With the recent atrocity at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown Connecticut the NRA had the opportunity to prove that they are not only an organization who stands for protecting the rights of responsible law abiding gun owners but also a group that takes their leadership role seriously.
Instead the NRA settled right back in to their paranoid bully role. First they act like they are the victim in all of this and that "media conglomerates" are "complicit co-conspirators" in the acts of a few troubled individuals. Then to deflect attention they blame video games, movies and the media for gun violence in the US. I guess the idea is that while guns don't kill people movies, video games and the nightly news somehow do.
Contrary to their rhetoric the vast majority of people who actually watch the news (old and educated) are not the same people that commit gun crimes (young and less educated). And if young adults were so easily influenced by the media why have we not seen a spike in suicide bombers here in the US since the coverage of such incidents are practically a nightly occurrence.
Of course this logic also ignores a number of other facts. If simply seeing more gun violence leads to more gun violence than increased exposure to sexually explicit material in European countries should lead to more teen pregnancy and sexual crimes than in the US yet the opposite is true. This is also the case with countries that have more liberal drug laws than the US.
It should also be noted the other countries, with significantly less gun violence, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, happen to have access to the same video games and movies that according to the NRA are the root cause of the issues here in America.
While liberal gun laws may not be the reason the US is one of the world leaders in gun violence, data shows that where there are more guns there is more gun violence.
The reality is that if the NRA was truly the ombudsman of the second amendment they pretend to be they would demand accountability when those rights are abused, they would avoid baseless fear mongering, and they would work with the government to fashion solutions to a gun violence problem that by their own admission exists in the US. Unfortunately the NRA's response of self pity and childish finger pointing shows they are more concerned with protecting their own best interests than protecting the rights of responsible gun owners and lives law abiding citizens.
If we weren't so informed we might be Republicans. Or Matt Leinart fans.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Memo to Rick Snyder - Michigan is a Democratic state
The recent rash of extreme right legislation being forced on the Michigan public by the legislature and the governor has elicited a number of very strong reactions. It has also resulted in a massive drop in popularity of Governor Snyder.
The reason for this change is that the governor and the legislature are acting counter to the will of the people. Given that most polling does not favor the Republican point of view on nearly all of the recently enacted legislation, those looking to defend the actions of the governor and this legislature resort to simplistic or errant logic.
While the Michigan legislature currently has a Republican majority this comes as a result of creative redistricting or gerrymandering not a populace that supports Republicans by a similar majority.
The most recent election data shows that over 54% of the votes cast for State Representatives in Michigan were for Democrats. These numbers are nearly identical to the results of the presidential election totals for Michigan
As further proof of the illegitimacy of the Republican rule in Michigan the average margin of victory for Democrats in the House was over 42% while Republicans margin was less than half that at 19%.
So while Republicans in Michigan can pretend that the results of the most recent election are equivalent to the will of the people. The reality is that Republicans have jury-rigged the system to suppress the majority in what can only be considered a perversion the democratic process.
The reason for this change is that the governor and the legislature are acting counter to the will of the people. Given that most polling does not favor the Republican point of view on nearly all of the recently enacted legislation, those looking to defend the actions of the governor and this legislature resort to simplistic or errant logic.
While the Michigan legislature currently has a Republican majority this comes as a result of creative redistricting or gerrymandering not a populace that supports Republicans by a similar majority.
The most recent election data shows that over 54% of the votes cast for State Representatives in Michigan were for Democrats. These numbers are nearly identical to the results of the presidential election totals for Michigan
As further proof of the illegitimacy of the Republican rule in Michigan the average margin of victory for Democrats in the House was over 42% while Republicans margin was less than half that at 19%.
So while Republicans in Michigan can pretend that the results of the most recent election are equivalent to the will of the people. The reality is that Republicans have jury-rigged the system to suppress the majority in what can only be considered a perversion the democratic process.
Terrorist in the House
Merriam Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." As we approach the edge of the fiscal cliff it has become apparent that one party has moved away from the give and take of political negotiations and is operating much more like a terrorist group.
The pattern has repeated itself now for nearly four years of the Obama administration, Republicans take a hard line position and the president counters with his own hard-line position. The president and Republican leadership get together to discuss a compromise and at the end of those discussions the president has moved to the center and the Republicans haven't moved and inch or in some case moved further right.
Perhaps the biggest reason for this issue is that Republicans like Speaker John Boehner are oblivious to the message being sent to Washington by the American people. Shortly after the elections on November 6th Boehner made the statement that by giving Republicans control of the House the "American people have also made clear that there is no mandate for raising tax rates.”
Republicans are attempting to convince the public that the gerrymandered election results prove that the American people are against higher taxes. Much like their embarrassingly inaccurate understanding of polling prior the election this insistence shows that Republicans haven't learned their lesson.
Recent polls show the following:
53% of voters blame George W. Bush for the country’s economic problems.
