History Re-Imagined

As one gets older, one interesting thing that starts to happen is you see historic re-tellings of events you actually lived through (and were following at the time). I mean, if I see a History Channel documentary on the Watergate scandal (when I was not yet born), I typically assume they are giving fair and accurate breakdown of events. On the other hand, if I watch a movie like About a Son, a documentary on Kurt Cobain, I have the hyperbole/bullshit radar on high alert.

This weekend I was watching The Tenth Inning, a film by Ken Burns about baseball in the past 20 years, and this comment struck me as completely inaccurate from my recollection from the time period:

Most scouts doubted that Ichiro with his slender frame and unusual batting stance would be able to handle major league pitching. --- narrator of The Tenth Inning

What?!!? Seattle paid $13.125m in November 2000 for the right to negotiate with Ichiro and then signed him to a three-year deal worth over $14m. Now, yes, there was admittedly some extra financial incentive for Seattle to sign him because of the large Asian community in the Seattle area but, make no mistake, Ichiro was certainly no novelty signing!

Now, did scouts expect him to win MVP as a rookie in 2001 and go on to break the record for consecutive 200+ hit seasons? No, I'm sure they did not. And I do distinctly recall Rob Dibble saying he would get an Ichiro tattoo if Ichiro won a batting title (which he did and he did) - but Rob Dibble is not a scout, let alone "most scouts"... so, Ken Burns, I hate to say it but I Call BS!

In fact, I have located the "smoking gun" for my BS call. Baseball America is without question the leading authority on baseball prospects; here is their Top 100 for the spring of 2001. Hmmm... if most scouts didn't think Ichiro would be able to handle major league pitching, why does Baseball America have him at #9?!?!

Income Inequality Follow Up

We don't typically do follow up of our posts around here but I have new/additonal info to add to my post from the other day.

First of all, there is this collection of charts published by the good folks at Mother Jones:

It's the Inequality, Stupid: Eleven charts that explain everything that is wrong with America.

Fascinating - and not the least bit surprising - information.

Secondly, I saw economist Jeffrey Sachs on the TV machine last night discussing the union-busting in Wisconsin (or, at least, the implications of it in a more macro sense). I am just going to turn the floor over to Dr. Sachs - one of the few economists with a resume that rivals The Great Paul Krugman. This is some of what he had to say about unions:

The reason (for unions) is that the wages have been going down while the income at the top has been soaring and what these billionaires (my note: the Koch Brothers for example) have been doing is buying up the whole congress (and) now buying up the governors to make sure they never have to pay taxes again. And then we have these huge budget deficits because they don't pay taxes anymore and what do they want to do? Cut the benefits for the poor. Cut the education stipends. Cut the wages for teachers. It's unbelievable the game that is going on in this country... this is absolutely vile given what's been happening in the last twenty years. We got workers going down, we got billionaires soaring and they're doing everything they can to put in that final twist.

The key part there, at least as it pertained to my previous post, was how governments are cutting social programs that benefit the poor/working class and middle class to deal with lost tax revenue from the tax cuts given to the rich (who are doing VERY well in today's economy even as everyone else is getting left behind and the vast majority of the country may be looking at a lower standard of living than the previous generation).

Then the conversation turned to the prank phone call where Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker acknowledged the political calculations of his bill. In the call, Governor Walker likened himself to President Ronald Reagan when Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Dr. Sachs was asked if that was a fair comparison. This was his response:

It is true that Reagan got a lot of this started. This unbelievable surge of income and wealth inequality. We've never lived like we do right now with the middle class disappearing in this country and the rich - in a contagion of greed - trying to crush the bottom and I think Reagan did get that started. The fact of the matter is that when you look at how the middle class started it's decline in America, it was in the 1980s when the tax cuts on the top were given, the budget deficits opened up, they started to squeeze education and social spending and we're breaking this country in two. That's what's happening.

Not good times.

The Nerve of Some People!!

Some unexpectedly good news was reported today amidst all the unpleasantness going on in Wisconsin and in northern Africa (specifically Libya).

It was reported that the Obama Administration is dropping it's legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act saying DOMA:

"contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus" that the Constitution was designed to protect against.

This is another case of after I get feeling really disappointed in President Obama, he does something like this (although it's not clear how much of this was entirely his decision) that draws me back in.

Anyway, to elaborate on the title of the post (which is sort of an homage to the refrain of "Can't Win" by folk-rock icon - and Derek Anderson Fan favorite - Richard Thompson), a spokesman for Speaker of the House John Boehner is quoted in the AP article as saying:

While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.

Wow!! This guy has balls as big as the swing of Tiger Woods to make that comment whilst the House GOP is currently using their majority to pass several different anti-abortion bills (including the bill that infamously tried to redefine rape)!

Also, there was Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) at a March for Life rally last month saying "some would have us focus our energy on jobs and spending but... we must not remain silent when great moral battles are being waged." Agree with him or not... one cannot deny that he is "stir(ring) up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation".

So, I guess my message for Mr. Boehner's spokesman - say it with me:

Go Fuck Yourself!!!

