across 40 years. The fine particulate matter measure stands out as one that may be threatened by climate and fire issues. Federal, state and local regulators, together with businesses, governments, not-for-profits and individuals have taken steps to improve air quality and appear likely to continue in this direction.

On the other hand, air pollution above certain levels, in specific locations, especially for toxic substances, even for short periods of time, does have negative health and economic impacts. There are opportunities for improvement. The U.S. measures are just average compared with similar highly developed economies.

The world, including the US, has made great strides in reducing the emission of gases that threaten the ozone layer. However, CO2 levels in the US in 2020 are the same as in 1990. While US GDP has increased significantly since 1990, so we are more environmentally “efficient”, that does not matter when trying to globally reduce “greenhouse gases”.

US Infant Mortality Rate: It’s Complicated

tomkapostasy1 Comment

The good news is that infant mortality rates (deaths/1,000 live births in 1st year) declined by 80% between 1950 and 2000, from 35 to just 7 and have declined an additional 14% to a little less than 6 by 2018.

• United States: infant mortality rate 1935-2020 | Statista

Infant Mortality Rate for the United States (SPDYNIMRTINUSA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

The main CDC page highlights the 5 main causes of death, the significant state differences (higher rates in the south central states, Ohio and WV, and differences by race. Black infant mortality rates (IMR) remain more than twice as high as non-Hispanic Whites. Asians have lower rates than Whites. Hispanic White infant mortality rates are “close” to the White rates.

Infant Mortality | Maternal and Infant Health | Reproductive Health | CDC

The Petersen-KFF website provides clear summaries of the main dimensions of this public health area. About 2/3rds of deaths occur in the first month and are termed neonatal. The remainder in the first year of life are termed postnatal. Both neonatal and postnatal death rates have declined in the last 20 years.

Petersen provides more details on state level death rates, showing that the Great Lakes states have high rates similar to the southern states (7), while much of the country has much lower rates (5).

Births for mothers under 20 show death rates almost twice as high as those in their twenties and thirties.

Ten factors account for two-thirds of deaths, lead by congenital defects and early delivery/low birth weight which account for one-third.

The US mortality rate (5.8) is 75% higher than other countries with similar income levels (3.5). The world-class results in Japan and Finland come in at 2. Details in the way the US reports its figures may account for one-third of the difference versus comparable countries. While the US rate has declined from 7 to 5.8 in the last 20 years, the comparable group reduced its rate from 4.6 to 3.3. Various sources propose that socioeconomic inequality, racial differences and health care system differences account for the US’s poor performance.

What do we know about infant mortality in the U.S. and comparable countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

Health status – Infant mortality rates – OECD Data

The racial disparities in infant mortality rates are addressed in various ways.

The very different rates by state seem to show that differing health care policies matter greatly.

Regional variation in Black infant mortality: The contribution of contextual factors (plos.org)

Socioeconomic and racial differences at the county level can be clearly seen in Indiana.

Infant mortality in Indiana | County Health Rankings & Roadmaps

The US Health & Human Services website highlights black-white differences in birth weights, SIDS occurrence, early births/low birth rates and causes of death.

Infant Mortality and African Americans – The Office of Minority Health (hhs.gov)

The statistical analyses to disentangle socioeconomic status and race are very complicated. Most show that socioeconomic status accounts for half of differences, but not nearly 100%. This study found that maternal education, maternal marital status and maternal age “explained” much of the racial differences. Of course, the authors then point to poverty and income differences as underlying factors.

Racial and Ethnic Infant Mortality Gaps and the Role of Socio-Economic Status (nih.gov)

Several more recent studies point to systematic racism working through a large number of lifetime events which impact the mother’s health as the primary cause of racial differences in infant mortality rates.

Exploring African Americans’ High Maternal and Infant Death Rates – Center for American Progress

Eliminating Racial Disparities in Maternal and Infant Mortality – Center for American Progress

One study of Florida births indicated that having a black doctor reduced deaths by 40% for black infant births. White infant mortality was not effected by the race of the doctor.

Black newborns 3 times more likely to die when looked after by White doctors – CNN

In summary, great progress has been made since WW II and continues to be made in the US. However, the reduction in death rates has slowed down. The US death rates are much higher than in other higher income nations and death rates in Europe and Japan have declined faster than in the US. US state death rates range widely, from 4 to 8. Black death rates are twice as high as white death rates.

