Last year Michigan put in a ban on smoking that is affecting many bars and restaurants. These establishments complain that the ban is hurting their business. While I do feel for them, this ban helps save lives so tough cookies.
Having said that, do you know what else hurts business for bars and restaurants? High gas costs. Corn being used for ethanol. 10's of thousands of public employees losing their jobs. Inflation. Large companies hoarding money instead of hiring new employees. Lack of consumer confidence. Poor weather conditions. Rising health care costs. The earth quake in Japan. Health inspections. etc.
There are plenty of things business can complain about these days. That doesn't mean that the complaints are valid.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Newt under attack
Newt Gingrich has come under attack from his own party for suggesting that Paul Ryan's plan of privatizing Medicare might not be a great idea. Gingrich claims he was not talking about the Ryan plan but then again he also claimed he cheated on his wife because of how much he loves America.
This seems to be a pattern with Republicans where you are either in lock step agreement or you are "an embarrassment to the party". It should be noted that the majority of Americans are also against the Ryan plan on Medicare so Newt is actually in the majority if in fact he was commenting on the Ryan plan.
While I certainly don't mind the Right cannibalizing each other, in a race to see how politically far right they can go, since this strategy will only benefit Democrats, I think it is a dangerous trend to suggest that disagreement or debate somehow makes you a turn coat or Un-American.
The confrontation Newt Gingrich experienced is an example of why our politics is so divisive now-adays. The extreme wings have the most skin in the game but make for the worst decision makers. Our politicians would make better decisions if they put their constituents before party and certainly before their own reelection.
So while Republicans and the media act like Newt stumbled in his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination the real failure here is on the part far right for holding up the unpopular as the infallible while marginalizing the middle.
This seems to be a pattern with Republicans where you are either in lock step agreement or you are "an embarrassment to the party". It should be noted that the majority of Americans are also against the Ryan plan on Medicare so Newt is actually in the majority if in fact he was commenting on the Ryan plan.
While I certainly don't mind the Right cannibalizing each other, in a race to see how politically far right they can go, since this strategy will only benefit Democrats, I think it is a dangerous trend to suggest that disagreement or debate somehow makes you a turn coat or Un-American.
The confrontation Newt Gingrich experienced is an example of why our politics is so divisive now-adays. The extreme wings have the most skin in the game but make for the worst decision makers. Our politicians would make better decisions if they put their constituents before party and certainly before their own reelection.
So while Republicans and the media act like Newt stumbled in his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination the real failure here is on the part far right for holding up the unpopular as the infallible while marginalizing the middle.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Squaring the Circle
Yesterday the Senate held a vote on eliminating subsidies for the five largest oil companies. While a majority of Senators did vote Yes on the bill, the perversion of the filibuster, where a super majority is now required to pass almost every piece of legislation, stopped the bill from passing.
In response to the vote Mitch McConnell called the actions of Senate Democrats a "dog and pony show". I think it is safe to say that this term falls into the category of pot and kettle, where political rhetoric exhibits a complete lack of self awareness. By now it should be assumed that "at least 90%" of all political actions are "dog and pony shows". Stating that fact like it is breaking news just seems odd.
Void of that the fact that a mere 10 years ago this bill would have been passed by simple majority, 74% of Americans favor ending the subsidies to big oil companies. Support like that doesn't indicate an elaborately staged performance by Democrats as much as it does a "we know what's best for you" attitude from Republicans.
Also it should be noted that ending this subsidy would reduce the deficit by five and a half times as much as ending funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR combined. If you recall the rhetoric from those debates it was about "shared sacrifice" and "everything is on the table". But when part of that everything includes big oil you get quotes like " we’re only talking about four billion dollars." from Sarah Palin and "the Obama proposal [of cutting oil subsidies] is ludicrous." from Tim Pawlenty.
The other point to consider is that fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul tend to be against all government interference in the private sector. While that means they want less regulations it also means that aren't excited about subsidies. If you are interested in reducing the size of government, ending the oil subsidies will do that. Additionally it will help to reduce the deficit while having no negative impact on consumers since gas prices won't go up, jobs won't be lost and our dependence on foreign oil won't change.
In the end changing the narrative to imply this whole debate is a publicity stunt by Democrats is preferable to having to explain how your votes don't match your rhetoric. And having a media that is too paranoid of being labeled liberal to cut through the dog and pony show that is political spin, doesn't hurt either.
In response to the vote Mitch McConnell called the actions of Senate Democrats a "dog and pony show". I think it is safe to say that this term falls into the category of pot and kettle, where political rhetoric exhibits a complete lack of self awareness. By now it should be assumed that "at least 90%" of all political actions are "dog and pony shows". Stating that fact like it is breaking news just seems odd.
Void of that the fact that a mere 10 years ago this bill would have been passed by simple majority, 74% of Americans favor ending the subsidies to big oil companies. Support like that doesn't indicate an elaborately staged performance by Democrats as much as it does a "we know what's best for you" attitude from Republicans.
Also it should be noted that ending this subsidy would reduce the deficit by five and a half times as much as ending funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR combined. If you recall the rhetoric from those debates it was about "shared sacrifice" and "everything is on the table". But when part of that everything includes big oil you get quotes like " we’re only talking about four billion dollars." from Sarah Palin and "the Obama proposal [of cutting oil subsidies] is ludicrous." from Tim Pawlenty.