It's your money

I recently posted on the ever increasing inequity between CEO pay and the average worker’s compensation. This will certainly not be the last time I post about the wealth of benefits given to a select few. A question that came up as a result of this post and a question I have heard a number of times is why do I care about what a CEO makes. The answer to that question is that I don’t. My point was that the average American only spends 34% of their earnings on taxes which leaves 66% going to privately held companies for products and services.

If it is a waste of your money to create jobs by building a bridge to nowhere then it is also a waste of your money to create jobs by building a vacation house for a CEO that will be used 6 days a year. If it is waste of your money when the President flies to another country to negotiate a trade deal it is also a waste of money when an executive flies a private jet to negotiate a contract. If it is a waste of your money to spend $1,000 on a military toilet seat then it is also a waste to spend $1,000 on a CEO’s trash can.

Private companies waste money just as well as the public sector. Acting like one is justified and the other is unwarranted is as hypocritical as George Bullard claiming that the 2010 elections give Wisconsin legislators free reign to eliminate collective bargaining anymore than the 2008 elections gave Democrats free reign with health care reform.

The other statement that I hear a lot when I talk about wasteful spending in the private sector is that I’m jealous; as if these people know my financial standing. Maybe I own a second house maybe I don’t. Maybe I drive a fancy car, maybe I don’t. Maybe I own a suite at Ford Field, maybe I don’t. Maybe I have a huge stock portfolio, maybe I don’t. Maybe I own my own company, maybe I don’t. Maybe I receive government assistance, maybe I don’t. Either way money is wasted by both public and private sectors. So when I point out that the Defense budget should be cut, I do it because I would rather cut the bloat in the massive defense budget than take money out of feeding the hungry not because I think I’m taxed too much.

In the end I point out the waste in the private sector because there is no shortage of people pointing out the waste in the public sector so I don’t need to make that argument. I suppose the question I would have is why would you only be concerned about waste for 34% of your earnings?

There's No 'D' in New York

It seems like many people are excited that the Knicks were able to swing a deal for Carmelo Anthony.

While it's understandable to be excited when your team acquires a superstar, sometimes it just does not work out (see Arizona fans with Derek Anderson).

I just don't think one could come up with a more shoot first/shoot second, no defense combination at forward than Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire!? Maybe Alex English and Kiki Vandeweigh from the Nuggets in 1980s? And let's just say those two guys don't have to remove any fancy rings when they go through airport security.

So advice to Knicks fans - it's okay to be excited, just don't expect to make any deep playoff runs with your current roster nucleus.

What Caught My Eye This Past Weekend

I was watching Your Money on CNN this weekend and Pete Dominick - who I guess is more of a radio host/comedian than economist or political analyst - made a good observation about growing income inequality in the United States.

They were showing a graph - which, unfortunately, I can not find online - showing the growth of (real) wages of the top 5% of wage earners compared to the growth in median wages since 1917. The graph showed that median wages were rather flat-ish (but trendly slightly upward) throughout the past century and, for the most part, moved parallel to the income of the higher wage earners; however, it showed that the line for those in the top 5% had a couple distinct upward spikes.

Mr. Dominick opined that the first spike came about from the degradation of private sector unions in the 1970s and 1980s (along with outsourcing) and the second spike came about as Wall Street was deregulated and, as Matt Taibbi wrote, Wall Street became "a giant vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming it's blood funnel into anything that smells like money"*.

Actually, I think I've added in some of my own analysis there... but really what Mr. Dominick said that I appreciated (even if he was not the first to point it out) is that this was not an economic phenomenon. It is a political phenomenon. Somehow the top 5% got the middle class to vote for the economic interests of the ruling class.

Yes! Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!

Why do they do it? It could be human psychology. I think my co-blogger has at times pointed out studies that indicated that large percentages of people expect someday to find themselves in the higher tax brackets (see this example).

Is that it? I'm not certain because that study shows it's younger people who are more likely to expect to get rich (read: they have not reality crush their dreams yet) - but young people still remain largely in the base of the Democratic Party - not that the Democratic Party is necessarily that great at representing the working class either (remember all the Democrats that voted against the Brown-Kaufman Amendment last summer? I do.).

So whatever the reason - kudos to Pete Dominick for his observation that basically echoed a main argument of Thomas Frank in What's The Matter With Kansas? that somehow the rich and conservatives have gotten a significant percentage of the middle class and poor to vote against their own economic interests.



* Note: I think Mr. Taibbi used this line specifically referring to Goldman Sachs. I hope he does not object to my broadening of it's scope.

Taxed too much!

The prevailing narrative when it comes to public employees seems to be that they make too much money. A report by the Economic Policy Institute however finds that at every level of education private sector employees total compensation outpaced that of the public sector.

Regardless of this, the fact remains that many people still feel that they are not getting a good value for their tax dollar. While this may be true, an average American only spends 34% of their total income on public services. The rest of that money is spent on products and services offered by the private sector. It should follow then that Americans would be equally as upset when they don’t get a good value for the remaining portion of their income.