There remains room for significant progress. World class 2 deaths per 1,000 versus 4.7 for American whites, 11 for American blacks, 4.2 for Californians, 4.6 for New Yorkers, 6.1 for Illinoisans and Floridians, 7.2 for Buckeyes, Hoosiers and Georgians, more than 8 for Mississippians and Arkansans.

Good News: U.S. Air Travel Climbs.

tomkapostasy1 Comment
YearAir-Miles10 Year % Change
196033
1970118258%
198021986%
199035964%
200053148%
20105555%
201975436%

• U.S. passenger-miles in air traffic 2007-2020 | Statista

U.S. Passenger-Miles | Bureau of Transportation Statistics (bts.gov)

Revenue Passenger Miles for U.S. Air Carrier Domestic and International, Scheduled Passenger Flights (RPM) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

BTS | Table 1-37: U.S. Passenger-Miles (umich.edu)

Since 1970, US air travel has grown by 4% annually, year after year after year.

Air travel in 2019 is more than 6 times as large as 1970 and more than 20 times as large as 1960 when the term “jet-setters” was coined.

How Could We Lose? Democrats Lament.

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

In the 2020 elections, Democrats once again earned a smaller share of votes than expected. Republican candidates in national, state and local election outperformed. Candidate Trump registered 74M votes, 11M more votes than in 2016. Americans were voting for the “real Trump”, not just the imagined populist candidate Trump. He earned 47.0%, up from 46.4%. Biden registered 81M votes, 15M more than Hillary’s performance. The Democratic share increased from 48.5% to 51.3%. A presidential win, a narrow House win and a very narrow Senate win.

“How can this be?” questioned the Democratic party leaders and supporters. “Where is our landslide victory?”

There was a higher voting percentage, which usually helps Democrats.

There were more registered and voting minorities, which always helps Democrats.

There were more young voters and fewer older voters, which helps Democrats.

The “special” negatives of Hillary as a candidate could not effect the results.

America is becoming less religious and less evangelical, which helps Democratic results.

Voter surveys show 60% plus support for many leading Democratic policies.

Despite the 2010 “Citizens United” Supreme Court case that eliminated restrictions on campaign contributions, Democrats raised money as effectively as Republicans.

Obama was able to win convincingly in 2008 and 2012 as a moderate Democrat, increasing the number of independents who would consider voting for Democrats at all levels.

Democrats deliver results on social, environmental, international, military and economic issues.

Like all political parties, Democrats “know we are right”.

Setting aside the “policy content” of the 2020 election for this article, Republicans had their own advantages in these elections.

The “megatrend” in the US and west continues to lean toward conservative politicians since the Reagan/Thatcher switch. There is great momentum in voting.

The U.S. Senate and electoral college provide an advantage to Republican leading states, adding 2-4% to the pure voting totals.

Republicans captured a greater share of state legislatures in 2010 and took advantage of this position to gerrymander state and national districts in their favor. At the national level, this adds 1-2% to the Republican House team.

The Republican supporting media (Fox) and talking heads continue to be more effective than the Democrats who are still “catching up.” Republicans have effectively undercut the legitimacy of the “mainstream media” for many, causing them to abandon centrist platforms and consume only Republican supporting sources.

The Republican advantage in the public policy “think tank” arena continues. See the article aggregators at RealClearPolitics or RealClearMarkets for samples of “policy pieces”. Left-leaning contributors from the academy, unions, not-for-profits, entertainment industry and Democratic party publish fewer articles and generally restrict their content to research articles.

Republicans continue to have an advantage in painting Democrats as extremists, socialists, communists, radicals, anarchists, irresponsible, anti-American, soft on crime, atheists, secularists, relativists, opportunists, special interest supporters, pinkos, big spenders, etc.

While Democrats always considered themselves “the party of the big tent”, Ronald Reagan was able to erect a tent which welcomed various somewhat incompatible streams of “conservativism”: philosophical, main street, wall street, religious, social, economic, libertarian, traditional, military and American. Republicans have leveraged this advantage, cooperating on “conservative” policies and ignoring those with conflicts.