The other point to consider is that fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul tend to be against all government interference in the private sector. While that means they want less regulations it also means that aren't excited about subsidies. If you are interested in reducing the size of government, ending the oil subsidies will do that. Additionally it will help to reduce the deficit while having no negative impact on consumers since gas prices won't go up, jobs won't be lost and our dependence on foreign oil won't change.
In the end changing the narrative to imply this whole debate is a publicity stunt by Democrats is preferable to having to explain how your votes don't match your rhetoric. And having a media that is too paranoid of being labeled liberal to cut through the dog and pony show that is political spin, doesn't hurt either.
Are You An Extremist?
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
That quote is one of the more famous observations of the late great George Carlin. I actually often think of that quote while on the road as a reminder to myself to not fall into the trap of being judgmental about others whose driving habits don't exactly mirror my own.
However, I don't typically think of it as being necessarily applicable to other areas of life... until yesterday. What happened yesterday? Glad you asked. I got an e-mail from my brother which included an accusation that:
"(you) parrot out extreme left wing viewpoints (and therefore are) an idiot"
Now, how exactly do you refute such a charge? One's instinct it to inquire as to who exactly is an extremist out of such people whom I admire (in policy and media - listed alphabetically):
Stephen Colbert
David Gergen
Melissa Harris-Perry (column: Fighting For Change, Longing For The Sea)
Simon Johnson
Ezra Klien
Paul Krugman (op-ed: Republicans War on Math)
Rachel Maddow (segment: Obama Risks Compromising the Presidency)
Bill Maher
Keith Olbermann
Nouriel Roubini (interview: with Charlie Rose)
Robert Shiller
Eliot Spitzer
Jon Stewart (YouTube: final speech at Rally To Restore Sanity)
Joseph Stiglitz
Fareed Zakaria (YouTube: comments regarding the "Ground Zero Mosque")
And, as I may have mentioned on this site before, I actually respect David Brooks and, to some extent, even David Frum.
And is Defense Secretary Robert Gates a left-wing extremist? I really like what he has had to say about defense spending, military intervention in the Middle East, DADT, etc.
Anyway, maybe faced with such an inquiry, my brother picks a couple he considers extremists (and who are we kidding? Olbermann and Maher are going to get tagged)... maybe others?
Maybe he accuses, for example, Robert Shiller (although to be honest, I suspect my brother has as much chance of knowing who won the bronze medal in the Hammer Throw at the 1976 Olympics as he does of knowing anything of significance about Mr. Shiller). Now I know from watching Mr. Shiller on Charlie Rose that he advocates mandatory tax increases on the wealthy when the inequality index rises. Does that opinion make him an extremist? I'd say "no" - but who am I to judge? I suspect it's not an idea that would poll well with the American people. Does that, by definition, make it extreme? I say 'no'... it merely makes it unpopular (at least temporarily so). Moreover, the same brother accusing me (sort of) of being an extremist is a long-time advocate of the Fair Tax. This is a policy proposal recently referenced by Rachel Maddow as something like "a fringe, Right-Wing idea" (I can't find the actual quote just now... hopefully I will!).
Is she right? Maybe, but not necessarily. It is her opinion. Is the Fair Tax "extreme"? Maybe... who am I to say? I can define it as "extreme" by my own standards, but that is all those standards are: mine and mine alone.
So, back to the beginning. My concern is that many people are falling into a trap where they define people in their own party who are closer to the center as, well not necessarily "idiots" per se, but rather, in conservative circles, they talk of RINOs (a common charge against Meghan McCain for example); liberals and progressives might label their centrists as "corporatists" and/or the more blunt "sell outs" (I'm looking at you Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, etc).
I suppose if there is one thing that we should all agree with: Joe Lieberman is a worthless piece of shit.
And then people further from the center become "wing-nuts" and/or "extremists". I, of course, cannot and/or should not speak for the mainstream Right, but one has to assume they're embarrassed by the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Allen West, etc.
So, I don't know. I guess all I can say is if Fareed Zakaria is considered an extremist: consider me an extremist.
That quote is one of the more famous observations of the late great George Carlin. I actually often think of that quote while on the road as a reminder to myself to not fall into the trap of being judgmental about others whose driving habits don't exactly mirror my own.
However, I don't typically think of it as being necessarily applicable to other areas of life... until yesterday. What happened yesterday? Glad you asked. I got an e-mail from my brother which included an accusation that:
"(you) parrot out extreme left wing viewpoints (and therefore are) an idiot"
Now, how exactly do you refute such a charge? One's instinct it to inquire as to who exactly is an extremist out of such people whom I admire (in policy and media - listed alphabetically):
Stephen Colbert
David Gergen
Melissa Harris-Perry (column: Fighting For Change, Longing For The Sea)
Simon Johnson
Ezra Klien
Paul Krugman (op-ed: Republicans War on Math)
Rachel Maddow (segment: Obama Risks Compromising the Presidency)
Bill Maher
Keith Olbermann
Nouriel Roubini (interview: with Charlie Rose)
Robert Shiller
Eliot Spitzer
Jon Stewart (YouTube: final speech at Rally To Restore Sanity)
Joseph Stiglitz
Fareed Zakaria (YouTube: comments regarding the "Ground Zero Mosque")
And, as I may have mentioned on this site before, I actually respect David Brooks and, to some extent, even David Frum.
And is Defense Secretary Robert Gates a left-wing extremist? I really like what he has had to say about defense spending, military intervention in the Middle East, DADT, etc.