A study by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik shows that in 1970 the Average CEO pay was 25 times as much as the average employee and by 2000 that number had grown to 90 times. Those numbers, however, only take into account the salaries not the total compensation. When total compensation is added in CEO’s receive around 500 times as much as the average employee. This massive increase can only occur in one of two ways. Either the average worker compensation must go down by a corresponding amount or you the consumer are now paying what is essentially a CEO tax on your goods and services. Based on the 2751 companies that the AFL-CIO was able to get the CEO pay for I found that these CEO’s took home 164 times that of the average worker. If you consider the difference from the 1970 average of CEO’s making 25 times what their employees made to the 164 times that these 2751 CEO’s make today, that translates into an additionally $9 billion a year that we as Americans spent on products and services from the private sector.

That of course only accounts for a percentage of the total private businesses and only the CEO pay. When you add in the other companies and executives pay that number grows ever larger. The standard excuse for this CEO tax is that a company has to pay top dollar to get the best talent. Like the CEO has added value to the toaster you just bought. Unfortunately many of the people who feel that this is true are also the same people who complain that the public sector just throws money at a problem and that more money is not the answer. Either money is important to getting the best results or it isn’t. I personally believe that money makes a difference to a point. The Yankees would probably only see a marginal gain if they increased payroll to $1 billion a year.

If the CEO is so important and good CEO’s only work for vast sums of money then the US should be dominating the world in nearly every industry since no other industrialized country has a CEO to worker pay ratio of higher than 57 to 1 while the US has a ratio nearly ten times that. The countries with the lowest ratios, Japan (10:1) and Germany (11:1), are no slouches when it comes to global economies. To make matters worse this enormous difference can’t even be explained away by the free market since according to the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal the US ranks fourth in "most economically free" behind number one Hong Kong (38:1), number two Singapore (37:1), and number three Australia (22:1).

In the end corporate greed costs Americans billions every year at the checkout line. If you are going to demand value, that needs to apply to every dollar of your money not just the portion that goes to the government.

Deficits don't matter

Apparently deficits don't matter because the proposals that are being offered to cut the deficit are embarrassing. They cut programs that help to poor, do nothing to stimulate jobs and fall woefully short of balancing the budget. Any real attempt at reducing the deficits must include at least one of the following items:

- Cut the ever increasing costs of health care
- Cut Defense spending
- Eliminate tax loopholes or raising taxes

Any budget that gets offered without at least one of these can't be taken seriously since no amount of cutting to discretionary spending gets you too a balanced budget.

Education unfairly under fire

Tomorrow many communities across the state will be asked to vote on a variety of school funding items. These proposals are facing a stiff headwind due to deficit concerns. While deficits are a concern the main talking points against these proposals center on teacher pay and taxes. There is a common misconception that spending on schools is out of control. In 1993 per pupil funding in my community of Saline stood at $5,360. In 2009 that number was at $7,643 per student. While this is an increase and it appears to be a significant increase it is actually a cut. If you take into account the value of money overtime, or inflation, the 2009 funding should be at $7,958 just to break even with the 1993 funding level. In short, Saline area schools have seen a decrease in the budget every year for the past 16 years and that cut stands to grow even larger if the proposed cut by governor Snyder of $470 per student passes. Obviously these are tough times and everyone needs to sacrifice and so far the Schools have been doing more with less. By limiting funding more with local tax cuts we stand to fall further behind as a country.

Unfortunately money does matter in education. Data shows that the countries that spend more on their teachers as a percentage of GDP get better results in the class room and right now America is in the middle of the pack on both spending and performance. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule as money is not the only factor in education but by in large if you want better results you have to invest more money. The push to continue to lower funding for schools will have a negative impact on our educational standing in the world and will result in a less competitive United States.

School funding has remained consistent for much of the last 20 years and the cost of schools is not to blame for the massive deficits that we currently face. Budget items like corrections have seen an increase of around 44% over the past decade, after adjusting for inflation, while education spending in the state of Michigan has dropped by around 5% over that same time. Luckily, unlike corrections, some education spending is actually voted on at a local level and this Tuesday is your chance to stop the assault on our nation’s education system. Eliminating the deficit should be a priority but we should look at areas of the budget that have seen huge increases, not those that have already taken cuts.

This Has Gotten Unwatchable

By now it is old news that Keith Olbermann left MSNBC and caused a prime-time lineup shakeup at the network. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell got the honor (and pressure) of moving into the 8pm timeslot where Mr. Olbermann had posted solid ratings (though, of course, still got crushed on a nightly basis by The O'Reilly Factor).

As something of a news junkie, I decided I'd stick with MSNBC in the time-slot. Mr. O'Donnell is clearly a smart guy and is informed on the inner workings of Washington. He had been a frequent guest and guest host for Mr. Olbermann and actually seemed like a reasonable moderate (particularly for their primetime lineup).

However, after almost a month in the time slot, I don't know if the ratings are slipping and the network suits want him to try to emulate Keith more but Mr. O'Donnell is going off the rails!

Last night provided a good example. His "interview" with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) was about the most uncomfortable thing I could think of short of watching my sister give birth. It was basically 10 minutes of Mr. O'Donnell yelling at Chaffetz. I mean, I am all for trying to get a straight answer from an evasive interview subject but this was ridiculous! And it's probably even all the more hypocritical since Mr. O'Donnell did multiple segments ripping on Bill O'Reilly for his continued interruption of President Obama in their pre-Super Bowl interview (which, in itself, was arguably another pathetic attempt to emulate Keith Olbermann).