Republicans since Newt Gingrich have effectively defined a very polarized world view. Democrats are the enemy. Party discipline is paramount. Results matter most. Insufficiently conservative or loyal reps have been chased from the party. This means that all Republicans vote for all Republican candidates in the general election. Any Republican is better than any Democrat.

Far left, new left, progressive Democrats take a different stance. They support progressive policies and candidates. They are not sure that a moderate, center-left Democrat is “better” than a Republican. They may not vote, cast a write-in ballot, or choose the libertarian or the socialist option. This costs mainstream Democratic candidates 1-4% of the general election vote. In Europe, they would have a party to vote for and the coalition building stage of a parliamentary government would give them influence, from time to time.

Republicans continue to win the framing and communications wars, better positioning their policies and candidates. Pro-choice versus pro-life. American versus globalist. Free market versus government control. States rights versus central government. Regulations versus necessary limits. Common man versus elites. Balanced budget versus deficit spending! US versus UN.

In recent years, Republicans have started to shape election laws to favor turnout from their supporters and discourage turnout from their opponents. This did not appear to have a major impact on the 2020 results, but could do so in the future.

“politics ain’t beanbag”.

Republicans have very effectively managed their political resources and campaigns in recent years. The Democratic demographic trends are simply not enough to assure wins in the short-run.

Free Trade

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Historically, for more than 200 years, economists, conservatives, industrialists and western countries have supported free trade, based upon the theories of Smith and Ricardo. Free trade creates more valuable goods and services. Free trade provides opportunities. Free trade forces domestic firms to become more competitive. The losers from free trade can have their losses mitigated through enlightened government policies. Leftists and labor unions have opposed free trade because governments have not always provided those “enlightened” policies to offset the negative effects on workers and because far leftists cannot support any positive results from capitalism.

3 typical pro trade arguments.

Benefits of free trade – Economics Help

Why is free trade good? | The Economist

Why Free Trade? | IFT (ifreetrade.org)

Conservatives in the west have generally supported free trade for these last two centuries. Western firms and their beneficial owners were positioned to benefit (on average) from free trade. Part of this was the justification for imperialism and economic extraction from “less developed countries”, but most advocates saw the local, corporate and global benefits of trade. Republican support of free trade has been consistent in the post WW II era. Most Republican policy wonks agree with their Democratic colleagues that the great depression was deepened and prolonged by anti-trade legislation in the US and elsewhere.

The Benefits of Free Trade: Addressing Key Myths | Mercatus Center

7 Reasons to Support Free Trade – Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)

The Benefits of International Trade | U.S. Chamber of Commerce (uschamber.com)

Economists of mainstream political views tend to support “free trade” as a government policy which can provide benefits for countries and the global economy.

Is free trade always the answer? | Business | The Guardian

Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

A Super-Majority of Economists Agree: Trade Barriers Should Go | Cato at Liberty Blog

Center for Economic Research and Forecasting | Economists Do Agree on Something! (clucerf.org)

4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree – The Atlantic

The free trade position has been opposed in the last 200 years by many. Leftists and less developed countries see this as gloss to justify exploitation. Marxists oppose capitalism. Labor sees the negative impact on domestic wages. Environmentalists see trade as a way to export pollution. Anti-globalization advocates see trade as a way to provide power to multinational corporations, so oppose it. Supporters of “less developed countries” argue that pure free trade unfairly prevents firms from developing. Incumbent firms argue that competitors have “unfair” advantages, including government support, that must be offset.

Why do economists support Free Trade? | Jobs Back (JobsBack.com)

Free Trade Is Killing American Manufacturing | IndustryWeek

Free trade in economic theories | Exploring Economics (exploring-economics.org)

Economists on the Run – Foreign Policy

The Folly of Free Trade (hbr.org)

While the “science” and “interests” of free trade may be clear, the “politics” is less clear. In a simple, win/lose, Manichean view, evil foreigners attempt to defeat good domestic firms and their employees. Populist politicians of both left and right views are tempted to tap this voting block.

Here’s why everyone is arguing about free trade (cnbc.com)

Failing at Free Trade: Why Economists Haven’t Won the Debate (dtnpf.com)

Finally, 2 articles that consider both sides.