Anyway, maybe faced with such an inquiry, my brother picks a couple he considers extremists (and who are we kidding? Olbermann and Maher are going to get tagged)... maybe others?
Maybe he accuses, for example, Robert Shiller (although to be honest, I suspect my brother has as much chance of knowing who won the bronze medal in the Hammer Throw at the 1976 Olympics as he does of knowing anything of significance about Mr. Shiller). Now I know from watching Mr. Shiller on Charlie Rose that he advocates mandatory tax increases on the wealthy when the inequality index rises. Does that opinion make him an extremist? I'd say "no" - but who am I to judge? I suspect it's not an idea that would poll well with the American people. Does that, by definition, make it extreme? I say 'no'... it merely makes it unpopular (at least temporarily so). Moreover, the same brother accusing me (sort of) of being an extremist is a long-time advocate of the Fair Tax. This is a policy proposal recently referenced by Rachel Maddow as something like "a fringe, Right-Wing idea" (I can't find the actual quote just now... hopefully I will!).
Is she right? Maybe, but not necessarily. It is her opinion. Is the Fair Tax "extreme"? Maybe... who am I to say? I can define it as "extreme" by my own standards, but that is all those standards are: mine and mine alone.
So, back to the beginning. My concern is that many people are falling into a trap where they define people in their own party who are closer to the center as, well not necessarily "idiots" per se, but rather, in conservative circles, they talk of RINOs (a common charge against Meghan McCain for example); liberals and progressives might label their centrists as "corporatists" and/or the more blunt "sell outs" (I'm looking at you Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, etc).
I suppose if there is one thing that we should all agree with: Joe Lieberman is a worthless piece of shit.
And then people further from the center become "wing-nuts" and/or "extremists". I, of course, cannot and/or should not speak for the mainstream Right, but one has to assume they're embarrassed by the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Allen West, etc.
So, I don't know. I guess all I can say is if Fareed Zakaria is considered an extremist: consider me an extremist.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Snyder's three card monty
Last week Governor Snyder signed into law a restructuring of the tax code giving a massive cut to businesses. Republicans are praising the move as they believe it will bring companies to Michigan and create jobs. The move changes Michigan's standing in the nation from 19th in business tax burden to 35th. While this is an improvement it falls well short of driving companies to Michigan. If you had the choice between 50 different mortgage rates would you choose the 15th best rate? At best this will drive a small number of companies in bordering states to Michigan.
The good news is that by electing Rick Snyder we elected a smart business man who excels at analyzing the situation and compiling data to maximize the value of every tax dollar. After what I assume was exhaustive research into the topic the Governor had this to say about the return on investment Michigan can expect to see with these business tax cuts "Can we quantify all the numbers (of jobs created)? No. But we know it's going to happen."
So I guess the Governor has decided using business techniques in political office is too burdensome and he has chosen to run the Governors office more like Jim Leyland would - using his gut to guide him.
Given that the Governor has not shown any interest in putting some numbers to his proposal I did a little research to see what $1.7 billion in tax cuts gets you. According to the Center for American Progress tax cuts result in 1 job for every $137,000 in cuts. This means at a cost of $1.7 billion the Governor's tax cuts will create around 12,400 new jobs over the next year. The reason for the low return on investment is that companies are in business to make money not create jobs.
12,000 new jobs doesn't sound too bad. The problem is that over the last year we have lost 19,000 public sector jobs due to lost tax revenue and that number will certainly increase once the Governors new cuts go into affect. Maybe the goal is to eliminate those vile public sector jobs like policemen, firefighters and teachers and slowly replace them with private sector jobs. If so, this tax cut is spot on.
Michigan residents and businesses have already seen massive tax cuts over the last few years thanks to the drop in house and commercial building values and the subsequent drop in property tax.
A government worker pays taxes just like anyone else in the state so lowering taxes to the point of massive public sector job loss is counter productive. These cuts are a policy of job shifting not job creation. My guess is the Governor isn't promising to create jobs not because he hasn't looked at all of the data, but because he has.
The good news is that by electing Rick Snyder we elected a smart business man who excels at analyzing the situation and compiling data to maximize the value of every tax dollar. After what I assume was exhaustive research into the topic the Governor had this to say about the return on investment Michigan can expect to see with these business tax cuts "Can we quantify all the numbers (of jobs created)? No. But we know it's going to happen."
So I guess the Governor has decided using business techniques in political office is too burdensome and he has chosen to run the Governors office more like Jim Leyland would - using his gut to guide him.
Given that the Governor has not shown any interest in putting some numbers to his proposal I did a little research to see what $1.7 billion in tax cuts gets you. According to the Center for American Progress tax cuts result in 1 job for every $137,000 in cuts. This means at a cost of $1.7 billion the Governor's tax cuts will create around 12,400 new jobs over the next year. The reason for the low return on investment is that companies are in business to make money not create jobs.
12,000 new jobs doesn't sound too bad. The problem is that over the last year we have lost 19,000 public sector jobs due to lost tax revenue and that number will certainly increase once the Governors new cuts go into affect. Maybe the goal is to eliminate those vile public sector jobs like policemen, firefighters and teachers and slowly replace them with private sector jobs. If so, this tax cut is spot on.
Michigan residents and businesses have already seen massive tax cuts over the last few years thanks to the drop in house and commercial building values and the subsequent drop in property tax.