Anyway, if you can, try to get through this and let me know if I'm mistaken.

It looks like maybe I'll have to start checking out Parker Spitzer again.

Hmmm... it looks like a lot of what I said here was previously said (probably much better) by this actual working journalist.

Tim Doyle Doesn't Know Michigan

I feel like it's been a while since I last called out a game analyst for saying something ridiculous. Well, yesterday during the U of M v Illinois college basketball game, I got my chance courtesy of Big 10 Network's Tim Doyle (I think).

Mr. Doyle actually referred to Stu Douglass as "one of the best 3-pt shooters in the history of the University of Michigan"! WTF!?!?

So, of course, I needed to make my own list of the best 3-pt shooters that I recall in the history of this glorious institution (but not always glorious men's basketball program). You may ask: why are you making a list (from memory no less) when we could just look up the statistics that tabulate made 3-pt field goals and shooting percentage?

It's because just doing a google search for that information would be no fun... idiot.

Anyway, here is my list of the best 3-pt shooters in the history of U of M:

1. Glen Rice
2. Louis Bullock
3. Daniel Horton
4. Sean Higgins
5. **
38. Stu Douglass


**For #5, I came up with these possibilities:

Garde Thompson
Demetrius Calip
Jamal Crawford
Gary Grant

From my memory, I recall Thompson being a helluva shooter but he probably only played with the 3-pt line for a year or two?

Somebody needs to do a google search on this!

I Am Not Okay With This

I can face facts. Harrison Ford is over the hill. He is now 68 years old. And Clint Eastwood is, of course, even older (80!). Mel Gibson is a raging lunatic. So it is probably true that we need a new older but pre-geriatric male movie star to take the roles that they used to have when I was growing up.

That said... Liam Neeson?

I don't know why but I just ain't havin' it!

I know, I know. He did a decent job in two of the biggest movie franchises ever (Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menance and Batman Begins). But in neither case was he required to carry the movie!

So I skipped Taken and now Mr. Neeson has a new movie coming out (Unknown) where it seems he is playing an action star again (Taken meets The Bourne Identity claims the commercials... what-the-fuck-ever!) - SKIP IT!

So who should be playing these roles? I am open to suggestions but obviously Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington are good options (of course I'm cheating because they already are doing their share of them). We're probably just a few years away from Daniel Craig and Clive Owen - a couple more furriners - taken the choice roles in this genre... in the meantime, let's come up with an alternate option to Mr. Neeson!

What is Tony Danza up to?

Passing the buck on Education

It seems like every year the President makes improving education a priority. Similarly every year the solution is holding teachers more accountable. The thinking seems to be that the regression from world leader in education to middle of the pack is directly attributable to our teachers. Like any work place there are good employees and bad employees in education but to think that this explains the decline shows Americans willingness to place the blame at the feet of others. It seems to me that the biggest change in education over the past 50 years is not in how we educate our teachers and but the expectations we have for our kids.

In the glory days of education parents sided with the teacher when their child was out of line or failed to complete the required work. Today too many parents side with their children at every turn. Their child couldn’t possibly be a distraction in class. The teacher must be picking on their kid. These parents always assume their child is right and the teacher is wrong. They will make excuses to explain away the poor behavior and effort from their child.

This lack of personal responsibility is very pervasive in American today. When a drunk driver kills someone in an accident we blame the bar tender for serving too many drinks. When a smoker gets cancer we blame the cigarette manufacturer for making the product too enticing. When our kids get fat we blame the fast food companies and act like if they just stopped giving away toys our children would be the picture of good health. So it’s no surprise that when our kids fail we blame the teacher, the school, and the system rather than accepting responsibility for how we failed as a parent or hold the kids accountable for their actions. That would require that admitting that we are not perfect.

Education is like any skill. We need practice to get better. Earl Woods didn’t just assume his son would learn all he needs to know from a weekly golf lesson. He got involved and pushed Tiger to practice hard. Richard Williams didn’t just have his daughters Serena and Venus play a few games of tennis a week. He worked with them every day and developed their abilities. Similarly, if we expect our students to improve their test scores we have to put in the work. Class time may be enough to comprehend a subject but practice outside of school is how you get from comprehension to proficiency and back to being a world leader.

NFL draft notes

With the impending NFL strike it's nice to know that we will still have a draft to obsess over. Todd McShay recently released an updated Mock Draft and he has the Lions taking Nate Solder OT from Colorado at the 13th pick. My guess is that the Lions will trade down from the pick but void of that I would be absolutely shocked if they picked Solder. Backus will need to be replaced but not this year. The needs on defense are too great to pick a back up O-lineman or a tackle playing guard at 13.

The other thing I wanted to comment on was Cam Newton. I think there is a chance for him to eventually be successful but he comes from a simple shotgun system and will need time to develop at the NFL level. Having said that. If Tim Tebow can get drafted in the first round, Newton should go in the top 10. It's not that I think Newton is that good but that Tim Tebow is that bad. He was adequate as a rookie and will need a lot of work to develop into a starting NFL QB since I think he is close to having reached is maximum potential. He is a marginal starter at best. Newton has a higher ceiling. He has a much better chance of becoming a good NFL QB. He could be a complete flop too, but at this point I think he will be a better NFL QB than Tebow.

