Social Animal Fail

As I have mentioned in at least one previous post, there has been a new (or rather a modified) Emergency Financial Manager law put into effect here in Michigan. I have - I'm sure much to the chagrin of our liberal audience (were to actually have an audience here at the Furriners blog) - advocated a "wait-and-see" approach rather than the "hair on fire" rhetoric of Rachel Maddow.

That said, Rachel does make very good points and I especially appreciated this analysis:

What's new here is that this state has decided that local elections, locally elected officials are a problem that has to be done away with, that democracy is in the way of fixing problems in the United States now, of making things more efficient, particularly in poor places. Not that democracy IS the way we fix problems but that democracy IS the problem and it therefore needs to be side-stepped for efficiency's sake, for our own good. Governor knows best.

Good point. An argument that one would think would appeal to Americans of all ideologies. Whether you're liberal or conservative, we do all tend to share a common belief in our right to choose our leaders.

And, beyond that, the actual impetus for doing a post on this subject was from watching Fareed Zakaria GPS over last weekend; Fareed's guests included conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks to discuss his latest book, The Social Animal.

The book is about how humans interact with another and how the ability to relate to people is a determining factor in how one does in life. The relevant part to the EFM for Benton Harbor story was when Mr. Brooks said his research indicates:

Groups are smarter than individuals (and) groups that meet face-to-face are a lot smarter than groups that meet electronically.

Hmmm... that would certainly lead one to conclude that putting one individual in charge of "fixing" Benton Harbor (or any other troubled city, municipality, organization, etc) would not be an ideal solution.

Of course, that is science. And we know how how most conservatives feel about science.

Snyder to talk school change

Earlier this morning Rick Snyder spoke about his ideas for improving education. Among the topics he discussed were early childhood education, merit pay, and tenure.

While support for early childhood education is a welcome change given that research shows this to be a very valuable tool, the push for merit pay and against tenure are more troubling.

I spoke with a top school official in my home town about merit pay and he stated "It is just going to be very difficult for districts to put together a system that is fair and really works. In the end, the goal is to reward high performing teachers. I am not convinced that a merit pay system will do that." By in large the teachers I have spoken with are fine with getting paid for performance but have yet to see a system that will do this in a fair and accurate way.

For months now we have been told that Rick Snyder can fix Michigan's economy because he is a successful businessman. The implication is that being a businessman gives him a better understanding of economics than a typical politician and he is better equipped to come up with the best solutions. If this is true then his support of merit pay is puzzling since Teachers and groups like the National Education Association oppose merit pay. If the logic is that businessman have the best solutions for business then it follows that educators have the best solutions for education. Merit pay is a businessman's solution to an education problem. It is a square peg for a round hole solution which is why studies show that merit pay doesn't work.

The fight to end teacher tenure is equally perplexing. The arguments against it usually start with the false claim that teachers can't be fired. Tenure is the "right not to have his or her position terminated without just cause." not a guarantee of a job for life. That is usually followed up with the excuse that it is expensive to fire a tenured teacher. While it can be costly and require documentation to get separation from a tenured teacher the same is true in the private sector. Most any handbook on firing an employee suggests that good documentation is paramount to avoiding a lawsuit and wrongful termination lawsuits tend to be as expensive if not more expensive than firing a tenured teacher. To some extent tenure actually benefits the schools.

Given that these are such weak arguments supporters of eliminating tenure usually state some statistics to show how few tenured teachers are fired each year. While it is true that very few tenured teachers are fired each year compared to other professions, this is a very apples to oranges argument. For Saline, Michigan a teacher doesn't get tenured until their fifth year. When you consider that 46% of all new teachers are out of the profession within 5 years it should come as no surprise that tenured teachers have a low turnover rate. Attrition for any profession is much more likely to happen in the first few years so comparing only tenured teacher that get fired to all firings in other professions proves nothing.