Free Trade Agreement Pros and Cons (thebalance.com)

4 Reasons Free Trade Has Become A Contentious Political And Economic Issue (forbes.com)

As with many modern public policy issues, there is a professionally supported position (pro, with some limits or compensations). However, the gap between the relatively complex analysis (comparative advantage, history, statistics) required to support these conclusions and votes is wide and used by politicians to frame and tell stories in their best interest, not the interest of the nation or its citizens.

Federal Government Employees

tomkapostasy2 Comments
YearExecPostalEx+PostActMilTotalSubDefSubCivilianU.S. Pop
19551.9.42.32.95.24.11.1166
19601.8.42.22.54.73.51.2181
19651.9.42.42.75.03.71.3194
19702.2.52.83.15.94.31.6206
19752.1.62.82.14.93.21.7216
19802.2.52.82.14.83.01.8227
19852.3.73.02.25.23.31.9238
19902.3.83.12.15.13.12.0250
19952.0.82.81.54.32.32.0265
20001.8.82.61.44.02.02.0282
20051.9.72.61.44.02.02.0295
20102.1.62.81.44.22.22.0309
20152.1.52.61.34.02.11.9321
20202.2.52.81.44.12.12.1331
YearExecPostalEx+PostActMilTotalSubDefSubCivilian
19551.1%.22%1.4%1.8%3.1%2.5%.64%
19601.0%.23%1.2%1.4%2.6%2.0%.66%
19651.0%.23%1.2%1.4%2.6%1.9%.69%
19701.1%.27%1.4%1.5%2.8%2.1%.76%
19751.0%.26%1.3%1.0%2.3%1.5%.79%
19801.0%.24%1.2%0.9%2.1%1.3%.79%
19851.0%.30%1.3%0.9%2.2%1.4%.80%
19900.9%.30%1.2%0.8%2.1%1.2%.82%
19950.8%.28%1.1%0.6%1.6%0.9%.76%
20000.6%.28%0.9%0.5%1.4%0.7%.70%
20050.6%.24%0.9%0.5%1.4%0.7%.68%
20100.7%.19%0.9%0.5%1.4%0.7%.65%
20150.7%.15%0.8%0.4%1.2%0.6%.59%
20200.7%.15%0.8%0.4%1.3%0.6%.62%

All Employees, Federal (CES9091000001) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

All Employees, Federal, Except U.S. Postal Service (CES9091100001) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

All Employees, U.S. Postal Service (CES9091912001) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

1970 (usps.com)

US Population by Year (multpl.com)

DCAS Reports – Active Duty Deaths by Year and Manner (osd.mil)

U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014: The Numbers (historyinpieces.com)

How Many People Does the U.S. Federal Government Employ? (historyinpieces.com)

Federal Workforce Statistics Sources: OPM and OMB (fas.org)

Executive Branch Civilian Employment Since 1940 (opm.gov)

Total Federal Government employment has ranged from 4-5 million across the last 65 years, from 1955, when post WW II changes were in effect until today, 2020.

While Federal Government jobs have been flat to down 20%, the U.S. population has doubled, from 166 million to 331 million people.

Hence, the ratio of federal jobs to population has dropped from 3.1% in 1955, or 2.6% in 1960-1965 to just 1.25% in 2020. The much maligned and mistrusted federal government is less than half as large, in relative terms, as it was from 1955-1965.

The detailed components are somewhat complex. The judicial and legislative branches have employed a relatively immaterial 30,000 to 66,000 during this time, doubling with the population.

The Executive Branch includes both the Department of Defense and other civilian agencies. It does not include active military employees. It typically does not include the postal service (USPS), which is seen as a truly independent agency. The Executive Branch started with 1.860 M employees and ended with 2.206 M in 2020. The low was 1.778 M in 2000 and the high was 2.252 M in 1990. In rough terms, flat employment for 65 years. As a percentage of the population, it has ranged from 1.12% to 0.65%, declining throughout the period.

The postal service started with 367,000 in 1955, grew to 761,000 in 1990, flattened out for 1995-2000, before declining to 492,000 in 2015 and 496,000 in 2020. So, we have a doubling in the first 45 years, adding 400,000 staff, followed by a reduction of one-quarter million in the last 20 years. As a percentage of the population, it grew from 0.22% to 0.30%, before declining to 0.15% in 2015-2020.