60% of voters support raising taxes.
53% of voters will blame Congressional Republicans if we go over the fiscal cliff.
72% of voters had a negative view of last year’s debt ceiling debate with Republicans taking the brunt of the criticism.
The president has an approval rating is 52%
Congressional Republicans approval rating is 16%
So as John Boehner considers his options for the fiscal cliff debate he should recognize that voters do not support his positions. And while his willingness to take the world economy over the fiscal cliff is not what we would typically consider an act of terrorism, forcing the American people to accept a position they do not support and using economic stability as your threat to accomplish this goal isn't typically associated with Democracy either.
The pattern has repeated itself now for nearly four years of the Obama administration, Republicans take a hard line position and the president counters with his own hard-line position. The president and Republican leadership get together to discuss a compromise and at the end of those discussions the president has moved to the center and the Republicans haven't moved and inch or in some case moved further right.
Perhaps the biggest reason for this issue is that Republicans like Speaker John Boehner are oblivious to the message being sent to Washington by the American people. Shortly after the elections on November 6th Boehner made the statement that by giving Republicans control of the House the "American people have also made clear that there is no mandate for raising tax rates.”
Republicans are attempting to convince the public that the gerrymandered election results prove that the American people are against higher taxes. Much like their embarrassingly inaccurate understanding of polling prior the election this insistence shows that Republicans haven't learned their lesson.
Recent polls show the following:
53% of voters blame George W. Bush for the country’s economic problems.
60% of voters support raising taxes.
53% of voters will blame Congressional Republicans if we go over the fiscal cliff.
72% of voters had a negative view of last year’s debt ceiling debate with Republicans taking the brunt of the criticism.
The president has an approval rating is 52%
Congressional Republicans approval rating is 16%
So as John Boehner considers his options for the fiscal cliff debate he should recognize that voters do not support his positions. And while his willingness to take the world economy over the fiscal cliff is not what we would typically consider an act of terrorism, forcing the American people to accept a position they do not support and using economic stability as your threat to accomplish this goal isn't typically associated with Democracy either.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
One Cowardly Nerd
In discussing his decision to support turning Michigan into a "right to work" state Governor Snyder is pretending like this is an opportunity for unions. Apparently this gives the unions the ability to present their "value case".
Ignoring the fact that the governor has not offered this same "opportunity" to Michigan's police and fire unions, it should be noted that the governor specifically excluded himself from the "opportunity" to present his value case to the people regarding "right to work" and many other controversial pieces of legislation.
Typically if voters disagree with a law they have the ability to challenge that law using the referendum process. This is one of the only ways voters can directly affect laws they feel do not represent their best interests. This process was used by voters in the most recent election to repeal the emergency manager law that the people decided was an overreach by the legislature.
Unfortunately the governor and the Republican legislature have decided that allowing the people to have a say in the democratic process is unacceptable and that they should be immune from the "opportunity" to present their "value case". To accomplish this they stick a small appropriations into the legislation making it referendum proof.
Michigan has been passing laws nearly 200 years without needing appropriations on non-budgetary bills. At worst this tactic is an affront to the democratic process. At best it is a pathetically cowardly government overreach.
If providing unions with the "opportunity" to present their "value case" to members proves that Rick Snyder is "pro-worker" then providing government with the "opportunity" to present their "value case" on controversial legislation to the people would prove that the governor is "pro-democracy". Unfortunately, using the governors own logic, this means that this hypocritical legislative trickery proves he is "anti-democracy".
Regardless of how you feel about any of the various legislation previously passed or soon to be considered the people should have the right to organize and directly oppose legislation. Eliminating such options suggests that the governor realizes his arguments aren't good enough to convince the electorate of his "value case" or he simply doesn't care about the will of the people.
Neither of these options paints a particularly endearing picture of the governor and I imagine that the first time Democrats use this same tactic Republicans will be up in arms. But given the recent precedent set by Governor Snyder whereby retaliation is now an acceptable form of legislating, Republicans should expect Democrats to use appropriations on every single bill when they get the chance - especially on the really controversial ones.
Ignoring the fact that the governor has not offered this same "opportunity" to Michigan's police and fire unions, it should be noted that the governor specifically excluded himself from the "opportunity" to present his value case to the people regarding "right to work" and many other controversial pieces of legislation.
Typically if voters disagree with a law they have the ability to challenge that law using the referendum process. This is one of the only ways voters can directly affect laws they feel do not represent their best interests. This process was used by voters in the most recent election to repeal the emergency manager law that the people decided was an overreach by the legislature.
Unfortunately the governor and the Republican legislature have decided that allowing the people to have a say in the democratic process is unacceptable and that they should be immune from the "opportunity" to present their "value case". To accomplish this they stick a small appropriations into the legislation making it referendum proof.