If you look at the overall turnover rates teachers are around 16.8% per year which compares to rates for other professionals including private school teachers. Blaming tenure for poor teachers is an excuse. As a Businessman Governor Snyder should know that you don't completely scrap a good set of rules simply because of a few bad apples. This is a throw the baby out with the bath water solution to improving education.

I would also point out a few other things regarding the claims against tenure and the push towards vouchers. If tenure is so bad the why would any for profit private schools offer it to their teachers? If private schools are so superior why are their student performance results no different than public schools. If public teachers are so over paid then why do they receive the same compensation as private school teachers with lower qualifications? If private schools are so good at controlling costs why do private school administrators get paid more than public school administrators to oversee much smaller schools while only handling a fractional of the special education students that cost schools the most money?

Our public schools already spend a lot of time figuring out the best methods for teaching and improving the education system. While the current system may not be perfect I would prefer that education reform come from educators than from the lawyers and businessmen that make up the Michigan Legislature.

The Conservative bias of media

One of the comments I often receive on my posts is that the sources I use to support my liberal point of view are liberal rags. First, I didn't realize that Redstate.com, The Heritage Foundation, and The Wall Street Journal were liberal rags. Second, I would caution against calling government information sites such as the CBO, the GAO, and the IRS unreliable sources. Finally it is dangerous to assume that simply because information comes from a liberal source that the information it contains is inaccurate. Being liberal doesn't make me a liar any more than being Muslim makes you a terrorist or being white makes you a racist.

There is nothing wrong with believing that a liberal source should be questioned but dismissing any information a liberal presents out of hand is a great way to keep yourself uninformed. This is a bit of a groupthink issue since dismissing anything you disagree with without supporting information shows the same lack of critical thinking, analyzing, and evaluating associated with groupthink. Accepting only those facts that you already agree with and only listening to those that you know share your opinions does not make you well informed.

A bigger problem here is the prejudice involved in the liberal media bias complaint. Labeling any news source that doesn't pick a side as liberal, leads to hypocrisy. An example of this is calling Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin "Gothcha Journalism" and then claiming Bill O'Reilly just asked the president the "tough questions". These are both examples of journalists asking political figures questions not proof of liberal media bias.

Another example of this are these two Fox News stories. One about James O'Keefe's video of NPR's Ron Schiller and the other about Ian Murphy's conversation with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. When talking about the conversations Fox uses the words "repeatedly tried to bait Walker into saying something inappropriate" when talking about Murphy's conversation and "engage in a wide-ranging discussion" when discussing O’Keefe’s conversation. Both Murphy and O'Keefe used underhanded methods and asked baiting questions but you wouldn't think that by reading the conservative leaning Fox News articles.

Simply finding an occasion or multiple occasions where Fox News shows their bias doesn't make them a 100% unreliable source nor does it mean that because they have a slant on their stories that the information in their stories are lies. The point being that claiming liberal media bias as proof that your opinion is right and my sources are wrong is a simpletons method that celebrates ignorance over being informed.

Is it so impossible to believe that maybe the media isn't too liberal but you are just that conservative? As a liberal there are plenty of times when NPR, CNN and the mainstream media outlets have been far too conservative for me but that doesn't mean I claim a conservative media bias and act like the Huffington Post, MSNBC, and Ezra Klein are the only sources of unbiased information.

The question that readers should be asking is fact or fiction not liberal or conservative since the former leads to progress while the later only serves to hold us back.

Capital Gains Tax Rate - Welfare for the rich

Since the elections this past November I have been sending a letter to Representative Tim Walberg once a week asking him the same question each time. That question pertains to the statement on the Walberg for Congress website in the section titled “Tim Walberg’s plan to create jobs” where he says he wants to “eliminate the capital gains tax”. What I wanted to understand is how eliminating the Capital Gains Tax would create jobs and what benefits eliminating the Capital Gains Tax would create beyond that.

According the Wikipedia a Capital Gains tax (CGT) is a tax on “the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a lower price. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property”. The item that I am most interested in is the Stock Market since the dogma of the Stock Market is that everyone can participate and get rich. My research however indicates that the Stock Market is a tool that the rich use to rapidly increase their wealth while giving the illusion of equal opportunity. Unfortunately Tim Walberg’s proposal would only further exasperate this issue.