Combining the executive, legislative, judicial and postal branches, we get a subtotal that excludes the active military category. This is what most people think of as “federal” employees. This started at 2.3 M in 1955, grew to 3.1 M in 1990 before settling down a bit to 2.8 M in 2020. As a percentage of the population, it began at 1.36% and ended at 0.84%. This is a 38% reduction, removing more than 0.5% of the population from government employment.

The active military population has declined from 2.9M in 1955 and 3.1M in 1970 (Vietnam winding down) to 1.4M in 2000 (peace dividend), where it has remained. As a percentage of the population, this function declined from 1.77% in 1955 to 0.99% in 1975 to 0.49% in 2000 to 0.42% today. This is a 3/4ths reduction. moving 1.25% of the population out of military service.

The “Total” column shows the 5.2M start and 4.2M end. The percent of population falls from 3.13% down to 1.25%. The Federal Government is a much smaller employer today than in the “post-war” era.

The next column combines the Department of Defense in the Executive Branch with the active military to give a total military. This does not include the Veterans Affairs or Department of Homeland Security which serve quasi-military functions. We start with 4.1M in 1955, touch 4.3M in 1970, fall to 3.2M in 1975 and 2.0M in 2000, ending at 2.1M in 2020. The percentage of populations falls from 2.5% down to 0.6%.

The remaining federal employees began with 1.1 M in 1955 and grew fairly constantly to 2.0M in 1990, remaining flat for the next 30 years, ending at 2.05M in 2020. As a percentage of the population, this measure started at 0.64%, peaked at 0.82% in 1990 and has since declined to 0.62%, just below where it started.

After the Clinton/congress budget compromises in the mid-1990’s, criticism of the size and growth of Federal employment quieted down for the next 2 decades. Some criticism has restarted, as Federal agencies have increased the amount and variety of outsourcing employed through contracting and grants. The main summary shows that “contract” employees, those who work directly on Federal contracts, have been in the 3-5 million range since 1985. It reports that grant funded employees have been 1-2 million per year. The total is 4-7 million, the same order of magnitude as “regular” federal employment. I was unable to find comparable numbers for the 1955-1980 timeframe, so cannot be sure that this category has grown faster than the U.S. population. My guess is that there is some degree of “employee shifting” from regular to contracted employment. A subset of this is probably politically motivated, to please congressional oversight committees. On the other hand, corporate America discovered outsourcing to foreign factories and specialized firms in the 1980’s and probably moved 15-25% of jobs out of the Fortune 500. At one point, firms like GM and AT&T had 1 million employees.

Public service and the federal government (brookings.edu)

How big is the federal workforce? Much bigger than you think. – The Washington Post

The True Size of Government | The Volcker Alliance

The true size of government is nearing a record high (brookings.edu)

The sheer size of our government workforce is an alarming problem | TheHill

It’s the Economy, Stupid

tomkapostasy1 Comment

James Carville once tried to greatly simplify American politics. I’m going to take a longer term view, back to the 1940’s, using the Gallup Poll’s “Most Important Problem” surveys. He’s only partly right, IMHO.

For 1948-83, I’ll use the top problem from each year to greatly simplify the analysis.

In the Cold War period (1948-62), the economy was most important 3/14 years (20%). International affairs, aid, war, peace, nuclear attacks, etc. held the top spot for 10/14 years (70%). Race was the leading issue in 1956 (tied).

Terrorism and Economy Seen as Top Problems Facing Country Today, but Neither Dominates (gallup.com)

From 1963-72, Vietnam, War and Peace dominated in 7/11 years (63%). Race was the biggest issue in 2 years (18%). Crime/violence first became a leading issue in 1968. Ethics, morality and families also first became a top issue in 1968.

Through the transitional 11 years of 1973-83 (Nixon, Ford, Carter, early Reagan), the economy scored 22 of the 23 votes. The “environment” in 1974 was the sole outlier. Foreign affairs scored zero after its 25 year reign. Inflation was the largest economic issue, as “stagflation”, supply chain disruptions, gas shortages and oil prices pinched.