Abortion, Abortion... Jobs If We Have Time

It seems that many Republicans believe in freedom - provided no one uses that freedom in a way they find objectionable. That is a strange understanding of freedom.

This was a quote from Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) in a subcommittee hearing this week whilst debating reproductive rights (i.e. abortion). As reported in The Huffington Post, Republicans, while claiming to have an agenda that is all about jobs, are actually advancing two separate bills to limit access to a legal medical procedure (HR3 & HR358).

The quote also recalled last summer's conservative (if not GOP) led fervor over the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero. Again, they believe in freedom provided you do things with which they agree.

I suppose it is true that many did, at least when under direct questioning, acknowledge that it was a debate about the wisdom of the location rather than the legality/freedom to occupy that location (a rather weak, though understandable, fence-straddling position that President Obama also chose to occupy).

What I wonder is how these people would feel if I made the argument that I don't think Catholic churches should be allowed within a certain radius of any elementary or middle school?

"Out of a job yet?"

If you have driven on the streets of Michigan you have undoubtedly passed a vehicle with a bumper sticker that reads “Out of a job yet? – Keep Buying foreign”. I have always assumed this to target drivers of foreign vehicles but it certainly could apply to other products as well.

The problem with this bumper sticker is that there are a limited number of products that are 100% American. This is especially true of automobiles where no car is 100% American. According to a report by Cars.com the “most American” automobile is the Toyota Camry and the vehicle with the most “American parts” is the Ford Taurus with only 90% of the parts for it being produced domestically. On the other end of the spectrum you will find some automobiles that are 100% foreign, none of which are produced by the Big Three. That’s not to say that buying a vehicle produced by the Big Three automatically assures you of buying a car with a high “American Made” rating as is the case with the Chevrolet Aveo, which is manufactured in Korea using only 1% American made parts, or the discontinued PT Cruiser which was assembled in Mexico with 27% domestically manufactured parts.

I have no issue with people wanting to support their brand but to paint all foreign automobile manufacturers as job killers while promoting all domestic auto manufacturers as infallible, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

The same is also true of other American companies. Wal-Mart, for example, has a long established tradition of branding themselves as a place to “Buy American”, yet a PBS article shows that during the height of this campaign 85% of the products sold at Wal-Mart were made overseas. Part of this has to do with the fact that some products, like electronics, are made almost exclusively overseas, but Wal-Mart had no problem with profiting from a very misleading claim.

Unfortunately, void of a well organized effort, we as citizens can do little to force big companies to purchase parts or products with the highest American made content. The only segment of the economy where we do have this power is in government spending and thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s (aka the Stimulus) Buy American provision (Section 1605) we did make this a priority. This sort of isolationist policy has both benefits and disadvantages.

In the end, supporting American jobs takes a lot more work than a simple minded catch phrase on a bumper sticker but if buying American is truly important to you it can be done. Just be prepared to do some research since the name on the outside isn’t necessarily a good indicator of the value of that product to American jobs.

End the Soda Tax.

Ezra Klein, of the Washington Post, had a quick thought this morning pertaining to the Soda Tax. If you are unaware of the Soda Tax, it is a tax on soda and other sugary drinks, most of which currently use High Fructose Corn Syrup as their sweetener, in hopes of lowering the consumption of a product that has been shown to cause obesity and have other negative health effects.

The No Food Tax Coalition has put together an advertising campaign asking voters to tell the federal government to stop telling us what we can eat while suggesting that the government needs to cut their budget. As Ezra points out the second statement is certainly true and his offer is to cut the $40 billion in federal government subsidies that corn growers currently receive in exchange for dropping the Soda Tax.

This would help to trim the Federal Deficit and end an unfair advantage that the corn growers currently receive, that flies in the face of free market ideology. It would probably mean an increase of a few pennies per can which is clearly not going to cause many people to lower their consumption but it's a good start.

Mike Trout?!

This week, ESPN published a list of the Top 100 Prospects in baseball.

According to ESPN Insider, Keith Law, the honor of being #1 went to Angels OF prospect Mike Trout.

I really don't see it. No disrespect to Mr. Trout, who I gave an honorable mention to in my own list of top prospects last summer, but #1? I don't think so.

What is his ceiling? Are we looking at a Craig Biggio type player (in the outfield)? (Obviously, it is not lost on me that Biggio will almost certainly be a Hall-of-Famer someday... so I don't consider that an insult).

But looking at his stats: the Midwest League stats are very good. However, normally a #1 prospect in the game is going to hit for more power (only 6 HRs in 312 ABs). Then, he went to the California League (which even a casual follower of minor league baseball knows is a hitters paradise) and he managed 4 HRs in 196 ABs. Of course, he is very young and it is very common for young hitters to have to "grow into" their power potential... the proverbial turning of doubles into home runs. That again, I concede, absolutely could happen and why I don't mean for this to be an attack on Trout. He is, my nitpicking aside, absolutely a very good prospect.

But I will continue: Trout stole 56 bases in A ball last year. That is, again, very promising but stealing 56 bases in A ball at age 19 will often generally translate to 25-35 in the majors - even less if the player starts bulking up - perhaps less of a concern in this post-steriod(?) era?