A government worker pays taxes just like anyone else in the state so lowering taxes to the point of massive public sector job loss is counter productive. These cuts are a policy of job shifting not job creation. My guess is the Governor isn't promising to create jobs not because he hasn't looked at all of the data, but because he has.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Rod Allen Again? Yes. Sorry.
Sorry, dear readers. I know it's probably not a good thing that I am turning this esteemed blog into a schizophrenic journal where Elijah Moon is doing insightful analysis/commentary on the big issues of the day and I am metaphorically throwing things at Rod Allen (and other nitwit baseball commentators), but, alas, it is what it is.
Last night's spotlighted Rod Allen comment was only annoying because of how he so blatantly contradicted himself from a different recent conversation he had with Mario Impemba. The Tigers were facing the Blue Jays and power-armed right-handed starter Brandon Morrow. Morrow cruised through the first couple innings which led Rod Allen to say:
Why did Seattle give up on a guy like this? And they got a reliever for him! Brandon League.
Now, truthfully, I completely agree with that sentiment of that comment. The problem is that just a few weeks ago - I can't recall the context but it may have been in reference to Joba Chamberlin (who has been a successful reliever after essentially failing as a starter during the 2009 season) - Rod Allen said he'd rather have a stud closer than a stud starter. His reasoning, as I recall, was that there was nothing more demoralizing to a baseball team than to have a lead going into the 8th/9th innings only to have the back end of the bullpen blow the game. I didn't agree with him when he said it, I don't agree with him now, but that is what he said.
Okay. Now who is the closer for Seattle? Why... it's Brandon Fucking League!! And as of this posting, League is tied for third in the A.L. in saves with 9 - and he is the only one of the top 4 to have not blown a save yet this season! Even Mariano Rivera has blown two.
So, again, I apologize. I will go down to the office of Elijah Moon and suggest he write something about the debt ceiling debate or Chinese currency manipulation so we can get this Furriners blog back to it's mission statement: smart political thoughts and Derek Anderson worship.
Last night's spotlighted Rod Allen comment was only annoying because of how he so blatantly contradicted himself from a different recent conversation he had with Mario Impemba. The Tigers were facing the Blue Jays and power-armed right-handed starter Brandon Morrow. Morrow cruised through the first couple innings which led Rod Allen to say:
Why did Seattle give up on a guy like this? And they got a reliever for him! Brandon League.
Now, truthfully, I completely agree with that sentiment of that comment. The problem is that just a few weeks ago - I can't recall the context but it may have been in reference to Joba Chamberlin (who has been a successful reliever after essentially failing as a starter during the 2009 season) - Rod Allen said he'd rather have a stud closer than a stud starter. His reasoning, as I recall, was that there was nothing more demoralizing to a baseball team than to have a lead going into the 8th/9th innings only to have the back end of the bullpen blow the game. I didn't agree with him when he said it, I don't agree with him now, but that is what he said.
Okay. Now who is the closer for Seattle? Why... it's Brandon Fucking League!! And as of this posting, League is tied for third in the A.L. in saves with 9 - and he is the only one of the top 4 to have not blown a save yet this season! Even Mariano Rivera has blown two.
So, again, I apologize. I will go down to the office of Elijah Moon and suggest he write something about the debt ceiling debate or Chinese currency manipulation so we can get this Furriners blog back to it's mission statement: smart political thoughts and Derek Anderson worship.
Monday, May 9, 2011
I Call B.S. - Mark Mulder Edition
It should probably come as no surprise that new ESPN baseball analyst (and former oft-injured pitcher), Mark Mulder, does not know what he is talking about... the guy went to Michigan State! How embarrassing for him.
ESPN should probably hire smart guys like Chris Sabo or Barry Larkin to be analysts.... oh, they did hire Barry Larkin? Christ almighty!! Why do they need so many guys? Just re-hire Harold Reynolds and go with the classic lineup of John Kruk, Reynolds, and Peter Gammons and everybody will be happy! You could even keep Buster Olney and Tim Kurkjian. They do a good job too.
Anyway, back to Mark Mulder. Why was this guy hired? He clearly does not know what the heck he is talking about, as this is what he had to say regarding Justin Verlander's no-hitter on Saturday:
Okay, that is a reasonable analysis of the Justin Verlander that pitched the no-hitter on Saturday, but that is most definitely NOT consistent with what Tiger fans see on a start-to-start basis.
For example, "pitches to contact" who "chooses not to" go for strikeouts? You don't have to be a baseball historian like the aforementioned Tim Kurkjian to know that Justin Verlander led the major leagues in strikeouts in 2009 with 269. He followed that up with a fourth place finish in the A.L. in 2010 with 219. (By the way, he is currently tied for second in the league in 2011. He is one strikeout behind the current league leader, Dan Haren.)
To continue, then there is the "keeps his pitch count down" comment. That is such bollocks!! I got an e-mail from my father just last Wednesday where he completely unprompted wrote "Last line I saw on JV was 6 IP and 127 pitches... will he ever be able to pound strikes and develop command consistently?" Does that sound like a comment one would make about a guy who does a great job at keeping his pitch count down?
Want more evidence? Just look at JV's game log: Prior to the no-hitter, his last four starts were:
6 IP - 127 pitches
6 IP - 114 pitches
7 IP - 117 pitches
6 IP - 116 pitches
So let's not confuse JV with Greg Maddux or Orel Hershisher!