Inflation placed in 2 of the next 4 years as an issue, but was a relatively unimportant factor thereafter, registering in just 7 of the next 32 years (23%).

Paul Volcker’s Noble War on Inflation (yahoo.com)

In these first 35 years, the economy and international affairs were each half of the high visibility topics. Domestic affairs were a minor focus, aside from the issue of race, racism and race relations. The counterculture of the 1960’s and the reaction against it would have a greater impact later.

For the next 36 years, I’ll use a hybrid measure for important problems. Issues which were either in the “top 4” for the year or which claimed the attention of at least 10% of the respondents are recorded as important.

In this timeframe, economic issues wax and wane in importance, but overall they account for 42% of all topics. Economic topics at the end of senior Bush/Clinton were 70% of all responses. They declined in Clinton times to 40% and eventually just 20%. Economic worries increased to 40% in early junior Bush times, but declined to just 20% by the end of his tenure. Obama presided over the Great Recession, with 70% of economic topics ascendant, slowly declining to 30%. Trump inherited a healthy economy, with only 15% of those surveyed considering it a top issue.

Record-Low 12% Cite Economic Issues as Top U.S. Problem (gallup.com)

In the late Reagan period (1984-88), the economy remains the primary focus with 2/3rds of the votes (14/22). The budget deficit/government spending becomes a priority, recognized in each of the 5 years as a highly important issue. Federal government budget deficits exceeded 3% of GDP for the first time since WWII in the Reagan presidency and remained at this level for a decade until a Clinton/congressional compromise returned it briefly to break-even.

Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFSGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

International issues remained visible in Reagan times, with 5/22 votes (23%). With the end of the “Cold War” we have a dozen years with no priority international issues.

The first “emerging” domestic issue in the Reagan years was “drugs”. It was a priority for 3 of those 5 years (15%) and 6 of the next 12 years (10%). Democrats, some then and many now, claim that this was a veiled racist signal. Republicans, as in Prohibition, pointed to the direct negative impact on individuals and the collateral damage to others. Americans, in general, believed that “drugs” were a significant social problem for many decades, increasing with the more recent “opioid crisis”.

In U.S., 65% Say Drug Problem ‘Extremely’ or ‘Very Serious’ (gallup.com)

The Bush Sr years showed 50% attention (8/16) to economic issues: jobs, budget and overall. Drugs remained a major focus in 1989-92. Poverty became a material issue at this time, scoring a top rating in all 4 years and in 5 of the next 8 Clinton years. This generally Democratic favorable issue expired in the 90’s after “welfare reform” without major policy implications.

Government Ranks as Top U.S. Problem for Third Year (gallup.com)

Table 2.1.2012–Attitudes toward the most important problem facing the country, United States, 1984-2012 (albany.edu)

During Clinton times, economic issues were just one-third of the total (14/45). Foreign policy issues were non-existent. This created a vacuum for policy wonks and spinners to guide the public. Republicans clearly won this battle. The “war on drugs” continued, with moderate Democrats supporting additional measures. The “war on crime” was a top issue in 7/8 Clinton years. Again, Democrats pointed to veiled racism, while Republicans leveraged the statistics.

No Single Problem Dominates Americans’ Concerns Today (gallup.com)

The “culture wars” began in earnest, with “ethics, morality and family values” becoming a priority issue in 4 of the 8 Clinton years, highlighted by his impeachment on moral issues.

Secondary education quality became a national political issue. The 1983 study of “A Nation at Risk” highlighted the shortcomings of the decentralized US public education system. Although Republicans sought to eliminate the national Department of Education, they effectively criticized the American public education “system” as inadequate, captured by unions and in need of a competitive challenge through vouchers. President Clinton could not dodge the challenge and made improving the education system a priority. President W Bush followed in his footsteps.

Clinton presided over the consolidation of American superpower status, the expansion of Republican promoted free trade, balanced budgets and the embrace of the capitalist market system (The third way). This was not seen as a Democratic win or compromise, but an opportunity to focus on domestic policy issues, by wise Republican strategists at the national level.

Clinton also attempted to deliver some form of national health care. He failed. But, this was a top policy issue in 4 of his 8 years. It continued to be an issue in the W Bush years, even though no solution was proffered. The basic criticism of “national government” (think Spiro Agnew) re-emerged in the Clinton years, earning priority status in 2 of his 8 years in office.

