Putting facts above ideology

Recently there has been some debate about the value of a federally funded transit center in Troy. While it seems this particular project may not have a broad consensus the idea behind the transit center should.

In these difficult times we should be looking for the best return on investment of our tax dollars. If cutting public sector jobs shows a great return then do it. If increasing taxes tops the list of ROI then it should be done. In this case, infrastructure spending just happens to have some of the best return possible for government spending. It is better than tax rebates, better than payroll tax holiday, and far superior to business or capital gains tax cuts. Ask any business and they will happily go into debt to invest in a product that if can increase their profit margin from $0.30 per dollar spent to $1.59 per dollar spent.

Part of the reason infrastructure spending has such a high ROI is that the money is spend here in America. Tax cuts can be used to buy goods but there is no guarantee that ultimate benefactor of that money is domestic. Spending a little bit more on Christmas presents this year may help Wal-Mart a little but some of that money also goes to the Chinese company that manufactured the product. Infrastructure spending puts Americans to work improving America.

It also turns out that good infrastructure is important to corporations. This means improving infrastructure could bring more business to an area.

So maybe the transit center in Troy is a good idea or maybe it isn't, but making statements like "I don't believe..." or "I don't think..." adds no facts to the debate. In the end if you can't find statistical data that backs up your ideology then maybe the problem isn't with the project but with your ideology.

Light Bulb

Over the past few days we have seen a couple different articles on this blog (one by Libbey Spencer and another by Henry Payne) about the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which includes the phasing out of the incandescent light bulb.

As Libbey points out this legislation was originally passed in 2007 with bi-partisan support and then signed into law by then President George W. Bush. With this in mind it seems disingenuous of Henry to make a statement like "The light bulb ban was a dark symbol of the Obama Administration’s zealous appeasement of the green god of Global Warming." The fact that this legislation has become a lightning rod for conservative zealots doesn't mean they get to blame Obama for it. The worst you can say is that as a Senator Obama voted for this legislation.

Henry's classification of the legislation as "sneaky backdoor regulation" also seems inaccurate given the bill itself is called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and included many efficiency improvements across a wide range of industries which included light bulbs.

In keeping with the current conservative rhetoric Mr. Payne laments the jobs lost by this legislation. In particular he mentions a GE facility in Virginia which lost 200 jobs. It should be noted that these lost jobs paid around $30 per hour for highly skilled workers to do things like place cardboard sleeves in a machine. Odd that a conservative who seems to believe that union employees and teachers are overpaid is defending 200 over paid employees. Also, I thought conservatives believed in putting more money in the pockets of Americans? According to Energystar.gov the average consumer will save $40 per light bulb they replace over the life of the bulb. Australia figures upgrading to CFL bulbs will save the average household $46 per year.

Additionally suggesting that the EISA 2007 is the reason that GE is shutting down their facility is an uninformed view. According to a spokesman for the American Lighting Association "The industry has moved on." They have moved on because of the multitude of countries that are either banning incandescent bulbs or moving towards more efficient bulbs. This list includes China, India, Philippines, Malaysia, The European Union, Switzerland, The UK, Canada, Cuba, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and Venezuela. If Mr. Payne thinks the job losses now are bad, he should understand that insisting on using a product that the rest of the world has deemed inferior under the guise of "personal freedom" will only put us further behind.

But the thing I really don't get is why conservatives who complain that President Obama doesn't demonstrate enough American exceptionalism whine that we can't compete in the CFL market. The reality is the CFL bulb was an American invention from 1973 that GE shelved. 20 years later a Chinese company started producing CFL bulbs and continues to work on more cost effective ways to manufacturer the units. There is no reason to think that if GE had invested in the CFL bulb back in 1973 that we wouldn't have discovered the same cost cutting measures that the Chinese did and we could be the world leader in CFL manufacturing. We can't compete now because we chose not to be the leaders when we had the chance.

It is certainly debatable whether this is good policy or government overreach but acting like this legislation is a job killer ignores reality for the sake of political posturing.

Obama dominates foreign affairs

In a typical Presidential election year the foreign policy success of the candidates and the incumbent would be scrutinized and used as political fodder. If Republicans are lucky this won't be a typical year.

The two men currently at the top of the list to be the Republican candidate for president both accepted multiple deferments for the Vietnam War, and have little to no experience in foreign policy matters with Newt Gingrich even admitting "I don't do foreign policy."

President Obama on the other hand has an impressive list of foreign policy successes that includes the deaths of Osama Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi and the end of the Iraq War.

Additionally since 2007 the world's opinion of US leaders went from being second worst among the major countries to first.

When presented with this information the cries from the right start and they suggest Obama is only popular because he apologies too much. If this claim were even true, this is the same group that loves themselves some Tim Tebow and defends his poor play because he gets results. Well, if results are the only measuring stick then Obama is a winner in foreign policy.

In the end if you are easily persuaded by the fear mongering about national security like the concerns over the future of North Korea after the death of Kim Jong-il and having a president who is strong and foreign affairs is your number one priority then Barrack Obama is your man in 2012.

Bringin' The Stupid: Chris Mannix Edition

I have been a faithful viewer of Jim Rome is Burning for quite some time. For the most part, the guests on The Panel aren't all that intelligent. There are a couple notable exceptions (Ray Ratto! and Matt "Money" Smith) but most of them are nitwits like Jeff Chadiha.

I used to think Terence Moore - former writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was the standard bearer for stupidity on that show but, this week, Chris Mannix of Sports Illustrated has upped the ante.

Let me state my case:

Example One:

Jim Rome asks who wins the NFC East?

Mannix Answers: I like the Giants... outside of Aaron Rodgers, I think (Eli Manning) might be the best quarterback in the entire NFL.

WHAT!?!?!!? I was like Barbara Walters when Herman Cain said he wanted to lead the Department of Defense! That is absolutely insane. Has he heard of Tom Brady? Drew Brees? Ben Roethlisberger? As of this writing date, all three have a better QB rating than Eli Manning this season - let alone the better all around resume (and obviously better team records with each of their teams being 10-3 compared to the 7-6 Giants).

I was wondering if such a statement blew up the twittersphere?

EXAMPLE TWO:

Jim Rome asks Does the punishment (the suspension of James Harrison) fit the crime?

Mannix answers: I think it absolutely fits the crime and it's the right thing to do.

BULLSHIT!!! Sorry, that is pretty much all I can say for that one. He is entitled to his opinion... and he is wrong. Next.

EXAMPLE THREE:

Mannix predicts: DeAndre Jordan is probably going to average 13-14 points per game (in 2011-12).

Can I take the under on this? I might have some Chinese yuan I'd like to wager on that. In fact, Mannix himself predicted that Jordan was going to be another Tyson Chandler. Does he not realize that Chandler has been in the league for ten seasons, has averaged over 10 points per game twice with a career best of 11.8? Oh well, it's still a better prediction than the infamous prediction of Amy K. Nelson!

EXAMPLE FOUR:

Mannix says (regarding the Chris Paul trade): The Timberwolves pick is being viewed as manna from heaven - yet the Timberwolves got Rick Adelman, they got Ricky Rubio, J.J. Barea, (and) Derrick Williams. They're going to be a bad team but they're not going to be so bad that it's a top 2-3 pick... you're going to end up in the 8-12 range.

We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised if they split the difference (end up in 4-6). I will watch this with interest though; Ricky Rubio is probably the Spanish Sebastian Telfair. I like Derrick Williams - but he is probably going take time to develop a la LaMarcus Alridge. Point is that the T-Wolves are still going to suck.

EXAMPLE FIVE:

Mannix claims: In the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons, Chris Paul was by far and away the best point guard in the entire league.

Come on! The key phrase, in this case, is "far and away". I don't doubt that Chris Paul was the best point guard in the league in those two seasons, but it's completely revisionist history to claim he was "far and away" better than Deron Williams. I have some empirical evidence to present on this one: consider the 2008 U.S. Mens Olympic Basketball Team. Paul and Williams were both on that team. The minutes played per game in that tournament was Paul at 21.9 and Williams at 19.0. That hardly seems like the spread where one player far outclassed the other (in the eyes of the US coaches).