In his eventual response to my letter Representative Walberg stated “It is my opinion that eliminating or reducing the capital gains tax would help increase economic growth”. The attached graph shows no correlation between unemployment and the Capital Gains tax rate. Additionally, reports by the Tax Policy Center and the Advanced Market Intelligence for Advisors show no correlation between the CGT rate and the growth rates of GDP or the Stock Market. Given the lack of a clear cause and effect the claim that cutting the Capital Gains tax rate will improve the economy appears to be more opinion than fact.

It should also be noted that from 2001-2004, when Capital Gains tax rates were at the lowest numbers if over half a century, was the first time in history that we saw a drop in participation in the stock market. This would indicate that there is also little correlation between the Capital Gains tax rate and participation in the Stock Market.

Perhaps the claim has to do with a belief that lowering taxes in general helps the economy. Again the data would not back Representative Walberg’s stance. The Tax Policy Center shows that the top 3% of tax return paid 83% of the Capital Gains tax. This means that the other 17% is paid by the remaining 97% of Americans. This clearly indicates that it is the super rich who get the benefit from the Stock Market. And a CBO report on the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% shows that economic growth from those tax cuts will result in an increase in jobs of between 0.0% and 0.1%. If the vast majority of the benefit of a cut in the CGT rate goes to the super rich and tax cuts for the rich have almost no affect on the economy then it follows that cutting the CGT rate will not lead to an increase in the economy.

Also in his response Representative Walberg stated “It is estimated that 83 million Americans invest in the stock market and the average investor is in their 40s, employed and earns about $60,000”. While his statistics may be true it is also true that the top 10% hold almost 80% of all stocks.

Maybe Representative Walberg feels that eliminated the CGT will help the poor who participate in the Stock Market. According to a Federal Reserve report only about half of American households own stocks and fewer than 30% hold stocks outside of a retirement account. For the 20% or so that hold stocks in a retirement account CGT does not apply. Regardless of the CGT rate, any contributions to a 401K are free from CGT. You will have to pay income tax when you pull the money out but not CGT. Additionally, tax payers with ordinary income tax rates of 15% or less already pay a CGT of 0.0%. This means eliminating the CGT, as Mr. Walberg would like to do, will result in no change to the “average” investor that Mr. Walberg implies will be helped by his policy change.

The reality is that thanks to the already historically low CGT rates the super rich shift their earnings to the Stock Market to avoid paying taxes. An IRS report shows that the top 400 individual tax payers only made 6.5% of their wealth through salaries and wages while bringing home 81.3% of their money in the form of Capital Gains. A good example of how this is done can be seen right here in Michigan. This past year Bill Ford Jr. received $16 million in compensation - $4 million in salary and $12 million in stock options. By taking stock options he can reduce his tax burden by up to 2.4 million dollars. Worse yet is Oracle CEO Larry Ellison who was paid a base salary of $5 million in $980 million in exercised stock options. Unfortunately very few Americans are offered stock options in lieu of wages, so this is an opportunity that is only available to a select few.

Defenders of cuts to the CGT will suggest that investing in the stock market is a risky and you can lose money. While this is true it is also true that the government will subsidize your losses. Imagine if you lost $50 gambling and as you were leaving the Casino handed you a $10 bill. This is essentially what our current tax system does. The only people who don’t get their money back when their stock tanks are those in retirement accounts, since you can’t claim the loss in a retirement account on your tax return.

I am certainly in support of anything that will create jobs but cutting the CGT rate is a blatant give away to the rich disguised as an opportunity for everyone.

Fiscal conservatives in sheeps clothing

The Tea Party has staked out the political position as a group representing the fiscal conservative point of view. Polls indicate that they are also very socially conservative but for the purposes of this post I will take them at their word and assume that they are willing to support the candidate that best represents their fiscal conservatism.