So, again, what is his ceiling? What current or former major leaguer should I look to and see the future of Mike Trout? Will he become another Craig Biggio or Robin Yount? Or just a (healthier) version of Rocco Baldelli or Reggie Sanders? It seems to me we are looking at 20-20 potential... those are Curtis Granderson numbers - not Vlad Guerrero numbers. (I suppose if he goes 20-20 AND hits ~.330... maybe a Kirby Puckett-like career is a possibility?)

Let's bookmark this and check back in 20 years.

But just for the record - I am taking Bryce Harper as my 2011 preseason #1.

47% of American Tax Payers pay no taxes?

Republicans like to tout that 47% of American tax payers pay no taxes. This number is from a report by the Tax Policy Center. What I don’t understand is why they think this is an important number. It runs counter to their belief in Trickle Down economics since this percentage was mainly stagnant until the Bush Tax cuts were enacted and the number moved from 25.2% in 2000 to 46.9% in 2009. The rich have never been richer and taxes have never been lower which is the exact cocktail required for Trickle Down economics to work yet the economy remains weak and the disparity between the wealthy and the poor keeps growing ever larger.

Having said that, there is plenty of better data working against Trickle Down economics and I’m really more interested in the 47% number. The first issue, which is well known, is that the Federal Income Tax is not the only tax we pay. Many of the people who don’t pay Federal Income Tax do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes as well as gas and sales taxes. These taxes tend to favor the rich since a higher percentage of income of a poor person goes to pay these taxes.

Given that this is common knowledge I really want to focus on who makes up the 47%. There are around 135 million tax filing units currently. Of those 135 million tax filing units there are 21 million people who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and around 19 million elderly that pay no taxes. The EITC was a policy of the Nixon Administration and expanded by Ronald Regan and George W. Bush. Reagan and Bush expanded the program as part of the tax cuts they wanted to enact. This is also true of the recent tax cuts by President Obama. So on one hand you have Republicans calling for tax cuts and then on the other they lament the fact that thanks to their tax cuts less people pay Federal Income Tax.

Similarly nearly half of all elderly don’t pay Federal Income Tax. They too have tax breaks that help limit their burden. According to the Tax Policy report, the elderly make up the second largest portion of Americans who pay no taxes only slightly behind Americans between the ages of 18-24. Is the hope of Republicans to raise taxes on the poor, the young, and the elderly to offset the tax cuts for the rich?

One item that I have not heard when talking about the 47% of Americans that don’t pay taxes is how many of them are the rich and super rich. 1.5% of American Tax Payers making over one million dollars a year don’t pay any taxes. This is also true of 2% of Americans making between $200,000 and 1,000,000 and 3.5% of Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000 also don’t pay any taxes. If it is unfair that some of the poor, the young, and the elderly don’t pay taxes than it must certainly be unfair that portions of the rich and super rich do not as well.

The response that I most often get from Republicans on tax rates is that no one should pay taxes or that we should use a fair tax. I’m fine with debating those ideas as well, however, neither of those arguments is represented in the talking point that is the 47%. It is a statistic that proves nothing, supports no position and indicates no tax policy preference.

Republican Judge Kills Affordable Care Act

Yawn.

It really doesn't mean anything. Liberals were recently on the other side of the legal ruling issue as Judge Virginia Phillips excoriated Don't Ask, Don't Tell in a September 2010 ruling. For the most part, the ruling was important only in that it kept the ball rolling toward the U.S. Supreme Court where the ultimate fate would've eventually been decided (had congress not subsequently repealed it making it a moot issue). The lower court ruling, however, really didn't force the military to end the policy. Similarly, as much as conservatives want to celebrate Judge Vinson's ruling, it does not stop ongoing implementation of RomneyCare, er, I mean ObamaCare.

Now, I am not a lawyer. I am but a humble Derek Anderson fan who watches too much cable news. I know the main arguments for the constitutionality of the ACA have been the Commerce Clause and/or the enumerated power of taxation (i.e. it could be argued that every taxpayer has to pay a tax (with the amount based on income) that is waived if you have active health insurance - so it is an arguably an incentive rather than a mandate). That makes sense to me.

What also makes sense to me that I have not heard pundits/experts talking about is right in the Preamble to the Constitution - with equal billing to the "common defence" which is the favorite aspect of the Constitution to Tea Party types (particularly the "Tenthers" who embrace a robust interpretation of the 10th Amendment) - right in the preamble is "promote the general welfare".

Is not the health of the populice a legitimate example of "the general welfare".

Given what studies have shown regarding the perils of not having health insurance, obviously for those without insurance but also for the ~85% who do have insurance in that they end up paying for the uncompensated care of those without, I would contend this very much falls within the bounds of that mandate.

Okay, given the mandate, is the ACA constitutional? Well, again, I am not a lawyer and, unlike Nancy Pelosi, I have not actually read the bill but I will say the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) says "Congress shall have the power... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers".

Then, one arrives at the question of the court may ask is if the ACA was "necessary and proper". Fair question, of course.

I find the answer in the famous opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall in McCullough v Maryland (1819) where he declared:

Let the end be legitimate, and all means which are appropriate...are constitutional.