F The 99%, I'm With The 13%

Everyone knows these are confusing times. It can be difficult to know who to trust. However, there is one thing that no one in the Furriners office disputes - and it's not that Justin Bieber never should have cut his bangs, Elijah! - it's that I am a man's man. I like my passing game vertical and the front of the net cleared. Of course, this means I think - nay, I know - that Roger Goodell is turning the NFL into a sissy league. In fact, the only person more of a pussy than Goodell is Harold Ford, Jr. I will not argue about this. It is a fact.

Hence, I was disturbed by the question that I just found on ESPN.com. The question is:

Who is the dirtier player?

A) James Harrison
B) Ndamukong Suh
C) Neither is a dirty player

Like Rick Perry, this is a no brainer. The answer is C. The ANSWER is C. The answer IS C. Anything else is lunacy... like Michelle Bachmann.

So how is that 87% of the respondents picked either Harrison or Suh?!? I will not even elaborate on the breakdown. It does not matter. They are equally and unequivocally wrong. Period. Unless we're playing flag football, which the NFL is getting dangerously close to under the Goodell stewardship, neither is a dirty player.

I am with the 13%. The rest of ya'll can watch Justin Bieber and Harold Ford, Jr. and decide who would prevail in a fight between those two. FYI: my money would be on Bieber.

Job killing FCC

That job killing force known as the Federal Government is at it again. In yet another example of government overreach the FCC is instituting another new regulation and as everyone knows regulations kill jobs.

What is the new regulation you ask? Well the FCC has decided to punish companies that want to advertise using the television and force them to make sure that their vehicles of patriotism (commercials) are played on your television at the same volume as the program that you are watching.

I think we all know this is a clear violation of the freedom of speech for some of our countries most important people – corporations.

At this point the best thing we can do is just cross our fingers and hope that the damage isn’t too significant and that the Supreme Court fast tracks the challenges to this clearly unconstitutional regulation that we all know is an obvious attempt by President Obama to simultaneously implement Sharia law, limit the rights of true patriots, and force his socialist agenda down our throats.

May god help us.

"Sebelius and Obama Should Be Ashamed"

As is often the case, I'm a few days late with this post but I'm sure our loyal follower (the GoogleBot) won't mind.

The latest kick in the balls to the progressive movement by the Obama administration came last week when Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of Health & Human Services) announced that despite an FDA finding that 'Plan B' posed no health threats and could be sold over-the-counter without restriction, the Obama administration was maintaining the status quo that girls under the age of 17 would need a prescription to receive the medication (despite the fact that it needs to be taken within 72 hours of a sexual encounter to be effective - which essentially eliminates the possibility of getting a prescription quick enough for it to matter).

When asked about this at a press conference last week, Obama replied that he didn't want a 10 year old being able to buy medication next to batteries and bubble gum that "if not taken properly could be harmful".

That is a load of bullshit, no?!?

Couldn't that line of reasoning be applied to just about anything? I seem to recall that some jackhole died in the past year or two during a stupid radio-show stunt when he drank too much water! Does that mean we need to restrict water purchases because it could be harmful if not utilized properly?

It brings to mind a quote that I associate with Ani DiFranco:

Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.

Moreover, think back to when you were ten... were you perusing the pharmaceuticals looking for medication? When I was ten and happened to get my hands on a few precious dollars, I was buying baseball cards and/or candy. Did I miss out on a rite of childhood? The recreational use of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals? And, by the way, considering Obama bent over for Big PHaRMA during the health care reform debate, you'd think he'd be cheerleading people buying their products.

It also brings to mind an old Jerry Seinfeld joke about laundry detergent ads that stressed how good their product was at dealing with blood stains; Seinfeld observed that if you're dealing with clothes with bloodstains all over it, maybe laundry stains aren't really your biggest concern! This feels like that, if a pre-teen is looking to use B (either legitimately or illegitimately as in Obama's ludicrous scenario), then I'm going to suggest that misusing medication (deemed to be safe by the FDA) is really not the biggest concern in this child's life.

Comparisons

At this point it seems like there is nothing that the President can do that won't have conservative honks coming out of the wood works to complain about. It doesn't matter what the issue is. For these people no topic is too trivial.

The most recent example of this is the belief that President Obama compared himself to Teddy Roosevelt. Regardless of how accurate this claim is I fail to see how this is at all relevant to the troubles facing the country. Are we to assume that the President can no longer make informed decisions on domestic and foreign policy issues because he may have compared himself to another President?

He is after all one of only 43 people in the history of this country to hold the position so it would seem comparisons to his predecessors would be likely. Perhaps history will prove Obama right or the commenter's wrong. Regardless, what I can't find from these same conservative honks is their articles complaining about Newt Gingrich comparing himself to Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher, or Dan Quayle comparing himself to JFK, or George W. Bush comparing himself to Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, and Abraham Lincoln. Also absent from their writing is the reference from the patron saint of the Republican party Ronald Reagan comparing himself to JFK.

It seems like many of these examples should elicit a similar response, but this complaint, of course, is not about the absurdity of the ego of men in power but the vitriol towards a President. This is the beauty of the bully pulpit; no admission of historical facts required.

Balanced budget

Republicans have started a new push that has more to do with gaining votes using simplistic rhetoric than help our this country. Rep Tim Walberg summed up the plan on his Facebook page.

"Only a Balanced Budget Amendment and meaningful spending cuts will be able to bring down numbers like these [of the national debt]."

Do you know what people think using a balanced budget approach is asinine? Corporations. No corporation in it's right mind uses a balanced budget form of operating. A business understands that investments in future profits may make them unprofitable in the current year but that doesn't mean they suddenly start making cuts just to end up with a balanced budget for the year.

For a group of people who have been pounding the mantra of "government should be run like a business" a balanced budget amendment is baffling. These two ideas are essentially mutually exclusive.

Abraham Lincoln stated that "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities."

While the definition of a business states that businesses are "administered to earn profit to increase the wealth of their owners."

If Republicans really wanted to use a business model to reduce the national debt they would look at a combination of spending cuts, increasing their profit margin (raise taxes), and investing in future growth.

Passing a balanced budget amendment solves nothing. With or without it there are still tough choices to be made. Given how Republicans are already back tracking and looking for loopholes to the relatively minor cuts they insisted on in the debt ceiling debate it becomes obvious that this amendment is just a political tool that Republicans will carry home to their districts as a badge of honor. They will ignore the fact that no one in congress has the gravitas to make the cuts and tax increases required by such an amendment.

It should be noted that the highest increase in national debt according to the most useful measure, debt to GDP ratio, happened under George W. Bush. Odd that only now that a Democrat is in charge does a balanced budget become paramount.

Perhaps the most concerning about Mr. Walberg's statement is the "only" part. As if there are no other answers. Amazing that we have had a national debt for over 100 years and no one else has been smart enough to figure out that a balanced budget is the only possible solution. Not only that but a total of zero other countries in the OECD have balanced budget requirements. That includes the much revered Germany. Maybe this is the obvious common sense solution to Mr. Walberg and his colleagues but history would suggest otherwise.

If Tim Walberg and the Republicans really wanted to affect the economy and subsequently the national debt they would focus on health care costs. No other single expenditure takes up a greater percentage of the nations GDP and the costs for our current system far eclipse any other industrialized country. If we reduced the cost per person of health care it would add over $780 billion a year to the economy. Unfortunately of the 33 legislative priorities that Republicans are currently backing to improve the economy none of them address this issue.

Tim Walberg's insistence that a balanced budget amendment is the only solution shows how committed he is to getting re-elected. If only he had the same commitment to improving the prospects for the rest of us.