First, I would like to point out that being a fiscal conservative does not mean you must always support tax cuts as a economic policy. In a recent article in the New York Times Bruce Bartlett, a former official under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, warned of the current perversion of supply side economics. Bartlett had this to say about the belief that all tax cuts increase revenue:

"This is a simplification of what supply-side economics was all about, and it threatens to undermine the enormous gains that have been made in economic theory and policy over the last 30 years."

Reagan cut some taxes and raised others and Bartlett feels that this sort of approach is at the heart of the success of supply side economics. Unfortunately the Republican solutions being offered for deficit reduction are only focused on cuts and ignore the opportunity that tax increases offer. Democrats have accepted that some cuts are necessary if we are to get serious about our National Debt and now Republicans have to accept that some tax increases are necessary if their deficit rhetoric is more than just election year politicking.

Another major component of the Republican deficit reduction plan is the old Republican stand by - privatization. The Ryan plan for example wants to shift medicare from a government run system to a voucher program. Unfortunately the only model this program is the one that the congressman is currently part of and it is worse at controlling costs than Medicare. Additionally privatization has been pushed before in other areas by well organized and very well funded private organizations. The results show higher costs for private TSA agents vs. public and tax payers getting stuck with the bill for privately run prisons when the companies running the prisons lost their contracts due to poor performance.

Republicans have also focused all of their "important" deficit reduction cuts on spending they are against more for political reasons than for the savings they offer. Planned Parenthood gets $317 million dollars from the government yet the oil industry gets $4 billion and subsidies even though they already make billions in profit every year. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $422 million a year from the American tax payer while we subsidies ethanol to the tune of $7.7 billion per year. Foreign Aid costs Americans $49 billion a year yet we lose $295 billion a year to cost overruns for military acquisitions. In every instance Republicans are attacking the former instead of the latter.

Finally, just to pile on, it should also be noted that a recent report by the Associated Press it was found that a number of government officials were using BP oil spill money on pet project having little or nothing to do with oil spill associated expenses. The five major offenders listed in the report were all Republicans. I guess Kwame Kilpatrick hasn't cornered the market on using tax payer money for personal gain.

A History of Opportunism

Last year, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, opined that the federal debt is the greatest national security threat that the nation faces. I think his theory is that to be a global superpower, you have to be an economic superpower and we could cease to be so if we allow the continued ballooning of the federal debt, lack a manufacturing base, run massive trade deficits, etc.

It is a reasonable analysis that politicians of both parties should consider as they try to come up with a plan to deal with our medium-to-long term economic situation.

Well, needless to say, GOP politicians are doing much more than just considering it. Many have fully embraced it and are highlighting it whenever the opportunity presents itself - which, I should point out, there is nothing inherently wrong with. When important analysis comes out that supports your ideological view, it is only natural to try to make sure your fellow citizens know about it. For most people, that means telling friends, e-mailing links, posting to Facebook, tweeting (I guess), or blogging - which is the highest form of modern impersonal communication. For elected officials, it can be e-mailing supporters, posting to their website, issuing press releases, writing op-eds, spouting off on any cable news show that will have them (or a respectable Sunday morning show if they are "important" or sufficiently well known).

For example, here is an op-ed mentioning the "debt bomb" from Tea Party darling Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).

The important thing to realize, however, is that you cannot just embrace that which you agree with while entirely dismissing the information that doesn't fit within your ideological view. And I am here to tell you that the GOP is very much guilty of this. I mean Admiral Mullen opines on the "debt bomb"... very big deal. But do you know what intelligence and military analysis previously determined was a substantial national security threat?

Climate Change!

And what does GOP want to do about climate change?

"Nothing" you say?

Wrong! They actually want to make it worse! Their recent budget extension bill would have essentially neutered the EPA by including provisions such as stripping it of it's legal authority with regards to regulating greenhouse gas emissions. And, by the way, it should be noted that it wouldn't have done so with some legalese tucked away in the middle of the bill with the hope that no one would notice. No, no. This is GOP dogma and they're perfectly willing to go on national TV and argue that the EPA should go the way of the Eastern Cougar.