And, by the way, the McCullough opinion also expounds on the necessity for a loose interpretation of "necessary".

Again, I reiterate that I am not a lawyer. My only experience with the judicial system was as a defendant in the late 90s (seriously, where in the Constitution does it say I can’t moon John Engler?) But, don’t worry, I’m more mature now. What’s that? Thaddeus McCotter wants the U.S. to support Hosni Mubarak? Where are my sweatpants?

Republican Blind Spot?

Or, perhaps, more appropriately a Tea Party blind spot? Although they overlap enough that it's probably not an important distinction to make for this blog post.

So, to what do I refer? Well, while it's not the most timely of posts but this has bothered me for a while now so I figured I'd just throw it out there.

The Republicans and Tea Party folks talk about deference to the Constitution. They pull out pocket-sized Constitutions like amateur prop comics and wax poetic about the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Fair enough. I should not need to make sure this is clear but I'll say it anyway: Liberals too, myself included, have a reverence for our founding document and governmental building block.

With that in mind, I am curious as to where military tribunals/commissions are found in the Constitution? I have perused Article III several times and do not see anything in there mentioning them? And while I don't even pretend to be a lawyer, it seems to me that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 would have to be considered unconstitutional given the Tea Party's supposed strict adherence to the original text of the Constitution.

It just seems to me to be liberals who, at least in this case, have greater faith in the Constitution and ideals contained therein.


ADDENDUM: I should note that the hardcore Tea Party purists may very well agree with my assertions here. I did do a check and the (more or less) ideological Godfather of the Tea Party movement, Ron Paul, was one of only seven of 230 House Republicans to vote against the Military Commissions Act.

Sensical Thinker in Dallas? I don't think so.

I have always questioned if there was any Sensical Thinkers in Dallas TX. All reports now indicate no. No sense at all.

Red Eye

The best show on Fox News is Red Eye. Don't get me wrong, it is a terrible show but it is, nevertheless, the one show on the network where they strip away the veneer of seriousness of their fake news and essentially embrace the satire of their "news".

So I was up at 3am on Tuesday night watching the show... either because I was up very early ready to serve my community by plowing roads or because I had preemptively called in my absence for Wednesday and stayed up late to watch bad comedy like Glenn Beck and Red Eye. I won't say which.

One topic that was discussed was NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's expose of lax enforcement of existing gun laws at an Arizona gun show - he showed that you can get a gun with no background check even after admitting, at least with some dealers, that you likely could not pass one. I was struck by the hosts contention that Mayor Bloomberg was a "meddler". I found that ironic because this was the same network that feted James O'Keefe as a pioneer in a new form of investigative journalism. (In fairness to Mr. Grunfeld, I will acknowledge I do not know what he said about Mr. O'Keefe - but if you give me a chance to bet that he supported him... I am taking that bet in a second.)

I suppose the distinction they might make, with some merit I suppose, is that ACORN was receiving taxpayer money and, hence, were subject to the public scrutiny. That is fair enough but I would hope they would, in turn, concede illegal gun sales are also of concern to the general public because gun crimes are very often committed by guns that were unlawfully obtained.

Another ironic point that I observed was one panelist whose take on the subject was that criminals were supposed to be incarcerated - which I guess would have made lax gun laws and/or enforcement acceptable because only honest and trustworthy individuals would have access to the easy guns - and that maybe we actually do need tougher (enforcement of) gun laws if we do not just "lock'em up and throw away the key." It was amusing because he opined this about 1-2 days after this article appeared online:

GOP Lawmakers Paying Price for Tough-on-Crime Laws

Yes, it cost money to keep prisoners in jail (and to build new jails when you fill up your existing facilities)!! Who knew?!?

It seems Republicans only thought taxpayer money was used for useless programs like health care for poor people and unemployment benefits.

Now Oklahoma and other states are learning what (now ex-)California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger learned several years ago - governing costs money. And a budget deficit may not be a spending problem. In some cases, it actually could be a revenue problem.

Sean Hannity Fail

Since Keith Olbermann uncerimoniously ended the Worst Person in the World segment (and subsequently left MSNBC), I need other shows to pick up the mantle of informing us when one of the Fox News pundits say something truly stupid... well, okay, outrageously stupid. I get the feeling they say truly stupid things all the time. Glenn Beck probably can't order a Big Mac without saying something truly stupid.

I mean it likely does not surprise our readers that I am not a regular viewer of Hannity. To the extent I have seen him, I find him to be about as much of a lunatic as the aforementioned somewhat higher profile Glenn Beck. I don't know that he is quite the shameless self-promoter that is Mr. Beck who seems to have taken on an old-school televangelist persona - one that has made him a lot of money and presumably will continue to do so for years and, perhaps, decades to come.

Anyway, I was watching The Colbert Report and Stephen Colbert caught Sean Hannity seemingly trying to use the Egypt Uprising to put lipstick on the pig that was George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq:

SH: The only democracy that has emeged when you see uprising like this is in Iraq. Name me one other example...I can't think of one is history, can you?

To which Stephen responds:

SC: No... I mean besides the Czech Republic, India, France, Poland, East Germany and...I feel like I'm forgetting one... oh yeah, the United States!