Job creators

Currently Republican rhetoric would have you believe that the rich are the only job creators. As though creating jobs is somehow a tenant of capitalism. While companies do create jobs, they only create the number of jobs that are necessary to maximize profit or to produce the supply of products that consumers will purchase. Employees are a supply that some businesses need to create products.

If more money in the hands of the rich or companies created more jobs then we would be setting records since taxes are at or near record lows for the rich and companies are holding record amounts of cash.

The problem with the belief that the rich create jobs is that it assumes jobs are the motive of companies. Profits are what increases stock prices and nets exorbitant bonuses for the top brass. If job creation was paramount to business success it would be listed on the companies quarterly reports.

The reality is that the true job creators are consumers. Consumers can exist without businesses but businesses can not exist without consumers. Before a monetary system was devised the barter system was the method used for individuals to satisfy their needs and with high unemployment the practice has seen a resurgence.

It should also be noted that in 2008 there were over 21 million firms in the US generating over $930 billion in sales using zero employees. This means that not every company needs employees to survive but without consumers, companies are irrelevant.

So while it may be true that the rich create jobs, they can not do it alone. The success of capitalism requires a balance of companies providing services and products that consumers want and can afford to purchase. If only congress could find a similar balance instead of staking out positions on the fringes like calling the 1% job creators to the detriment of the other 99%.

Professional Malfeasance

Yesterday, the whole nation, nay, whole world saw a public acknowledgement of professional malfeasance. Now, the liberal media is all apoplectic about the failure of the so-called Super Committee. Seriously, no one cares!

What people - from Zion to Kankakee - are really outraged about is the Chicago Bears going into the season with Caleb Hanie as their backup QB! How did their GM not take a run when Derek Anderson was available?!?! It's inexplicable. Now Jay Cutler is out indefinitely and you can stick a fork in da Bears.

If I were Keith Olbermann, I would say: Jerry Angelo, you need to RESIGN!!!

However, I am not Keith Olbermann. I am not making $10,000,000+ a year while thinking I am in touch with "the little guy". Sucks to be me.

And sucks to be a Bears fan... because you don't have Derek Anderson to save your season.

Lions, Falcons, and Giants/Cowboys fans rejoice!!

Monitoring The Media Monitor

Since I have a short attention span, my favorite segment of CNN's Reliable Sources is Media Monitor - where Howard Kurtz gives his "hits" and "misses" in the media during the previous week. I think he stole this segment idea from The Colbert Report's "Tip of the Hat/Wag of the Finger". Come on, Mr. Kurtz! I'm on to you! If you start doing a segment on the War on Christmas - everyone else will see what you're up to.

Anyway, I wanted to point out a blatant whiff by Mr. Kurtz this past Sunday:

The (actual) liberal media took notice last week that Fox News had labeled the young man who fired an automatic weapon at The White House - and was subsequently charged with Attempted Assassination - as the 'Occupy Shooter' (despite his having no connection to the protests).



How is it this massive media fail evaded the watchful eye of Howard Kurtz? Instead he took a few moments to defend Bill O'Reilly against his critics who have pointed out errors in Bill O'Reilly's new book. Way to take on the big issue, Howie! Glad you were there to catch that one.

Bias

One of the most common comments I receive on my posts is that my information is not reliable because it is from a source that the commenter believes has a liberal media bias. I assume their belief is that data or studies produced by liberal leaning sources cannot be impartial. Their solution; I should use conservative leaning sources.

The thing I find most amusing is how many of these people make this claim and then supply absolutely no information of their own to refute the "facts" in my sources. If my sources are so inaccurate then it should be easy to link an article that proves their inaccuracies.

Media bias is a lazy argument that proves nothing.

Regardless, I thought it would be a good idea to further examine a conservative leaning article that I read in creating my recent post on education.

The Heritage foundation put together a report titled "Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers". In their summary statement they ask the question "Do teachers currently receive the proper level of compensation?" followed by the answer "Standard analytical approaches to this question compare teacher salaries to the salaries of similarly educated and experienced private-sector workers, and then add the value of employer contributions toward fringe benefits. These simple comparisons would indicate that public-school teachers are under compensated." and further on stating that "public-school teachers receive salaries that are 19.3 percent lower than non-teachers who have the same observable skills."

So their initial conclusion is in line with other research on the subject except this is a conservative think tank and just like all of my liberal sources the Heritage foundation has an agenda and they must massage the data until it fits their narrative. Which is why the report follows that up with "However, comparing teachers to non-teachers presents special challenges not accounted for in the existing literature."

Luckily for us the Heritage foundation is smarter than all of the other organizations who have studied this topic and will set the record straight. They identify 6 previously unaccounted for categories and oddly enough every single one of them supports their eventual conclusion. I think this would qualify as the definition of bias when you discount the data that disagrees with you and in uncovering the "truth" every metric you decide should also be considered just happens to support your conclusion. A conclusion which took public school teachers from being 19.3% under compensated to "52 percent greater than fair market levels".

Having said that I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that there are truly only 6 different metrics that were not previously accounted for and every one of them shows that public school teachers are over compensated.

Unfortunately it doesn't take long to find issues with their claims and the data sets used to uncover the truth.

Most concerning is their claim that public teachers job security leads to them being over compensated. I don't take issue with the belief that job security has a value but to determine job security they use unemployment. First, they only use unemployment numbers up to 2010. Thanks to the stimulus package schools were given extra money over the past couple a years to retain teachers. Those benefits are now ending and so too is the job security that public teachers have enjoyed.

While the 2010 and 2011 unemployment numbers by profession are not available yet, the number of teachers employed is. Over the last 15 months the number of public school teachers has decreased by over 169,000. Accountants, which the Heritage Foundation report references as having a higher unemployment number and subsequently lower job security, have actually seen an increase of over 50,000 jobs in that same time frame.

In addition to this cherry picking of data, it should also be noted that 52% of teachers hold a Master's degree while only 21% of accountants currently have a Master's Degree. Data shows that the higher the level of education, the lower the unemployment rate. Perhaps teachers aren't filing for unemployment because they are able to find other jobs instead. If that is the case then using unemployment as a measure of job security is either intentionally misleading or willfully ignorant.

Of course using only the most advantageous data sets is not the only trick they use. They also frequently use the phrase "authors calculations based on data from the US Census" yet the data they supply the reader does not correlate with their conclusion. In one instance they use a chart to show that public school teachers are overpaid by 9.8% using one measure yet the numbers provided only show an advantage of 1.7%. I guess we are to assume the author has included other data that he felt is not worth providing the reader and since no link or reference is given to the specific data set used the reader must rely on the work of the author.

Other manipulations include is routinely making claims without supporting data, drawing definitive conclusions from extraordinarily small data sets, discounting all other studies on the matter as flawed, using select facts that support their conclusion while ignoring others that don't, making the claim that "no comprehensive data set exists" and then manufacturing a data set that just so happens to prove their point, and perhaps most egregious, listing an article in the reference and claiming it supports your data when the linked article actually says the opposite.

After reading the “study” I choose to ignore their findings not because they are a conservative leaning source but because when I analyze the data there are too many flaws to consider it a reliable source.

Maybe that is what you think of my sources too but using obtuse arguments like media bias as your only support doesn’t prove my sources are wrong or add anything to the debate.

It's debatable

I get the feeling that many of the commenter's on my posts believe that I think all of my arguments are infallible. The truth is I enjoy the debate and occasionally the commenter's bring something good to the table.

For example, my most recent post regarding education elicited a few good comments. One from commenter Constitutionally Speaking where he actually took the time to read an article I linked to and pointed out that the first study in the article I linked did not support my argument.

"The problem is, the study says no such thing. The study merely lays out the fact that the higher your education level is, the more you tend to make. That "statistic" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SPENDING on education. Decreasing teacher pay has NOTHING to do with what level of schooling kids end up getting."

Subsequent studies in the article do support my claims but so few commenter's actually read the links before pointing out how wrong I am and for that I thank you Constitutionally Speaking.