Oh, and one last piece of evidence. Prior to the no-hitter, Verlander was averaging ~17.0 pitches per inning. That is a total that would put him at the 7th highest in the league - behind six pitchers who don't have a sub-4.50 ERA amongst them as of this posting.
Memo to ESPN, please hire analysts who actually demonstrate that they know what they're talking about! And to reiterate, one hint that they don't know anything is a resume that mentions Michigan State.
ESPN should probably hire smart guys like Chris Sabo or Barry Larkin to be analysts.... oh, they did hire Barry Larkin? Christ almighty!! Why do they need so many guys? Just re-hire Harold Reynolds and go with the classic lineup of John Kruk, Reynolds, and Peter Gammons and everybody will be happy! You could even keep Buster Olney and Tim Kurkjian. They do a good job too.
Anyway, back to Mark Mulder. Why was this guy hired? He clearly does not know what the heck he is talking about, as this is what he had to say regarding Justin Verlander's no-hitter on Saturday:
What makes him so good is the stuff that he has and he pitches to contact - which keeps his pitch count down (and) allows him to go deeper into games. I think if he wanted to, he could strike out a lot more guys but he chooses not to. He gets ahead and stays ahead and pitches to contact.
Okay, that is a reasonable analysis of the Justin Verlander that pitched the no-hitter on Saturday, but that is most definitely NOT consistent with what Tiger fans see on a start-to-start basis.
For example, "pitches to contact" who "chooses not to" go for strikeouts? You don't have to be a baseball historian like the aforementioned Tim Kurkjian to know that Justin Verlander led the major leagues in strikeouts in 2009 with 269. He followed that up with a fourth place finish in the A.L. in 2010 with 219. (By the way, he is currently tied for second in the league in 2011. He is one strikeout behind the current league leader, Dan Haren.)
To continue, then there is the "keeps his pitch count down" comment. That is such bollocks!! I got an e-mail from my father just last Wednesday where he completely unprompted wrote "Last line I saw on JV was 6 IP and 127 pitches... will he ever be able to pound strikes and develop command consistently?" Does that sound like a comment one would make about a guy who does a great job at keeping his pitch count down?
Want more evidence? Just look at JV's game log: Prior to the no-hitter, his last four starts were:
6 IP - 127 pitches
6 IP - 114 pitches
7 IP - 117 pitches
6 IP - 116 pitches
So let's not confuse JV with Greg Maddux or Orel Hershisher!
Oh, and one last piece of evidence. Prior to the no-hitter, Verlander was averaging ~17.0 pitches per inning. That is a total that would put him at the 7th highest in the league - behind six pitchers who don't have a sub-4.50 ERA amongst them as of this posting.
Memo to ESPN, please hire analysts who actually demonstrate that they know what they're talking about! And to reiterate, one hint that they don't know anything is a resume that mentions Michigan State.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Rod Allen Will Not Be My G.M.!
Another ridiculous statement last night by Fox Sports Detroit analyst Rod Allen last night during the Tigers-Blue Jays game.
Rod had this to say about Blue Jays shortstop Yunel Escobar:
Tigers play-by-play guy, Mario Impemba, lended his support to the statement with "Andrus is the first one that came to mind I guess as an alternative to Escobar."
Does Mr. Allen know there is a National League?
Has he ever heard of Troy Tulowitzki? Hanley Ramirez? Jose Reyes?
Now what you might be thinking is: yeah, yeah, Furriners, they are better than Escobar now, but if I am starting an organization from scratch, you probably want to start with younger talent to build a team for the long-haul (like the way one would certainly start an NFL team with Aaron Rodgers rather than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady). I would agree.
Do you know who is younger than Yunel Escobar?
Troy Tulowitzki. And Hanley Ramirez. And Jose Reyes.
Sorry, Rod Allen... you just got owned!
* And, by the way, I like to think I'm being nice by not pointing out Stephen Drew and Starlin Castro as well.
** Hmmm... that probably wasn't very nice of me to do that.
Rod had this to say about Blue Jays shortstop Yunel Escobar:
If you were starting a team and you were picking a shortstop, (Escobar) might be the first guy you'd pick. He is that good on both sides of the ball. The young kid, Elvis Andrus, in Texas is a pretty good player too, but there are not many players walking around as good as this guy at that shortstop position.
Tigers play-by-play guy, Mario Impemba, lended his support to the statement with "Andrus is the first one that came to mind I guess as an alternative to Escobar."
Does Mr. Allen know there is a National League?
Has he ever heard of Troy Tulowitzki? Hanley Ramirez? Jose Reyes?
Now what you might be thinking is: yeah, yeah, Furriners, they are better than Escobar now, but if I am starting an organization from scratch, you probably want to start with younger talent to build a team for the long-haul (like the way one would certainly start an NFL team with Aaron Rodgers rather than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady). I would agree.
Do you know who is younger than Yunel Escobar?
Troy Tulowitzki. And Hanley Ramirez. And Jose Reyes.
Sorry, Rod Allen... you just got owned!
* And, by the way, I like to think I'm being nice by not pointing out Stephen Drew and Starlin Castro as well.
** Hmmm... that probably wasn't very nice of me to do that.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Tax increases off the table
While talking about the GOP stance on increasing the debt limit John Boehner recently stated that "Nothing Is Off the Table Except Raising Taxes."
First it should be noted that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of raising taxes on the rich to help with our current budget deficit.