Public Trust in Government: 1958-2021 | Pew Research Center

9/11 changed the world. In W Bush years, the economy ranked a top priority in one-third of minds (12/32). Terrorism and war in the Middle East was of the same magnitude (12/32). Crime, ethics, education and government became less important. Health care remained a priority (3/32) even though no “solution” was found.

Terrorism and Economy Seen as Top Problems Facing Country Today, but Neither Dominates (gallup.com)

In the Obama years, economic issues were rightfully the priority, earning two-thirds of the votes (19/30). The Republican driven “culture” issues were not as highly visible in this period. Health care was a priority issue, and continued to be so through the Trump years as Republicans fought to reverse this legislation.

Economy, Healthcare Top “Most Important Problem” List (gallup.com)

The legitimacy/illegitimacy of the national government began as a criticism of the Clinton years. This faded in the W Bush years, but came roaring back for 8/8 of the Obama years. Once again, Democrats pointed to racism, while Republicans increasingly criticized the basic validity of national government decisions that restricted individual choice.

Public Trust in Government: 1958-2021 | Pew Research Center

Record High Name Government as Most Important Problem (gallup.com)

Government Ranks as Top U.S. Problem for Third Year (gallup.com)

Trump inherited a solid economy and a world with fewer major active conflicts. Economic and foreign policy issues were not a priority. Traditional Republican “culture wars” issues were also less important to the public. Trump was able to raise immigration and trade to the status of important subjects. Health care remained an issue for 1 year with the failed attempt to unseat Obamacare and 1 year of Covid. Race became a priority issue for 4/4 Trump years. “Unifying the country” earned a top 4 spot in the last 2 years. Criticism of “the government” continued as a top 4 issue in all 4 years of the Trump presidency.

Heightened Racial Concern a Clear Legacy of Floyd’s Death (gallup.com)

More Americans Cite COVID-19 as Most Important U.S. Problem (gallup.com)

Across 70 years, the economy accounts for 44% of the votes. International affairs account for one-sixth of the votes. Domestic policy issues account for 40% of the total. Republicans were more effective at framing public thoughts, guiding their preferred domestic policy issues to be 25% of the total.

Most Important Problems: By Presidency and Category

48-6263-7273-8384-8889-9293-0001-0809-1617-2084-20
Cold WVietTransReagBushClintWObamaTrump
Inflation822329
Jobs352438123
Budget523122
Economy3112456825
SUB3022148141219168
Intl/Aid511
Viet/War570
ME/War4711
Terror55
SUB1070500120017
Crime1718
Guns11
Culture1415
Drugs3339
Educn516
Immigrn13
SUB020332040232
Poverty459
Health1432212
Race12145
Environ11
Unifying22
SUB12105933828
Govt218417
Total141123221645323015160

Good News: High School Graduation Rates

tomkapostasy2 Comments

There is significant politics and complex statistics in this subject area, but the basic outcomes are clear cut and positive.

High school graduation rates in the US increased throughout much of the 20th century. 1910: 10%. 1930: 30%. 1950: 60%. 1960: 70%. 1970: peak 75%. Then, graduation rates held steady or declined for the next 30 years! Various explanations are offered: increased graduation requirements, less effective educators, social challenges, mix of students.

Could the Common Core State Standards affect high school graduation rates? by Kelly Griffith and Victor Sensenig – AJE Forum

U.S. High School Graduation Rate Hits All-Time High | Data Mine | US News

Graduation rates fluctuated between 72-74% from 1980-2008, before starting a period of positive improvements into the mid 80% range.

Government Fail: Public Education – Capital Research Center

The gold standard is the data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). We have 5 different measures. The first 3 provide 1977-2017 comparisons.

Annual dropout events have declined from 7% to 5%. They reached a minimum of less than 4% in 2007 before increasing. White dropouts declined from 6% to 4%. Black dropouts declined from 10% to 5%. Hispanic dropouts declined from 10% to 6%.

The dropout status of 16-24 year-olds collectively declined from 14% to 6% overall. Whites dropped from 12% to 5%. Blacks declined from 20% to 6%. Hispanics fell from 33% to 10%.