Also from this post came a well thought out comment from teacher Chris Geerer.

"Why am I the enemy? Because I completed both a bachelor's and master's degree while raising my children, without government assistance? Because I go to work every day to a "job" that is both a profession and a vocation, and earn every penny, being a surrogate parent to so many neglected children? Because I pay my mortgage and taxes on time, put my own children through college, make my car payments and credit card payments, clean my own house, take care of my own family, go to church every Sunday and teach catechism on Tuesdays, buy groceries and spend money in the community? Because I haven't made millions in the stock market, and am counting on my pension - which I pay into, every paycheck?"

All too often the comment section is filled by trolls who value their beliefs over statistics, studies, or linked support and think that tossing out their opinion followed up by a few insults is the best way to get their point across.

The reality is that people like Chris Geerer and Constitutionally Speaking who put a little time and thought into their comments are the people who really make the DetNews political blog what it is.

Of course that doesn't mean that I think the rest of the comments are a waste of time. Most of them are amusing, especially the comments where the writer thinks that he just "nailed" me or another commenter. So fun.

Regardless of which side you are on keep the comments coming. Who knows, maybe we will find some common ground someday.

This Could Go Either Way

I believe there has been only one occasion have I felt motivated to comment on a movie commercial. I take great pride in my calling out of how awful that stupid Adam Sandler/Jennifer Aniston movie was last winter. Now the resident Furriners buzzkill (Elijah Moon) will probably point out that EVERYBODY could see that was going to suck. Well, I have two points to make.

1. That movie, according to IMDB, grossed over $100m. So, clearly, not everyone knew it was going to suck!

and

2. Okay, Mr. Smartypants, did EVERYONE know that Derek Anderson was going to make the Pro Bowl when he was drafted in the 6th round?!?! I called that. (Now go get your shine box!)

But I digress. Last night was the first time I saw a commercial for a movie called Young Adult. From what I can tell, a woman played by Charlize Theron returns to her podunk hometown wanting to see how her old flame (played by Patrick Wilson) has turned out. When it turns out that he is now married with children, she goes to a bar and runs into an old classmate (played by Patton Oswalt) whom she apparently never would've acknowledged 20 years ago. It looks like they spend time together and they 'click'.


Okay. This is where I am concerned about the plausibility of where they are taking us with this plot. I sure hope they are not going to expect us to follow them to the Hollywood-ending of Charlize Theron learns a life lesson that true love/happiness can be found where you least expect it (in the arms of fucking Patton Oswalt!). YAWN!! We've seen that movie a million fucking times, Hollywood!! And it never gets more believable! If you wanted us to believe that, you should have cast Hillary Swank! Charlize Theron is much too gorgeous to sell that turd.

Now, all that said, this movie is written by Diablo Cody (Juno) and directed by Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank You For Smoking), so maybe it will surprise. This is not a guaranteed stinker - it's not like it's starring Cameron Diaz and David Arquette!

Take that, Elijah Moon! How many other people could see that this movie might really suck and might actually be good?!?

The Right solutions for public education

I have done a lot of research on eduction and I have yet to come across a study that finds that cutting teachers pay and lowering revenue for the schools boosts test schools or enhances learning, yet money seems to be the main focus right now of our elected officials regarding education.

In my town of Saline, the people just elected a gentleman named David Holden who, when you get to the brass tacks of his policy, wants to lower teachers compensation because he believes in the well debunked fallacy that teachers are paid too much. Here is a guy who has seen his property tax rates falls for three years straight and works for a company that just gave out a $1.171 million bonus to it's top official. His personal wealth is on the rise and his contributions to the schools are down and his idea of shared sacrifice is that the teachers must sacrifice wages so he can keep his taxes low. I assume it is coincidence that school spending needs to be addressed just as the last of his kids graduates.

Since when did we put money ahead of education? Families and students go into significant debt to pay for a college education. I'm guessing that is because they think a good education is valuable. By all accounts the early years of education are the most important years of a child's development. Yet we are making the biggest cuts in the area with the greatest potential return. If you believe in running government like a business then picking your area of best ROI for cuts is the exact opposite of a good business model. Studies show that cutting money for education hurts the economy and leads to lower earning potential for our children.

Outside of money one of the only "solutions" Republicans are offering is to fire bad teachers. But the reality is that there is no bad teacher epidemic. This is political rhetoric aimed at turning the uninformed against tenure. The statistic Republicans always use when talking about tenure is the number of teachers fired in the New York school systems in 2008. The problem is, that by it self, this statistic proves nothing. Perhaps there are so few teachers fired because the vast majority are good at their job. After all only 1.5% of teachers in the New York school system in 2008 received an unsatisfactory review.

Rather than immediately grabbing our pitch forks and burning all of the "unsatisfactory" teachers at the stake with a "bad teacher" label, wouldn't it first be prudent to understand why a teacher receives such a rating and determine if extra training could improve the areas where these teachers performance is unsatisfactory? Should the knee jerk reaction of "fire the bums" be our first response? After all, replacing teachers already costs the US $2.2 billion a year and teachers are least effective in their first year meaning hiring new teachers lowers the level of education student receive until the new teacher becomes experienced.

This of course assumes that we even have enough qualified candidates to fill all of the openings created by firing these hypothetical bad teachers. Reports indicate that there is actually a shortage of qualified candidates not an abundance.

Additionally, a study about effective teachers found that the traits of an effective teacher become apparent by year two. Most teachers don't get a chance for tenure until year three or four. Perhaps the real problem hear is the evaluation process or the administrators who grant tenure. Also 46% of new teachers leave the profession within five years. Perhaps only the good teachers who are passionate about education survive past the first five years.

Another study by the National Council on Teacher Quality found that one of the biggest problems for education is a lack of good student teaching. Being a good teacher doesn't necessarily mean you are qualified to convey to a student teacher everything that goes into being a successful teacher. If that were to case Michael Jordan would be the best coach the NBA has ever seen.

Perhaps we shouldn't focus solely on firing bad teachers but instead work on creating more good teachers. Placing student teachers with educators who have been trained or demonstrate a skill in training student teachers on the finer points of being a good teacher may be a much better and cheaper use of our resources.

To make matters worse many of the "solutions" Republicans are currently offering to improve our schools are also the exact same things that are driving quality teachers away from the profession. These include the threat of layoffs, low wages, testing pressures, and poor work conditions.

The real problem with education is not the unions, tenure or teachers but the arrogance and ignorance of our elected officials who think that teaching is easy and the solutions are obvious.

If we really want to improve public education we first have to educate our elected officials so they can stop making decisions based on what they believe to be true and start making decisions based on what the data tells us is true.

Jon Stewart: Meet Chris Hayes

There was an interesting yet rather frustrating appearance on The Daily Show on Wednesday night by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (or "Princess Nancy" as she is known by Herman Cain).

It was an appearance where Jon Stewart - who many on the right feel is a hyper-partisan liberal - kind of took Mrs. Pelosi to task for some of the failures of the legislative process and the Democratic Party's role in such failures.

Here a couple questions/comments from Mr. Stewart:

JS: At every turn, what I hear from you is "well, Republicans would have filibustered" or "the Republicans didn't want to do that". As far as I can tell, the Republicans had a much smaller majority than the Democrats had over the those two years and they got to do whatever the hell they wanted!

&

JS: ...while the Republicans might've filibustered, why not make them filibuster?

I have a couple comments about this before turning over the floor to Chris Hayes.

With regards to the first issue. Jon Stewart is informed enough to realize that the Democrats do not have the same caucus discipline as do the Republicans. That is almost inevitable given the "larger tent" that the Democrats have. Some of George W. Bush's most infamous legislative "victories" were aided and abetted by Democrats. Medicare Part D, for example, got plenty of votes from conservative Democrats (including Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson). Ben Nelson also is credited as the deciding vote to enable the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. Contrarily, President Obama and congressional Democrats do not have such Republicans to work with.