Second the effective tax rate for Americans is at it's lowest point since the end of WWII.
Third, the goal should be getting money into the hands of people who will spend it. The government and the poor are much more likely to spend every dime they get than the rich who show a high propensity for saving when taxes are cut.
So tax increases being off the table do not represent sound or popular thinking regarding the budget deficit.
The Republican stance is that we don't have a taxing problem we have a spending problem. To some extent they are correct. We have a spending problem but that problem is military spending. While our current budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is very high it was higher in the 40's. It should come as no surprise that WWII had a negative affect on our budget deficit. We should also not be shocked that all of our current military actions are expanding our deficit. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been the second most expensive military actions behind only WWII and similarly our current budget deficit is second only to that of the WWII era.
While we obviously have a spending problem that we need to work on we do also have a tax problem. In 2009 the tax code was filled with $1.1 trillion in tax breaks. The problem is that these tax breaks favor some segments over others. One example of this is the Drug industry which pays an average effective tax rate of 5.4% while the Electric Utilities industry pays 33.8%. I would say that sort of disparity represents a problem.
It also makes the Republican talking point of businesses fleeing the country to places like Ireland, with their 12.5% tax rate, somewhat less plausible when a number of industries actually already pay less here in America.
If the goal is to eliminate the Federal Government than taking tax increases off the table makes sense. If however your goal is to reduce the budget deficit the data shows keeping tax rates low will do more harm than good.
First it should be noted that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of raising taxes on the rich to help with our current budget deficit.
Second the effective tax rate for Americans is at it's lowest point since the end of WWII.
Third, the goal should be getting money into the hands of people who will spend it. The government and the poor are much more likely to spend every dime they get than the rich who show a high propensity for saving when taxes are cut.
So tax increases being off the table do not represent sound or popular thinking regarding the budget deficit.
The Republican stance is that we don't have a taxing problem we have a spending problem. To some extent they are correct. We have a spending problem but that problem is military spending. While our current budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is very high it was higher in the 40's. It should come as no surprise that WWII had a negative affect on our budget deficit. We should also not be shocked that all of our current military actions are expanding our deficit. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been the second most expensive military actions behind only WWII and similarly our current budget deficit is second only to that of the WWII era.
While we obviously have a spending problem that we need to work on we do also have a tax problem. In 2009 the tax code was filled with $1.1 trillion in tax breaks. The problem is that these tax breaks favor some segments over others. One example of this is the Drug industry which pays an average effective tax rate of 5.4% while the Electric Utilities industry pays 33.8%. I would say that sort of disparity represents a problem.
It also makes the Republican talking point of businesses fleeing the country to places like Ireland, with their 12.5% tax rate, somewhat less plausible when a number of industries actually already pay less here in America.
If the goal is to eliminate the Federal Government than taking tax increases off the table makes sense. If however your goal is to reduce the budget deficit the data shows keeping tax rates low will do more harm than good.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Rod Allen Hyperbole
I don't know what it's like to be talking "live" on television for a couple hours a day for about six nights a week for six months out of the year. Maybe it's inevitable that one will unleash some really ludicrous statements in that job?
And I don't mean to pick on the man because, in general, I think he does a solid job - but it just so happens that I watch Tigers games about six nights a week for six months out of the year -and yesterday I took note of several Rod Allen statements that seem indefensible:
1. "(Robinson Cano) would be batting third on any other team in the major leagues."
Really? You're telling me that the Cardinals would bat him 3rd or 4th with Matt Holliday and Albert Pujols holding down those two spots in the batting order? Do you know Matt Holliday - as of this posting on May 4th - is batting .409 and slugging .648? And Albert Pujols is... well, he's Albert Pujols.
What about the Milwaukee Brewers with Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder? How about the Minnesota Twins with (a healthy) Justin Morneau and (a healthy) Joe Mauer? And you could arguments for other teams as well (Boston and Texas being two others) which would not bat Robinson Cano third (or fourth).
2. "(The Yankees) were rotating second basemen before (Cano) arrived on the scene. Derek Jeter couldn't find a double-play partner. He has one now."
Okay, this is sort of true. The fact is that Chuck Knoblauch played second base for the Yankees from 1998-2000. Knoblauch had a solid career and played fairly well for Yankees. However, he, of course, famously had some throwing issues that moved him to the OF for the 2001 season.
Then, the Yankees had Alfonso Soriano from 2001-03. A fantastic player for the Yankees... or, again, a fantasic hitter who was not a good defensive baseman and has since moved to the outfield. Regardless, he was shipped out as the main piece in the deal to get Alex Rodriguez.
Then, the 2004 season saw the Yankees using a very unheralded duo (Miguel Cairo and Enrique Wilson) before promoting Cano for the 2005 season. So, again, it is sort of true what Rod Allen said even if it is sort of ignoring the fact that the Soriano's departure was a Yankees choice -- I just think he made it sound like the Tigers issue at 3B in the decade or so between Aurelio Rodriguez and Travis Fryman... remember all the guys that got to play that spot (HoJo, Garbey, Brookens, Pittaro, Castillo, Coles, Lovullo, etc)?
3. "Those days are about over when a player plays for just one team throughout his entire career."
Announcers say this all the time... and that is my point I guess... they have been saying it for years and years! The fact is is that there will always be some players who play their entire career for one team! You might think of it like a bell curve; a few players will play an entire career for one team, the majority of players will change teams several times over the course of their career, and then there are some who will play for many, many teams (think Bruce Chen, Arthur Rhodes, Mike Myers, etc); that is just the way it is.