This was just the latest example of the the GOP being entirely hypocritical. Heck, it should not be forgotten that they are even complete hypocrites on the budget issue. Was it not Vice President Dick Cheney who said "deficits don't matter"? Or, to be even more damningly precise (considering the conservative fetish for Ronald Reagan), what Mr. Cheney actually said was:

Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

Really?!?

Of course, that was after House Speaker Newt Gingrich had spent the mid-90s trying to gut social programs, most notoriously shutting down the government in attempt to privatize Medicare. The obvious takeaway is that, to the GOP, deficits only matter when a Democrat is in the White House.

And just to put something of a post-script on this. Consider the aforementioned Medicare. Newt Gingrich tried to privatize the program in the 1990s - leading to a government shutdown. A few years later, President George W. Bush, in a desperate attempt to have some kind of accomplishment he could use to court a certain group of voters (the elderly), passes an expansion of the program (Part D) without paying for it. Then, the Democrats propose health care reform package which includes efforts to save money on Medicare - leading the GOP and conservative media to howl in disapproval and suggest that it will cut Medicare benefits (even as AARP officially supported the plan). Now, after that moment of opportunism has passed, they are again proposing the ending of Medicare. What happened to wanting to protect it?

I guess it's like ol' quip about Michigan weather: if you don't like it, just wait 15 minutes and it will change. That is the GOP.

In Honor of Bill O'Reilly

Last week, Jon Stewart showed a little clip of Bill O'Reilly actually debunking conservative propaganda designed to delegitimize President Obama. This is definitely a good thing. One issue that occassionally is fretted about amongst liberals and progressives is how to get information to people who only live within the FoxNews closed loop.

Admittedly, I should acknowledge that many conservatives presumably share the same consternation about those who they say only get their news from the "liberal media". I would, of course, generally call bullshit on that and argue that we're getting into the false equivalency debate all over again. But that is sooo Fall 2010! and this post has a different boogeyman than Fox News.

So it was a Free Trial Weekend for HBO on DirecTv this weekend. I took advantage of the opportunity to watch Real Time With Bill Maher. The subject came up of Jon Kyl lying about Planned Parenthood on the floor of the Senate. Bill seemed to argue that it was such an egregious and blatant lie that it basically took the cake as the worst of the worst of all political lies.

Ed Schultz, the firey MSBNC host, was all too eager to agree and he claimed that the only thing that might compare was Sarah Palin saying she "could see Russia from her backyard". A crowd-pleasing line to be sure.

The problem is that Sarah Palin never actually said such a thing! Only Tina Fey said that.

Sarah Palin merely said that one could see Russia from land in Alaska... which is 100% true. It is, of course, a comment worthy of parody because of the implication that it somehow gave her foreign policy credentials. However, it was a not a lie and Ed Schultz deserves to be called out for being the actual liar in this instance.

Also Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement

Continued From Part 1:

11. Jon Kyl, contrary to consensus opinion, thinks Nick Jonas is the "cute one".

12. Jon Kyl spent three weeks in November 1995 looking for the "real killers".

13. Jon Kyl contracted gonorrhea from a Thai prostitute in 1983.

14. Jon Kyl is the single-game record holder in Dig Dug.

15. Jon Kyl started a Britney Spears Countdown to 18 website in 1998.

16. Jon Kyl's most prized possession is his 1976 Oscar Gamble baseball card.

17. Jon Kyl texted photos of his penis to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

18. Jon Kyl camped outside of Best Buy for three hours the day the Murder She Wrote was released on DVD.

19. Jon Kyl gave gonorrhea to a Vietnamese prostitute in 1984.

20. Jon Kyl believed Alberto Gonzalez when he claimed under oath "at least 71 times that he could not recall events" related to the dismissal of U.S. attornies in 2006.

Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement

True statement: I do not know how to "tweet".

I guess with the small fervor going on (amongst late night comedians) over Jon Kyl's blatant lies on the Senate floor last week has me feeling a little left out.