True, on some high profile issues - the repeal of DADT, for example, they may receive the votes of the the New England Three (Snowe, Collins, Scott Brown) and/or some other random vote - but sometimes they even lose their own members on procedural votes! Last month, Jon Tester and Ben Nelson (grrr!) voted against cloture on President Obama's American Jobs Act. So, yeah, it was filibustered. Does that make Jon Stewart feel better? Did it make any difference whatsover?

It is a bad position for President Obama to be in when you got some liberal observers like a Jon Stewart criticizing the Democrats for not being able to pass legilation over a unified GOP caucus in the Senate. (IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, JON!) Then, when there is a compromise - which have consistently, in the view of the Furriners blog, been more concessions on the part of Democrats - the President gets berated. All the while, the conservative media have fostered a perception of Chicago-style thuggery on the part of the Obama Administration. (Michele Bachmann infamously refers to it as a "Gangster Government").

So I had all these disparate thoughts while watching the show on Wednesday night. Then, as it happens, Chris Hayes was a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show yesterday and he more succinctly summarized the current situation - in a way that I think Jon Stewart could learn from. He says:

(In the senate), things can either pass 94-1... or they can get blocked. It's those two options. There's nothing in the middle. There's nothing in his current political terrain that can pass by a five vote margin, or a six vote margin, or a two vote margin because the habitual use of the filibuster and the political commitment on the part of the minority caucus in the senate to politically destroy the president in the run-up to the election is so strong it means going after everything the president has his name attached to.

Ding-ding-ding! Correct! Think for example of PAY-GO. This was an idea with several Republican sponsors. Then President Obama voiced his support for the idea and every Republican rescinded his or her support. And yet Jon Stewart's confused as to why the Democrats haven't been able to follow through on their entire legislative agenda?

Come on, Jon!

(Now go home and get your shine box!)

It's Not Going To Happen!

This is another that is essentially Just For Me - at least amongst those of us in the Furriners offices.

There is a moment in the cinematic classic Mean Girls (yeah, I said it!) where the leader of "The Plastics" played by Rachel McAdams chastizes one of her friends (played by Lacey Chabert) who is trying to introduce a particular slang word into their vocabulary.

Chabert: That is so fetch!

McAdams: Gretchen, stop trying to make "fetch" happen! It's NOT going to happen!

I've thought of that recently watching Hardball where Chris Matthews is plugging his own book on his own show everyday. It's a book about JFK and Mr. Matthews clearly worships JFK and calls him a "true hero".

I just think Whatever, Chris! It's NOT going to happen! I'm not buying your g-d book and I wish you'd quit plugging it on your show. If you want to plug your book, please do a proper book tour like Herman Cain. Maybe you'll run into him on the circuit because Mr. Cain seems to be doing every show that will have him. Who know he was so permiscuous? That doesn't seem like him at all.

Herman Cain

After the fourth claim of sexual harassment Herman Cain says that the Democrat machine is out to get him.

I personally don't care about the extra circulars that our elected officials get themselves involved in. That goes for Bill Clinton, Chris Lee, Mark Sanford, Anthony Wiener and Herman Cain. I just don't think that these indiscretions have much correlation to the personals ability to govern. Should they be held to a higher standard? Sure, but in this political climate that is never done without the partisan beer goggles on.

I do, however, find Cain's claim that the Democrat machine is out to get him laughable. This guy may be the least electable candidate the Republicans have trotted out so far. I'm not sure I could pick an easier opponent for Obama. To think that Democrats want to bring down a guy who has arguably the worst formulated tax plan in the history of this country is beyond ridiculous.

Herman. If your listening. We are not laughing with you. We are laughing at you and the Republican party that currently has you leading the polls.

Cain 2012!

Second Amendment? YES! Fifth Amendment? Meh.

I caught a few minutes of Fox News coverage on the elections last night. They were surprisingly rational about what happened - they acknowledged the "overreach" of Gov. Kasich in Ohio and that Republicans would be wise to heed the will of the electorate as it was being expressed in Ohio and in other states.

One comment that I did take note of was by some d-bag named Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard (a conservative rag). He mentioned some ballot initiative in Mississippi that restricted eminent domain. I had not heard of the initiative and have no opinion on it. All I wish to point out was his rationale for the lopsided vote was that Mississippi voters were indicating "that private property rights were important and need to be protected". I think that is reasonable observation. HOWEVER, let us not forget that it is the right-wing of the Republican Party who like to pull out their pocket Constitutions and hold them up like they're traffic cops. I just want to make sure they know that the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the power of eminent domain as long as there is "just compensation". Moreover, Wikipedia research indicates that power was extended to the states with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Does that make the Mississippi law unconstitutional? Good question, furriners! How the heck should I know? I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I'm barely even a blogger.

Stop It, MSNBC!! You're Blowing My Mind!!

File this post under Just For Me.

Here is my pet peeve. The 3:00pm hour of MSNBC programming is held down by Martin Bashir. He is a British citizen of Indian heritage. I don't honestly know where they got this guy from - but my initial impression was that he was a serious journalist.

It seems now it was just the accent that was giving him a somewhat distinguished air - because what, over the past year, has Martin Bashir been most visible for? Well, he was all over the Royal Wedding. Seriously! And I could not have cared less about that. Now, this week, Martin Bashir is MSNBC's go-to guy on the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray. More tabloid rubbish if you ask me.

MSBNC might as well bring out Tom Brokaw to talk about Kim Kardashian's divorce! It's that jarring. So stop it, MSNBC. If you're going to have a host doing tabloid fluff, you'd might as well go the FoxNews route and have it done by eye-candy like Megyn Kelly. (I might remind you that do have Contessa Brewer "in the fold" - as Mel Kiper, Jr. would say).

(CORRECTION: Contessa Brewer left MSNBC! Who knew?)

Government spending

In response to one of my recent posts a commenter (kayez) took issue with my statement that President cut government spending saying "I'm still trying to get my head around the statement that Obama has cut federal spending... that's just unreal" and "If someone blows trillions of dollars and then cuts a billion in spending, to me it's being disingenuous to describe that person on a macro level as having cut federal spending."

First, it should be noted that while the president submits a budget, Congress is in charge of putting together the appropriation bills which will become the final budget. In my previous post I linked to an article about one of President Obama's proposed cuts in Federal spending not cuts enacted by Congress. Having said that there are areas of the budget where cuts have already been made under Obama and his record on spending compares favorably to his predecessors.

The 2009 budget, put in place by President Bush, is only $237 billion less than Obama's 2012 budget. An additional $108 billion of the 2009 budget can be attributed to President Obama due to the stimulus package for a total of $345 billion in additional spending from the last Bush budget to the 2012 Obama budget. After adjusting for inflation the increase (including the 2009 stimulus spending) is only $128 billion from the last Bush budget to the 2012 Obama budget.

$156 billion ($130 adjusted) of the increase from 2009 to 2012 is interest on debt we owe. It is difficult to consider the interest we pay on our national debt as increased spending by President Obama especially given the fact that our 2011 federal revenue is below that of the 2000 revenue. Another $143 billion ($123 adjusted) in increases is due to increased spending on Defense, Medicare, Social Security. All of which the President has proposed cuts to.

If Congress were to keep Social Security and Medicare spending rates at their 2010 levels, President Obama will have decreased the budget by 1.5% per year over four years. Additionally under President Obama non-defense discretionary spending falls by a rate of 4.4% per year or a total of $239 billion.

The reality is that as President, Obama has presided over the smallest increase in Federal budget in a term since the end of World War 2, and the largest cut to discretionary spending over the past 40 years, while also proposing further cuts. Blaming him for Congress' failure to act on these proposals because Republicans have decided that their goal is to make Obama a one term president is not proof that he is some sort of big spending liberal.

Republicans Do Not Understand The Free Market

Or, at least, some of them apparently do not.