And I guess I'll just ignore the quote about what a luxury is to have a guy like Russell Martin hitting 8th. I mean, do they (Rod and Mario Impemba) not realize that Alex Avila bats 8th for the Tigers (and his stats are nearly identical to Russell Martin's)?!? So just because your #8 hitter is performing well doesn't automatically mean you have super deep lineup! Of course, in the Yankees case, it is true. The Tigers, unfortunately, would not be considered a deep lineup by any stretch (currently 8th in the A.L. in runs per game). It just so happens that Avila is hitting very well (probably overachieving - but who knows? Maybe he'll keep it up).
And I don't mean to pick on the man because, in general, I think he does a solid job - but it just so happens that I watch Tigers games about six nights a week for six months out of the year -and yesterday I took note of several Rod Allen statements that seem indefensible:
1. "(Robinson Cano) would be batting third on any other team in the major leagues."
Really? You're telling me that the Cardinals would bat him 3rd or 4th with Matt Holliday and Albert Pujols holding down those two spots in the batting order? Do you know Matt Holliday - as of this posting on May 4th - is batting .409 and slugging .648? And Albert Pujols is... well, he's Albert Pujols.
What about the Milwaukee Brewers with Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder? How about the Minnesota Twins with (a healthy) Justin Morneau and (a healthy) Joe Mauer? And you could arguments for other teams as well (Boston and Texas being two others) which would not bat Robinson Cano third (or fourth).
2. "(The Yankees) were rotating second basemen before (Cano) arrived on the scene. Derek Jeter couldn't find a double-play partner. He has one now."
Okay, this is sort of true. The fact is that Chuck Knoblauch played second base for the Yankees from 1998-2000. Knoblauch had a solid career and played fairly well for Yankees. However, he, of course, famously had some throwing issues that moved him to the OF for the 2001 season.
Then, the Yankees had Alfonso Soriano from 2001-03. A fantastic player for the Yankees... or, again, a fantasic hitter who was not a good defensive baseman and has since moved to the outfield. Regardless, he was shipped out as the main piece in the deal to get Alex Rodriguez.
Then, the 2004 season saw the Yankees using a very unheralded duo (Miguel Cairo and Enrique Wilson) before promoting Cano for the 2005 season. So, again, it is sort of true what Rod Allen said even if it is sort of ignoring the fact that the Soriano's departure was a Yankees choice -- I just think he made it sound like the Tigers issue at 3B in the decade or so between Aurelio Rodriguez and Travis Fryman... remember all the guys that got to play that spot (HoJo, Garbey, Brookens, Pittaro, Castillo, Coles, Lovullo, etc)?
3. "Those days are about over when a player plays for just one team throughout his entire career."
Announcers say this all the time... and that is my point I guess... they have been saying it for years and years! The fact is is that there will always be some players who play their entire career for one team! You might think of it like a bell curve; a few players will play an entire career for one team, the majority of players will change teams several times over the course of their career, and then there are some who will play for many, many teams (think Bruce Chen, Arthur Rhodes, Mike Myers, etc); that is just the way it is.
And I guess I'll just ignore the quote about what a luxury is to have a guy like Russell Martin hitting 8th. I mean, do they (Rod and Mario Impemba) not realize that Alex Avila bats 8th for the Tigers (and his stats are nearly identical to Russell Martin's)?!? So just because your #8 hitter is performing well doesn't automatically mean you have super deep lineup! Of course, in the Yankees case, it is true. The Tigers, unfortunately, would not be considered a deep lineup by any stretch (currently 8th in the A.L. in runs per game). It just so happens that Avila is hitting very well (probably overachieving - but who knows? Maybe he'll keep it up).
The Ryan Plan Individual Mandates
I might be beating a dead horse here given how unlikely and unpopular the Ryan plan is but as more information about the plan comes to light, the plan keeps getting worse.
First, Ryan suggests that his plan is just like the plan members of congress receive. As I have pointed out here before the costs for this plan increase at a faster rate than Medicaid, but to make matters worse the claim by Mr. Ryan is untrue. In the Ryan plan, the increases given to the general population, increase at the rate of inflation yet the plan provided to congress members has no such cap. Given that the cost of health care increases at a much faster rate than inflation all Ryan is doing to "control" the costs of Medicare is shift the burden away from the government and back onto the American public. Most notably Senior Citizens.
Second, the problem of increasing health care costs in not an issue with Medicare. It is an issue with increasing health care costs. While Ryan is more than willing to cut costs for Medicare he does nothing to fix the actual problem of rising health care costs. For all of it's problems at least the ACA does attempt to reign in costs rather than let big business run all over the health care needing public (see also all American citizens).
Last and most disturbing for Republicans, Tea Party members and lovers of the Constitution, the Ryan plan contains not one but two individual mandates. These two links go into more detail on the two mandates, but the basic idea in the Ryan plan is for those not covered under Medicare, you get a tax credit of $2,300. And you only get this tax credit if you buy health care insurance. The big difference between the ACA and the Ryan plan on this point? Semantics. One is a tax break the other is a tax penalty. In the end your taxes are lower if you buy health care insurance and higher if you don't.
The second mandate is for Senior Citizens. In Ryan plan you pay into a system through payroll taxes until you reach 65 years of age and then you get vouchers. If you chose not to use the vouchers for health care you forfeit the money you paid into the system.