The percentage of 18-24 year olds who had completed high school (or GED) increased from 84% to 93%. Whites rose from 87-95%. Blacks rocketed from 74-94%. Hispanics rocketed from 59-88%.

The “adjusted graduation rate” measures on-time graduation. From 2010 to 2016 it shows overall improvement from 79% to 85%.

The “freshman graduation rate” measures on-time attainment of a regular diploma. It shows improvement from 71% in 1995-98 to 82% in 2012.

Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 2019

The media has pursued the relatively straightforward dropout rate data, covering the significant improvements in all groups from 2000 to 2015.

U.S. High School Dropout Rates Fall, Especially Among Latinos | FiveThirtyEight

High School Dropout Rates – Child Trends

Why the U.S. high school dropout rate has fallen so dramatically – CSMonitor.com

At the international comparison level, the US has improved from 18th of 21 OECD (advanced) economies in 2006 with a 75% graduation rate versus 81% average to 9th of 35 in 2018 with an 86% graduation rate versus the 81% average.

EDUCATION AT A GLANCE: International Comparison Places the United States Near the Bottom in High School Graduation Rates and College Graduates | Alliance For Excellent Education (all4ed.org)

Students – Secondary graduation rate – OECD Data

From Sputnik to “A Nation at Risk” to “No Child Left Behind”, the US has become relatively more effective at setting goals, measuring progress and adjusting educational strategies and tactics. Some groups essentially act as gadflies, pressuring politicians, educators, administrators and boards to improve.

Home – The Hechinger Report

11 Facts About High School Dropout Rates | DoSomething.org

These policy groups have become effective at identifying groups that are not meeting the goals and offering recommendations for improvements. For example, they were able to identify a relatively small number of schools that accounted for a majority of non-graduates (Pareto principle). The pejorative term “drop out factories” was applied to schools with graduation rates below 60%. A tail of low performing schools remains (for various reasons), but many low performing schools were closed or greatly improved in the last 25 years.

What is a “drop out factory” and is it still an issue in today’s educational space? (stemscopes.com)

The leading group is termed “America’s Promise”. It has focused efforts on reaching a 90% graduation rate for every state, school and subgroup by 2020. Through the latest report from 2018, that goal has not been achieved, but solid progress has been documented. Graduation rates reached 85%, with 14 straight years of improvement. Between 2011-18 Black grad rates improved from 67-79%. Hispanic grad rates improved from 71-81%. Low income grad rates improved from 70-80%. Individual state scores demonstrated that even higher rates were pragmatically possible for all groups. In 2017, 2 states reached the 90% level. In 2018, 7 states met the target. They were from all corners of the country: Iowa, Texas, Alabama, New Jersey, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia. This group noted that 7% of students in 11% of high schools accounted for 28% of non-grads. It also noted that 10 states account for 56% on non-grads. It outlined specific recommendations for continued improvement.

The post 1999, “No Child Left Behind” progress is questioned by some sources. They claim that increased accountability has lead educators and administrators to simply work the system by changing graduation requirements or fudging tests. Statistical reviews of state performance discounts the effect of these alleged activities.

U.S. High School Dropout Rate [2021]: Statistics & Trends (educationdata.org)

Are America’s rising high school graduation rates real—or just an accountability-fueled mirage? (brookings.edu)

Two measures of educational performance (NAEP and PISA) focus on elementary and middle school results so they cannot be used to confirm or dispute the high school graduation improvements.

College admissions of a greater percentage of high school grads supports the positive results.

College remediation requirements remain high, but no clear increasing trend has been documented.

SAT scores have not significantly changed during the last 40 years (math up and reading down).

Average SAT Scores Over Time: 1972 – 2020 (prepscholar.com)

The number of students taking the SAT has remained relatively constant.

SAT – Wikipedia

US high school graduation rates improved from 10% to 70% between 1910 and 1970. They remained the same for 30 years as requirements were increased to meet the obvious challenges of a more competitive world (Sputnik, Japan, Asia, EU). Graduation rates have increased consistently for the last 20 years, mainly through improvements at the lowest performing schools. These improvements have slowed in the last decade, but progress continues to be made.