I was watching The Daily Show yesterday and they did a segment on "Moneyed-Americans" backlash (or, at least, the conservative media who protects them) over the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In the segment, a gentleman named Peter Schiff (identified as CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.) was shown lecturing a protestor saying:

If you raise my taxes, maybe I'll just decide to sell my business and fire 150 people.

Or Bill O'Reilly who said:

If Barack Obama begins taxing me at more than 50% - which is very possible - I don't know how much longer I'm going to do this.

By the way, that is, of course, not at all possible. For one, the President does not set tax policy; that is done by Congress. Secondly, President Obama has not proposed anything close to 50%; he has merely suggested we go back to the tax rates of President Bill Clinton (with the top tax rate being 39.6%).

Regardless, for the sake of this post, we will take these gentlemen at their word.

So what happens if Bill O'Reilly quits? FoxNews will not go dark at 8pm - no matter how much many of us would like it to; some other right-wing jack-hole will fill that time slot; staff will be hired and the effect on net jobs would be negligible. Mr. O'Reilly would fade into TV history like those before him and those that will follow. History stops for no one. Not even Tim Tebow.

As for Mr. Schiff, consider first his statement that if he might "sell his business and fire 150 people". You don't have to have an MBA to realize that if he sells his business, it will no longer be his decision as to who is fired and who is retained. (By the way, if Mitt Romney were to buy it, everybody is fired!) If he does not sell, but rather just decides to "take his ball and go home" (i.e. just close the business because taxes increased by ~4%) - as far-fetched as that is - the free market would fill that void; his market share would be taken by some other business (with people employed to take on that business).

So next time your conservative uncle or father or father-in-law warns you about progressive tax policy vis-a-vis job creation. You just tell him that he should have a little faith in the free market!

Exxon Mobil's pity party

In late October a website called exxonmobilperspectives.com put together an article titled: "10 little known – or often ignored – facts about gas prices and ExxonMobil’s earnings".

I have some concerns that this site might be biased towards big oil and in particular Exxon Mobil but assuming that simply because the article is paid for an written by a the company that it defends doesn't mean the information it contains is inaccurate.

There are 5 "facts" out of the 10 that while probably factually accurate are a bit misleading.

Often ignored fact: ExxonMobil makes pennies per gallon on gasoline, diesel and petroleum products it refines and sells in the United States

According to this source Exxon Mobil only makes $0.07 to $0.08 of profit per gallon of gasoline sold. The thing they don't tell you is that there are 42 gallons of oil per barrel and Exxon Mobil, as the article points out, refines 5 million barrels a day. This means their profit is $14.7 million dollars per day on their oil refining alone. Just because using one unit of measure makes the profit seem small doesn't mean it really is. Imagine if Target said "sure we make $5 per shirt we sell but we only make $0.01 per stitch on the average shirt". How can they make any money at only $0.01 per stitch?

Little known fact: The oil and gas industry’s overall earnings per dollar of sales are significantly less than many other industries.

In the explanation of this issue the author reports that the oil industry only makes $0.095 per dollar spent which is well below the numbers by some other industries. It also happens to be twice as much as industries like iron, steel, food and paper and still significantly higher than industries like furniture, plastics, rubber , and motor vehicles. I'm not sure that the profit margin for the product that makes the motor vehicles go should be higher than the margin for the motor vehicle it self. Usually the commodities profit margin is less then that of finished goods.

Little known fact: ExxonMobil regularly invests more on energy projects in the U.S. than it earns in the U.S.

The author states this fact like Exxon Mobil's investments are not done for the benefit of the company but for America. After all if Exxon Mobil didn't stand up for the little guys with exploration for new oil sources, who would?

Often ignored fact: ExxonMobil’s U.S. tax bill is often greater than its U.S. operating earnings.

To make this little factoid work Exxon Mobil includes Federal and State gas taxes which consumers pay not Exxon Mobil. They also include payroll taxes that they pay for their employees. It is disingenuous to suggest they have a high tax burden and then include taxes that are paid for by other sources through Exxon Mobil.

Often ignored fact: The people who benefit from “Big Oil’s” earnings are hardworking Americans, from teachers to police officers to public sector workers.

Considering the fact that nearly 82% of all stocks, bonds and mutual funds are owned by the top 10%, I think it is a stretch to suggest some significant portion of Exxon Mobil's stocks are held by people in that other 90%.

I would actually respect Exxon Mobil more if they just said "this is our business model and it is successful", because unlike the rhetoric would have you believe, I and most liberals I know, don't want to "bring down" Exxon Mobil or eliminate their profit.

I do however take issue with the $85 million they spend on lobbyists over the last four years to alter legislation in their favor. I dislike that the CEO makes 247 times that of the average Exxon Mobil employee. I resent the $3 billion in subsidies given to the Oil industry from the Federal government. I wish they weren't on CNN list of companies exporting American jobs. These are all things that have an effect on me as a tax paying gasoline consumer and they make up some of the little known facts that known facts that Exxon Mobil won't be posting about anytime soon.

The Right way to create jobs

Job creation is a main talking point for politicians today. Republican's such as Mitt Romney suggest that President Obama's economic policies have hurt the economy. What I find interesting about this is how many of "Obama's" policies are just what Republicans including those running for the Republican nomination have proposed.

Cut taxes to historic lows - Check.
Get money into the hands of "job creators" (aka the rich) - Done.
Cut "job killing" Regulations - Nailed it.
Increase domestic oil production - Mission Accomplished
Cut government spending - Bull's-eye.
Provide an environment for companies to make money - Complete.

The results from the implementation of these ideas enacted under President Obama? Unemployment February 2009 - 8.2%. Unemployment August 2011 - 9.1%. So Obama's economic policies have been a failure for job creation. They also happen to be the same policies that Republican candidates for President and Republican legislators suggest are the solution to our problems. If only we had got the Democrat we had voted for.

Common Sense Accountability?

Common Sense Accountability. That is the slogan for David Holden and David Zimmer as they run for the Saline School Board. After reading a number of articles about their views of Holden and Zimmer I fail to understand how their slogan fits with their rhetoric.

Just what are the common sense solutions they have presented? In a Saline Reporter article they suggest they want to address structural deficits, keep class sizes low, keep out of pocket health care costs for teachers at a minimum, and have the school district eliminate fees for parking, athletics, and activities.

My common sense thinks this agenda costs a lot of money to achieve. What is absent from their comments is how they plan to cover the costs of their goals. The cost cutting measures they do mention are the teacher's Health Care Coverage and the upcoming union contract.

What they fail the talk about is the union offer to cut health care costs, saving the district $1,000,000. A proposal that was soundly rejected. They are happy to point out where Saline teachers pay ranks yet never discuss that Scott Graden is the 3rd highest paid Superintendent in county. They claim that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem yet ignore the fact that after inflation, per pupil spending has actually gone down in Saline since the 2005-2006 school year.

In a Q&A session with students Holden said "Facts are stubborn things." yet Zimmer publicly commented "Have you seen the most recent market data comparing the average salary of a public sector employee to the private sector? Have you seen the most recent data that compares the public sector benefit package to those of the private sector?". The implication being that public employees are overcompensated. Those stubborn facts however disagree. According to Jeffery Keefe from Rutgers University "For the most part (public employees are) paid at market or slightly below market."

I guess the common sense Holden and Zimmer have in mind is misrepresenting facts and attacking teachers while taking a free pass for themselves. The city of Saline has seen a steady decrease in property tax revenue over the past few years. Corporate profits have reached record highs benefiting businessmen like Holden and Zimmer. As a matter of fact the company that Mr. Holden works for gave out a $1.171 million bonus to it's top official last year. So here we have two guys who by all accounts are bringing home and keeping more of their money than ever yet the shared sacrifice they are fighting for only includes cuts for teachers. They love their school district so much they are willing to cut someone else's wages and keep the difference for themselves.

The reality is that Holden and Zimmer have an agenda which is most similar to that of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who has an approval rating of 37% and also happens to think his agenda is nothing but good old common sense.