I personally don't have a big issue with the individual mandate and fail to understand why Republicans are so against it since they came up with it in the first place, have used it here in the Ryan plan and implemented a health care plan using the individual mandate in Massachusetts under leading Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. But if you hate the individual mandate then you might not be real excited about the Ryan plan.
First, Ryan suggests that his plan is just like the plan members of congress receive. As I have pointed out here before the costs for this plan increase at a faster rate than Medicaid, but to make matters worse the claim by Mr. Ryan is untrue. In the Ryan plan, the increases given to the general population, increase at the rate of inflation yet the plan provided to congress members has no such cap. Given that the cost of health care increases at a much faster rate than inflation all Ryan is doing to "control" the costs of Medicare is shift the burden away from the government and back onto the American public. Most notably Senior Citizens.
Second, the problem of increasing health care costs in not an issue with Medicare. It is an issue with increasing health care costs. While Ryan is more than willing to cut costs for Medicare he does nothing to fix the actual problem of rising health care costs. For all of it's problems at least the ACA does attempt to reign in costs rather than let big business run all over the health care needing public (see also all American citizens).
Last and most disturbing for Republicans, Tea Party members and lovers of the Constitution, the Ryan plan contains not one but two individual mandates. These two links go into more detail on the two mandates, but the basic idea in the Ryan plan is for those not covered under Medicare, you get a tax credit of $2,300. And you only get this tax credit if you buy health care insurance. The big difference between the ACA and the Ryan plan on this point? Semantics. One is a tax break the other is a tax penalty. In the end your taxes are lower if you buy health care insurance and higher if you don't.
The second mandate is for Senior Citizens. In Ryan plan you pay into a system through payroll taxes until you reach 65 years of age and then you get vouchers. If you chose not to use the vouchers for health care you forfeit the money you paid into the system.
I personally don't have a big issue with the individual mandate and fail to understand why Republicans are so against it since they came up with it in the first place, have used it here in the Ryan plan and implemented a health care plan using the individual mandate in Massachusetts under leading Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. But if you hate the individual mandate then you might not be real excited about the Ryan plan.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Threat of Socialism
One of the talking points I hear from Republicans is that Obama is a socialist and his policies promoting socialism are ruining the country. Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich even went as far as naming his recent book "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine" in an effort to exploit this misconception.
What I find odd about this claim is not how baseless it is but how subjective the premise of the argument is. Those making this claim act like there is a clearly defined line that makes one socialist, as if tax payer funded roads, police, education and the USPS are not forms of socialism but raising taxes on the super rich is.
This claim of socialism seems very politically motivated since there is a socialist movement sweeping the nation faster than Sharia Law and no one seems to be talking about it. I am of course talking about Credit Unions. According to Wikipedia "A credit union is a cooperative financial institution that is owned and controlled by its members" and "A cooperative is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit" and "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively".
As you can see a Credit Union is a member owned Cooperative and Socialism is a Cooperative that is commonly owned i.e. Credit Unions = Socialism.
Not convinced?
Well consider this. Nearly 4 million people moved their money out of the Wall Street banks in 2010 and now nearly 93 million Americans* are Credit Union members. It is estimated that this shift costs the big banks $9.2 billion a year. To make matters worse in 1937 Congress gave Credit Unions Tax exempt status meaning they pay no taxes on all of the profits they make as a non-profit.
How can trickle down economics succeed and return America to greatness if the average American takes his money out of the hands of rich investors and redistributes the wealth among the middle class?
The threat that socialist organizations like Credit Unions and other Cooperatives such as the Farmers Cooperative, pose to the American way of life can not be understated. They should be treated like other nefarious organizations such as Acorn, NPR and Planned Parenthood. They must be stopped!
*It should be noted that I am unable to verify the claim that these 93 million people are in fact Americans as none of them has submitted their long form birth certificate for my review
What I find odd about this claim is not how baseless it is but how subjective the premise of the argument is. Those making this claim act like there is a clearly defined line that makes one socialist, as if tax payer funded roads, police, education and the USPS are not forms of socialism but raising taxes on the super rich is.
This claim of socialism seems very politically motivated since there is a socialist movement sweeping the nation faster than Sharia Law and no one seems to be talking about it. I am of course talking about Credit Unions. According to Wikipedia "A credit union is a cooperative financial institution that is owned and controlled by its members" and "A cooperative is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit" and "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively".
As you can see a Credit Union is a member owned Cooperative and Socialism is a Cooperative that is commonly owned i.e. Credit Unions = Socialism.
Not convinced?
Well consider this. Nearly 4 million people moved their money out of the Wall Street banks in 2010 and now nearly 93 million Americans* are Credit Union members. It is estimated that this shift costs the big banks $9.2 billion a year. To make matters worse in 1937 Congress gave Credit Unions Tax exempt status meaning they pay no taxes on all of the profits they make as a non-profit.
How can trickle down economics succeed and return America to greatness if the average American takes his money out of the hands of rich investors and redistributes the wealth among the middle class?
The threat that socialist organizations like Credit Unions and other Cooperatives such as the Farmers Cooperative, pose to the American way of life can not be understated. They should be treated like other nefarious organizations such as Acorn, NPR and Planned Parenthood. They must be stopped!
*It should be noted that I am unable to verify the claim that these 93 million people are in fact Americans as none of them has submitted their long form birth certificate for my review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