OWNED! I guess Mr. Hannity does not see it as hyperbole when he makes the assertion that "America is the single greatest nation that God ever gave man on the Earth".

American Revolution? Nah... God did it.

Furriners Guest Post on Business and Taxes

We received this submission today from a friend of the blog: Roland Tomassi.

As a business owner, I appreciate the current tax system, and would even be in favor of the government doing more things for the community and for businesses. I understand that an expansion of the government would mean an increase in taxes, but again, I am alright with that. I realize that this seems like a strange stance from a business standpoint, since all anyone ever seems to talk about is how, if we have lower taxes, then business would be better off. I would like to take this time to disagree with that standpoint.
To start with, we run many trucks up and down the roads, and one of the things that we avoid while driving are toll roads. We often use anything other than a toll road in planning our routes for pick-up and delivery. The roads we use are all paid for from taxes, including the taxes that the company pays for. If then, we lower taxes, either those roads will fall in to disrepair, causing more frequent truck repairs, or they will turn to toll roads themselves. So what’s wrong with toll roads I’m asked. A company who runs a road can do it at a cheaper rate than the government, and it would be in good repair. Though that is possibly true, my problem with it is this: Every time a truck goes over that road I have to make a payment. When I use that same road, paid for with taxes, I only have to pay at the end of the year, and only if we make a profit. As most people know, the last few years have been pretty tough for almost everyone. For the previous few years we have not had a profit, in fact have had losses. Now then, if those roads were toll roads, we would have lost even more money, because we still would have had to pay to drive on them, but because they are tax based, we paid nothing. No profit, no taxes. As I hope you can see, if we reduce taxes, and privatize many of the services we currently use, then even in bad years, we will have to pay for those services, and that would put us further into unprofitability.
Roads are obviously not the only place where this would occur. You can see fire and police services as well. If you looked at all the services that we receive from our paid taxes as a company, you can see how having to pay for those piecemeal in bad years would be detrimental to the long term viability to any business.
The other example of taxes being used to our benefit is in the prison and parole system. No I’m not talking about keeping criminals off the streets, though obviously that is helpful for the whole community. I’m talking about a parole program were the parolee’s are paid from the state, or from other organizations, to come and work for us for free for a set length of time. We receive free labor, and are putting a parolee to work. We have a well motivated set of individuals, who want to work and keep from being returned to prison, and we are able to do jobs that we would not normally be able to afford to do, because of the cheap labor force. Now we only get them for 3 to 4 weeks full time for free, at which point we can either get more, or perhaps hire some. As of this time, we have hired many of these people, who have proven themselves capable and willing to do the jobs that we ask from them. In a way, we use this as a temp service, or as a vetted hiring process. Lately these programs are running out of funding, and therefore we are not able to get these ex-inmates to come and work for us. Again, with our previous non-profit years, these people were free to us in every sense, since we paid little to no taxes.
Recently we have returned to profitability, and will now be paying back to the state and federal government for all the past services that we used at no cost to us. Since we are profitable again, we can afford to pay for those services, but without the current tax system in place, we may have not been able to return to it as quickly as we have. We also receive tax credits for doing certain things as a business, which would surely disappear if it was decided to lower taxes. In that regard, I worry that lowering the tax rate would actually raise our taxes, but that is for another day.

Why do we debate Global Warming?

President Obama has decided it is no longer good policy to use the terms Global Warming or Climate Change when talking about his energy independence strategy. I certainly understand that Americans are more concerned about jobs than the environment and to some extent I really don’t care what drives the move to cleaner, renewable energy. The important thing is that we develop sources of energy that are better for the environment which can reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

While you can find the occasional study suggesting Global Warming is not 100% definitive, the vast majority of science suggests that it has some merit. My guess is Republican opposition to Global Warming science has more to do with the fact that Liberals find it to be an important topic and that Big Business, particularly Big Oil, would be adversely affected by the legislation that would follow a push towards reducing green house gas emissions.

Having said that, I really don’t care about Global Warming. What I do care about is the cause of Global Warming - excess green house gases in the air. Republicans argue that excess CO2 is good for plant life. This is true to an extent. Just adding CO2 can have a positive effect on some plants as well as weeds. The problem is that according to a Stanford University study excess greenhouse gases have an overall negative effect on plants. In addition it can have detrimental effects on our health by increasing asthma and other respiratory issues as well as reducing productivity.

The other argument is that these greenhouse gases occur naturally and Humans are only increasing that number incrementally. The problem is that we have been increasing that number incrementally for 200 years. Smog is the result of this gradual increase. Humans are the leaky faucet of greenhouse gases. Eventually those drips overflow the sink. Also just because something occurs in nature doesn’t mean that it is good for you in ever increasing amounts. The Human body needs water and salt but having too much or too little of either can be very detrimental to your health.

What I don’t understand is why Republicans want more greenhouse gases in the air. By fighting against any legislation or changes that would lead to lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions, Republicans are fighting to keep things the same, which is to say, they support a gradual increase in greenhouse gases. This is like lobbying for more crime because it creates jobs. It just doesn’t make sense. In the end excess quantities of greenhouse gases in our air is not a good thing regardless of what you think about Global Warming.