Oh, I got really mad listening to Alan Chartock at an upstate New York community college lecture. He is a political commentator and a hard-core left wing guy. I'm okay with that. You can vote... politically... for whomever you want and for whatever reason. College kids, those who listen, are likely to soak up whatever drivel Mr. Chartock is selling. He makes no bones about his left-wing world view, including that Obama is "the smartest man" without offering an ounce of evidence. However, economically is a different story. There, the facts must speak for themselves.

He said Obama was lucky as compared to governors like Patterson because the Federal government can "print their own money." This is a lot like saying "jumping out of airplanes without a parachute is not a problem..." The landing might be a bit difficult, but that's another story. I would like to see Mr. Chartock play the game Monopoly with someone who introduces extra cash to the game. Prices will sky rocket.

He also reiterated 2 of Obama's planned promises. First, he said said that Obama is going to "spend and spend and spend until the recession is over" and he stated that "Obama is going to balance the budget." Sane people recognize that these statements are mutually exclusve and the first statement is economically irresponsible. If spending would get us out of a recession, then the overspending during the Bush years surely would have kept the recession from ever happening in the first place. Remeber, a spending orgy, by any other name (i.e. stimulus plan) would smell just as foul.

This recession is nothing more than an economic hangover and the proposed cure is nothing more than another drink. And left-wing talk shows hosts (NPR, of course, means your involuntary tax donations at work) who "drink the kool-aid" are the last to see it coming. But this election wasn't about economics. That said, we bought more than we bargained for.

During the campaign, Barack Obama mentioned Warren Buffet’s support in order to add credibility to anything Obama said economically. Buffet is a gazillionaire, so it employs the "smart money" and “intelligent by association” arguments. Of course, since the election Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway has reported profits are down 77% and the stock lost 25% of its value. With his kite sinking fast, it’s time to consider Buffet more closely.

Obama described some of Buffet’s beliefs in the "Audacity of Hope." There was the following Warren Buffet discussion about the estate tax.

“When you get rid of the estate tax,” he said, “you’re basically handing over command of the country’s resources to people who didn’t earn it. It’s like choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the children of all the winners at the 2000 Games.”

Buffet is afraid the elimination of the death tax would lead to a wealthy aristocracy with the rest of the people poor. Those wealthy people would not have earned it. Buffet and Obama want success based on merit. Sounds good, but passing the sound test doesn’t mean it will pass the smell test.

First of all, putting the money in the hands of politicians to spend as they please is – from a moral point of view – even more wrong that allowing it to pass to the heirs. People are far more inefficient with someone else’s money than they are with their own, regardless of how they came to acquire it. The next generation would at least have the self interest of preserving their “goose that lays a golden egg” rather than a politician who is serving goose dinner to his friends and supporters.

Secondly, the money belongs to the old guy. By the sweat of his brow he worked and by the strength of his spine he took risks. The rewards are his and not the government. Warren Buffet can pass all his money to the government if he pleases, but that is no reason to force everyone else to do the same.

Thirdly, the children of said rich man did earn something. The little girl who got up after her father left for the morning commute and only saw him when she was ready for bed in the evening paid dues so that the family fortune could grow. The successful business owner arrives before the first worker and stays after the last one leaves. The price of making all that money is a certain loneliness that comes wondering where you fit into your father's life.

Fourthly, with the death tax in place, the government would be discouraging economic growth. A successful businessman in his late 50’s or early 60’s would have no incentive to keep growing the business or start a new one.

If there was limited passing on of wealth - or I should say the potential to pass on wealth - then the successful businessman who dreamt of “hitting a home run” would never have invested in a new idea. He would have been an involved grandfather. He would sit on a beach and drink martinis all day. Economic activity in the nation would have been reduced to busier golf courses.

Lastly and most importantly, there is the notion of "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations." The premise is simple. From the generation that moved from working class to upper class, it will take only 3 generations to return to working class. The first generation moves to the cultured city and enjoys all the trappings of a big-city executive. The second generation inherits both the illusion of grandeur and the resume that lacks merit-based achievement. They won’t understand the risk, reward or the value of a dollar. When the money is all gone, the third generation returns to the working class roots.

Rather than the Olympic analogy, Warren Buffet should think of kite-flying. The first generation may get the kite off the ground and hand the kite to succeeding generations, but those generations need to be able to fly a kite. Sure, inheriting a kite that is already flying is easier than starting from scratch, but the government should not go around snipping the tether lines of every kite in the interest of being fair. Even someone who inherits a kite needs to figure out which way the wind blows. The free market corrects the allocation of inheritances as swiftly and certainly as an “invisible breeze” separates the kite flyers from the rope holders.

There is a reason so many politicians can’t solve the financial crisis. They are not smart enough and for that matter neither is the publicly schooled public who elected them. However, there is a way to solve both problems at the same time. Privatize education.

In the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, they wrote a list of ways to bring about communism. Their “Top 10” list included “Free education for all children in public schools” as Number 10. It is time to teach the Communist Manifesto and stop living it. Imagine the investment capital flooding into the government coffers when the sale takes place and again every year when the corporation is taxed on its profits.

School districts could sell or lease schools to private educational upstarts. Competition is the key ingredient in defining and determining quality. Centralized planning has proven a disaster though it is doubtful that high school students – most born after the collapse of the Soviet Union- would know. It is individuals making personal decisions en masse that move the market in the direction it needs to go.

Let’s do the math. A 400-student elementary school would generate $4 million in annual sales. How many people would quickly invest in a business that instantly began with million dollar sales? Finding investors would be simple. Keeping clients would be a bit more difficult. That is the essence of competition.

Schools would have to find their niche. The math school, the technology school, the special needs school. Every school would do what it took to be successful and school success would be defined by the number of students who return satisfied that last year’s education was worthwhile. Sure, schools would fail, but unlike government-run schools they would be allowed to fail gracefully and swiftly. They would not linger in failure from one generation to the next.

Profit is the sterling-silver word caked in mud as if profit from a child is heathen, dirty and untouchable. Profit motivates hard work and customer service. This would eliminate the half-day parent-teacher conferences where contractual language bargained to unions allow every parent to be inconvenienced so that one teacher will still get to leave at 3 PM every day of the year. Profit motivation would add those days back to teaching and learning.

The opposite of profit-driven schools is not non-profit schools but non-efficient schools. Spending other people’s money rather than their own, the schools bungle through projects that are more whim than cost-effective, customer-driven, value-added programs.

Regardless of what the local teacher union president says in the newspaper, a guaranteed income and job security for life never made anyone a better teacher. Quality comes from incentive. If President-elect Obama can choose Sidwell Friends school because it is the “right fit” for his children, why can he not see that it is competition that helped create the right fit?

It is time to allow students and parents to make their own choice about their right fit. And their decision should be "Private."