Measuring Health Care Success

As a defense of our current health care system I often see quotes from those on the right about what foreign dignitary / celebrity / personality is coming to America to have their medical procedure. It seems like they think this some how proves our current system is great and that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is awful or at least unnecessary.

Unfortunately, this simplistic correlation is not supported by the reality. In a paper by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation it was reported that "Among 19 countries included in a recent study of amenable mortality, the United States had the highest rate of deaths from conditions that could have been prevented or treated successfully." and "Many Americans would be surprised by the findings from studies showing that U.S. health care is not clearly superior to that received by Canadians, and that in some respects Canadian care has been shown to be of higher quality."

In part, our failure in health care can be attributed to our free market society. In the United States 70% of our physicians are specialists. This happens because a specialist in the US can make twice that of a general practitioner. This monetary incentive gives us some of the best specialists in the world, so when some one wants the best doctor for a specific aliment the come to the US. The problem is, such a focus on specialized medicine, leads to worse outcomes. An article published in Health Affairs shows "lower mortality rates where there are more primary care physicians, but this is not the case for specialist supply."

If the belief is that higher pay gets us better doctors I wouldn't take an issue with that. I would, however, point out that if more money gets us better doctors then the same is true of teachers, yet many on the right have stated repeatedly that more money will not improve education. Either money is important in hiring the most qualified staff or it isn't. In our current system more money leads to better specialists but worse outcomes.

Another fallacy of the American health care system is the rhetoric surrounding wait times. Bloomberg Businessweek reported "both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems." If wait times are one of the biggest failings of universal health care systems then it is also a failing of our current system.

The worst result of our obsession with specialized medicine, however, is the cost. A paper by the American College of Physicians found that "The evidence for the value of primary care (general practitioners) is clear: better quality of life, more productive longevity, and lower costs as a result of reduced hospitalization improved prevention and better coordination of chronic disease care."

Of course the area where the American health care system is most inferior is coverage. Most other industrialized countries cover close to 100% of the population while the US leaves around 16% uninsured for medical care. Given that having insurance is linked to improved health, a lack of coverage is yet another area that diminishes the claim that "America has the best health care system in the world".

There a plenty of areas where our Health care system is the best but to use anecdotal evidence to support the fallacy of America's health care superiority is counterproductive. There is no reason that our system can't be improved. Rationalizing our health care system failures with foreign dignities proves a lack critical thinking not US dominance in health care.

KC Joyner you just made the list

KC Joyner has done some expert analysis and decided the best wide receiver in football is .... Mike Wallace.

The article takes a look at the difference between Mike Wallace of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Calvin Johnson of the Detroit Lions. Joyner meticulously pours over only the stats the support his point and completely ignores some of the obvious reasons his conclusion is asinine.

According the Joyner the only stat that really seems to matter is yards per attempt. He doesn't seem to care that Johnson faces a significantly higher number of double teams or that being targeted more in the end zone would have a negative impact on his YPA. He discounts the disparity in touchdowns and never mentions the difference in team make up that might allow Wallace more open field to work with.

For rambling on for as long as he does Joyner does a half-assed job in really comparing the two receivers. As one commenter on Joyner's article states "crunch all of the numbers you want, if you told all 32 GM's they could have Megatron or Wallace on their team tomorrow, who are they picking?"

Job killing obsession

The Republican jobs plan proves that Republican legislators have decided to go all in the on their obsession with "job killing". Odd for a group that claims the government "can't create jobs" to also believe that the government and in particular the President, can kill jobs. Either government impacts jobs creation or it doesn't.

One area that really seems to get under Republican legislators skin is government regulations. Contrary to the rhetoric, research shows that regulations have little to no impact on jobs. The same is true of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act but Republican legislators are currently against regulations and affordable health care so why let the facts get in the way of a good election strategy.

What is really baffling is why something like government regulations has suddenly become such a lighting rod. From 1995 to 2005 Republicans were in charge of two-thirds of the legislative process (Senate, House, President) with fours years of control of all three. If there were regulations that were particularly heinous and Republicans hate regulations as much as the say they do, then all of the fat should have been cut from the regulatory system in some form or another over this ten year span. Not only did the number of pages of the Federal Register (a common measuring stick for the number of regulations) not decrease during this time frame, it actually hit it's second highest number ever behind only 1980.

Of course it's not the Clinton-Bush era regulations that the Republican legislators are really after. Majority Leader Eric Cantor has a web page on important legislation that the Republicans are pushing which will help our dire jobs situation. Of these, about half of the legislation is based on regulations. Below are some examples of the "Obama" regulations that Republicans are going after.

H.R. 872: Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011

Purpose: "To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act"

- The FIFRA was first passed in 1947 and was last amended in 1996.

H.R. 910: Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

Purpose: "To amend the Clean Air Act"

- The CAA was first passed in 1963 and last amended in 1990.

H.R. 2018: Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011

Purpose: "To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act"

- The FWPCA was first passed in 1948 and last amended in 1987.

H.R.2587 Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act

Purpose: "Amends the National Labor Relations Act"

- The NLRA was first passed in 1935 and last amended in 1947.

H.R. 2273: Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act

Purpose: "To amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act"

- The SWDA was first enacted in 1965 and last amended in 1996.

If these are the "Obama" regulations that are holding back job creation why are they just being revised now? Just imagine how many jobs could have been created in the 1990's if Republicans had the where-with-all that Eric Cantor has now. We could have added tens maybe hundreds of more jobs if these critical issues had been addresses in a timely manner.

Are regulations a pain for corporations? Sometimes. Do they have a significant cost? Occasionally. Do they have a significant benefit? Absolutely. Do they affect job creation? Hardly.

Yet another example of how Republican legislators are using rhetoric to win elections at the expense of the public good.

Repatriate Jobs

In psychology if a child whines and gets attention from the whining it is considered positive reinforcement since the child received the attention he wanted by whining. Unfortunately for the parent they just reinforced a behavior that they would prefer not occur.

Back in 2004 it was thought that it would be a good idea to increase jobs and boost government revenues if we offered a corporate tax holiday. It turns out this is a behavior the government should not reinforce since it cost the government billions in lost revenue and adversely affected job growth. This failure has been documented plenty of times by The Wall Street Journal, The Heritage Foundation, The Christian Science Monitor, The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Institute for Policy Studies, but Republicans have again made it a centerpiece to their jobs bill.

Ironically this idea also runs counter to one of the main talking points I often hear from the Right that corporations need certainty. The only certainty that offering a one time tax break offers is that Republican legislators are certain to be oblivious to their failures of the past and continue to offer the same tired retread legislation and expect different results.

The reality is the multinational corporations have already become very adept at avoiding the tax burden of bringing money back to America. This new legislation just makes it easier.

Instead of rewarding multinational corporations for hiding their money for years we should reward them for bringing jobs back to America. During the 2000's these corporations cut 2.9 million jobs in America while creating 2.4 million jobs overseas. While emerging markets make it impossible to do everything in America during the 1990's these same corporations were able to create 2.7 million jobs overseas and still managed to create 4.4 million jobs in America.

I would be more than happy to offer some sort of job creation tax break for these companies to bring jobs back to America but another tax holiday is akin to giving the milk aware for free, or at least at a very discounted rate. Make these corporations consider buying the cow with smart legislation.

We need a behavior modification program that uses the governments power of taxes as a reward for the behavior we want to see from multinational corporations, investment in American jobs, instead of a reward for the behavior we don't want to see, hiding money overseas until enough votes can be bought for another massive corporate give away.

Ten Steps to being Right

Given the spread of the Occupy movement the conservative bloggers are starting to come out of the wood works giving us their take on the protest and the protesters. One such article is by Steve Gunn of the Muskegon Chronicle. It follows a fairly routine pattern associated with conservative talking heads.

Step one: Belittle those you disagree with.

"I'm not sure what to make of all the freaky looking ... ridiculous Woodstock Wannabes"

Step two: Trivialize the current situation.