However, I did realize I have a minority interest in this very blog and can post my ideas here. First of all, I want to say that in discussing this with co-blogger Elijah Moon, I actually wondered aloud if Stephen Colbert was coming up with all his tweets himself or if was getting contributions from his writers? As it turns out, it is actually quite easy to just pull a bunch of B.S. out of your ass (as Jon Kyl well knows)!

So without further ado, here are some contributions I literally came up with in about 1-2 minutes of brainstorming:

1. Jon Kyl's Capitol Hill nickname is Gollum.

2. Jon Kyl challenges Robert Reich to tetherball every time he sees him. Then he laughs.

3. Jon Kyl was "Soy Bomb" during Bob Dylan's 1998 Grammy appearance.

4. Jon Kyl lip syncs all his Senate speeches.

5. Jon Kyl calls in as "KylShot69" to Jim Rome's Annual Smack Off.

6. Jon Kyl thinks Derek Anderson should be starting at QB for the Cardinals (Oh wait, that is mine).

6. Jon Kyl shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

7. Jon Kyl has subscribed to Barely Legal since 1972.

8. Jon Kyl was the voice of Mr. Bill.

9. Jon Kyl owes me $2.00.

10. Jon Kyl cares about black people (and women).

The Ryan plan doesn't fit with Republican ideology

Paul Ryan has made economic issues his main focus. He has a degree in economics so it makes sense that this would be a passion of his and I really appreciate that he is working very hard to come up with ideas and push the conversation regarding deficit issues. Unfortunately for Congressman Ryan, his plan is deeply flawed.

The first problem is that a his portion of his plan relies on tax cuts to return us to prosperity. History shows that cutting tax rates for the rich, as the Ryan plan would do, does not help the economy. It leads to more saving and a decline in the S&P 500. Further analysis shows that tax cuts do not get a very good bang for your buck when compared with other stimulative measures.

These tax cuts have been a Republican mantra since Reagan first put the trickle down theory in action. Years of analysis show that Trickle Down Economics does not work and even fiscal conservatives like the Daily Beast's Andrew Sulivan have acknowledged this with his recent statement on Real Time with Bill Maher where he said "There was a point in history in which you could say it was a theory that f we cut taxes o the rich growth would happen but look; we've had 25 years of it and i hasn't happened. And the growth has happened when we raised taxes a little bit under Clinton and George H.W. Bush."

While that portion of the Ryan plan is troubling the really disturbing part is his plan for Medicare and Medicaid. Ryan has said his plan for overhauling this system is "identical" to the system currently used to provide health care to Congressman and other public workers. The problem is that when compared to Medicare and Medicaid the costs for the health care coverage provided to Congressmen is increasing at a faster rate. If Congressman Ryan's goal is to reduce the cost burden of Medicare and Medicaid I'm not sure why he would choose a plan that has a history of costing more than Medicare and Medicaid.

What I really don't understand about this portion of the plan is why a Republican would think this is a good idea since it flies in the face of the belief of running the government like a business. Right now Medicare and Medicaid are the Walmart of medical insurance. They can get the best deals because they have the most leverage. The smaller insurance companies, like the Mom and Pop stores, don't have the same buying power and can't negotiate the best deals. Competition is good for the consumer but in this instance Americans are the business and the hospitals are the consumer. If government is to be run like a business we should be looking for ways to increase our buying power not dilute it.

If Ryan gets his way Hospitals can set the price because the more "choices" (insurance companies) we have the less buying power each of those choices has to offer. The Hospitals become the Walmart in this negotiating process and we become the vendor who is pinching his margin just for the privilege of dealing with them.

If you want choice just for the sake of having choice then the Ryan plan gives you that. What is doesn't give you is a way to reduce the costs of medical care. The reason for the rising cost of health care insurance is health care costs not Medicare or the insurance companies.

We should have an "us" versus "them" mentality in this fight to lower health care costs but we also need to understand that the government is the "us" in this fight not the "them".