"Recessions happen from time to time, no matter how much we worry or complain about them"

Step three: Completely misrepresent what the opposition stands for.

"Blaming rich people for the state of the economy is not going to solve anything."

Step four: Make ideological statements, which you errantly think sets you apart from the opposition then completely contradict yourself.

"Whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility? When did all of our problems suddently become someone else's fault?"

"Obama's been kicking the economic can down the street for nearly three years...the protesters should demand that Obama pursue policies that will help American business recover and create more jobs for all of us."

Step five: Give personal accounts because you think it makes your opinion sound informed and irrefutable while giving the impression that the opposition is lazy and doesn't get it.

"I was born into a low-income family with six children and only one working parent, yet I've remained perpetually employed for the past 28 years."

"Not all of my jobs were very glorious. I put in my time at a car wash, several convenience stores and two factories before I worked my way through college and earned my degree."

"Yes, I've been paid to clean my share of toilets. I not only survived the experience, but went home every night feeling proud that I did something — anything — to carry my own weight in the world."

Step six: Combine steps 1 and 3.

"I get a kick out of all the silly folks in New York calling for an overthrow of capitalism. I suppose that means they want the federal government to seize private companies and operate the economy from the nation's capital."

Step seven: State your ideological statement from step four in a slightly different way.

"I respect people who have the intelligence and drive to make millions for themselves. Good for them. I hope they're happy."


Step eight: Completely fail to understand the point the opposition is trying to make using a cliche talking point.

"Wasting time worrying about the success of others will get them nowhere."

Step nine: Combine steps 1 through 8 in a grandiose final statement.

"They need to wake up and understand a basic fact of life: If you want something, you roll up your sleeves and earn it. Waiting for Father Obama to deliver the goods on a platter is a tragic waste of precious time."


Congratulations Steve Gunn, you nailed it. You made light of something that is very important to many people while making fun of them, stood on your principles even when they have almost nothing to do with the idea that you think you oppose, and proved that your opinion and seeing your name in print matters more than facts.

This of course leads us to Step ten: Set out a theme for readers to adhere to and then fail to follow it yourself.

In a post about personal responsibility Steve doesn't concern himself with the responsibility of getting his facts Right or hold Wall Street responsible for anything.

Here, here and here for a slightly more informed view on the movement.

Economic Growth vs Republican policy

In a change of tactics, the President has decided to go to the people and ask for support for his jobs bill instead of again attempting to negotiate with Congressional Republicans only to produce a watered down bill that zero Republicans will support, including those that helped negotiate the deal.

Similar to the Health Care reform act, polls suggest the jobs bill has broad support for it's components but only moderate support for the bill as a whole. Unfortunately for Americans who want jobs, Congressional Republicans have their own goals which first and foremost include opposing the President and winning seats, followed by no tax increases for millionaires and obsessing over national debt in a austerity driven manor.

According to a new report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), national debt is a factor in determining future economic growth. It happens to be the least important of all factors measured but it did change expected growth by around 2%. Other more important factors include Exchange Rate Competitiveness (9%), Foreign Direct Investment (15%), Political Institutions (25%), and Trade Openness (43%).

But the biggest of all factors in determining future economic growth was Income Distribution. The study shows that the lower the Income Inequality Gap, the higher the economic growth. So while Congressional Republicans have put all of their eggs in the basket of the smallest indicator of future economic growth they are steadfastly against the number one indicator and have actually proposed and supported the very policies that have lead to one of the highest income inequality gaps in our nations history and subsequently one of the worst economies.

That won't stop them from trying to convince the American public that it is the President's policies, which have mainly been the policies of Congressional Republicans past and present, that are to blame for our current economic conditions.

The good news is the other economic growth indicators are somewhat in our favor since Foreign Investment has never been a problem for the US and the most recent Trade Openness Index already ranks us a number 2 in the world. Given the toxic environment in Washington DC and the lack of faith in the people running the government we could probably make some strides in our Political Institutions, but we are far from an Arab Spring like revolution in this country.

In the end the free market tells us that numbers don't lie and biggest bang for our buck is a governmental system that promotes a smaller Income Inequality Gap. Republicans, however, would have you believe this is Communist plot to bring down America.

Congressional Republicans should follow their own free market rhetoric and run the country like a business since no corporation would turn down the biggest possible Return on Investment simply because it runs counter to what they though they knew was true. Corporations are number based entities and if the numbers show a clear ROI winner they don't turn up their noses, they charge full steam ahead.

If only the success of the country was more important to Congressional Republicans than the success of the party.

Give me a break

Since I frequently post about various topics associated with education I often get comments on these posts suggesting that more money will not improve education and that education spending is out of control thanks to greedy unions. These arguments are typically followed up with some trivial anecdotal information which I assume the commenter's believe proves their point.

I have done a considerable amount of research on the topic and have plenty of information suggesting that money is an important component to educational success but I wondered what were the arguments and statistics against it. What I found was a lot of trivial anecdotal evidence that doesn't really prove anything.

As an example, John Stossel of 20/20 fame used his "Give me a break" segment to make the claim "Money is not what schools need".

His "debunk" contains three basic arguments. The first is regarding Arnie Duncan's claim that "Districts around the country have literally been cutting for five, six, seven years in a row". The second is "Over the past 40 years, public school employment has risen 10 times faster than enrollment". And third Stossel uses one school system as an example to prove schools don't need vast sums of money to succeed.

The third item listed above would appear to be the most compelling argument but it would help if Mr. Stossel had done a little research first. The man credited with turning around the school system in question, Ben Chavis, is quoted in Stossel's argument as saying "My buildings are shacks compared to their schools, but my schools are clean, and we'll kick all their asses."

The reality is that the two schools Mr. Chavis is in charge of spend $1,791 and $3,448 more per pupil than the average public school in California. To quote Stossel from his own article "(He) may be pandering to his constituency, or he may actually be fooled by how school districts talk about budget(s)".

With regards to Arnie Duncan's comments about budget cuts, the fact that only a small percentage of districts have cut their budgets for five or more consecutive years does not prove or disprove what role money plays in education. It proves Arnie Duncan exaggerated his claims or misspoke, not that money is being wasted. If you really want to show that this statistic has some merit you would have to tie the money spent to performance. Mr. Stossel makes no such attempt at any point is his article.

Finally the statistic about public school staff may in fact be true (no supporting documentation was provided) but in logic A must equal B and B must equal C for A to equal C. The fact that staff is increasing does not mean schools are just wasting money to greedy union members or hiring unnecessary staff. There are a considerable number of statistics that explain the difference that Mr. Stossel doesn't even mention let alone investigate.

- In 1975 Congress passed the EHA statute which required schools to accept special education students. Prior to this law 1 in 5 children with special needs was accepted at public schools. By 2008, 95% of all special education students were enrolled in school.

- In 2004 special education costs were $78.3 billion.

- The expenditures for a special education student were 1.6 times that of a standard student.

- The teacher student ratio for special education students is typically 6 to 1 or lower.

- If public schools were adding 10 times as many teachers as students since 1970 then we would see a significant drop in teacher to student ratio. In 1970 the ratio stood at 17.9 to 1. By 2008 it was 15.3 to 1.

- "No Child Left Behind increased state and local governments' annual paperwork burden by 6,680,334 hours, at an estimated cost of $141 million dollars".

- Since 1970 early childhood education enrollment has increased from 37.5% of children ages 3 to 5 to 63.5% in 2009.

- Early Education programs require a higher staff to student ratio. Kentucky for example allows a maximum of 10 to 1.

- "The salaries of public school teachers have generally maintained pace with inflation since 1990–91".

- The 2012 Chicago Public Schools budget includes $51.4 million for security guards.

While public schools may be increasing staff, they are not adding a significant number of teachers for standard students and teacher salaries are in line with the modest increases of inflation. The inclusion of more special education students that require additional services combined with security staff have added significant staff and costs to public schools.

So when John Stossel says "When you look at the facts, the scam is clear." I say "Give me a break".