Michigan has been passing laws nearly 200 years without needing appropriations on non-budgetary bills. At worst this tactic is an affront to the democratic process. At best it is a pathetically cowardly government overreach.
If providing unions with the "opportunity" to present their "value case" to members proves that Rick Snyder is "pro-worker" then providing government with the "opportunity" to present their "value case" on controversial legislation to the people would prove that the governor is "pro-democracy". Unfortunately, using the governors own logic, this means that this hypocritical legislative trickery proves he is "anti-democracy".
Regardless of how you feel about any of the various legislation previously passed or soon to be considered the people should have the right to organize and directly oppose legislation. Eliminating such options suggests that the governor realizes his arguments aren't good enough to convince the electorate of his "value case" or he simply doesn't care about the will of the people.
Neither of these options paints a particularly endearing picture of the governor and I imagine that the first time Democrats use this same tactic Republicans will be up in arms. But given the recent precedent set by Governor Snyder whereby retaliation is now an acceptable form of legislating, Republicans should expect Democrats to use appropriations on every single bill when they get the chance - especially on the really controversial ones.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Time to stop the extreme right adgenda in Michigan
If you support the governor and his new "right to work" legislation, this post is not for you.
If instead you are a union member, a union supporter, or just someone who has looked at the data and realized the claims by the governor and his allies are complete bunk I have a word of advice for you. It’s time to get to work.
While the recent legislation is a blow to unions it by no means is the end of the conversation. While polls show that a majority of Michiganders support "right to work" as an idea they are evenly split when asked whether Michigan should be a "right to work" state. Better yet, when given the arguments for both sides the numbers flip and a majority opposes "right to work" in Michigan.
This means that the governor and many Republicans in the legislature will be vulnerable during the elections in less than two years and they have only hurt their changes further with their recent flurry of activity passing bills that do the following:
Made Michigan a "right to work" state.
A law giving corporations millions more in tax cuts.
Laws further restricting abortion rights.
Bills that make it tougher to recall lawmakers.
A new voter ID law.
Fewer restrictions on where guns can be carried.
A new emergency manager law.
Changed the medical marijuana law approved by voters.
Privatize a prison.
They also considered bills that would have:
Given the state power to take over any school regardless of performance.
Allowed health care workers to discriminate based on religion.
With these changes the governor and the Republican legislature has established that their idea of reinventing Michigan means making it a haven for extreme conservatives which won't play well in a state that strongly supported an embattled Democrat for President.
The governor has given Democrats an opening and union members, union supporters and Democrats need to take the next two years to inform the electorate of the facts so we can put an end to this extreme agenda.
If instead you are a union member, a union supporter, or just someone who has looked at the data and realized the claims by the governor and his allies are complete bunk I have a word of advice for you. It’s time to get to work.
While the recent legislation is a blow to unions it by no means is the end of the conversation. While polls show that a majority of Michiganders support "right to work" as an idea they are evenly split when asked whether Michigan should be a "right to work" state. Better yet, when given the arguments for both sides the numbers flip and a majority opposes "right to work" in Michigan.
This means that the governor and many Republicans in the legislature will be vulnerable during the elections in less than two years and they have only hurt their changes further with their recent flurry of activity passing bills that do the following:
Made Michigan a "right to work" state.
A law giving corporations millions more in tax cuts.
Laws further restricting abortion rights.
Bills that make it tougher to recall lawmakers.
A new voter ID law.
Fewer restrictions on where guns can be carried.
A new emergency manager law.
Changed the medical marijuana law approved by voters.
Privatize a prison.
They also considered bills that would have:
Given the state power to take over any school regardless of performance.
Allowed health care workers to discriminate based on religion.
With these changes the governor and the Republican legislature has established that their idea of reinventing Michigan means making it a haven for extreme conservatives which won't play well in a state that strongly supported an embattled Democrat for President.
The governor has given Democrats an opening and union members, union supporters and Democrats need to take the next two years to inform the electorate of the facts so we can put an end to this extreme agenda.
Rick Snyder thinks you're an idiot
In the governor's current blitz to convince Michigan voters that his attack on unions are justified he is trotting out a few union members who don't like how the unions are run and want the option to get all the benefits of having a union job without contributing - or as Republicans would call it, allowing them to become part of the entitlement society.
Of course nugatory displays such as these really add nothing to what should be a rational debate since nearly every organization or business where individuals don't have 100% autonomy contain people who don't like how that organization is run.
And while there may not be a direct cost to members of these organizations and businesses like a union due; corruption, greed and mismanagement certainly cost these individuals.
In 2000 Enron paid its top executives a total of $1.4 billion while reporting $3 billion in losses to the government for the previous three years. One year later the greed and fraud from top executives cost employees their jobs and countless investors their retirement savings.
Similar scenes have played out a WorldCom, Tyco, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, and Qwest. All resulting in big payouts to top officials who live high on the hog while doing everything in their power to protect their own interests regardless of how it affects employees or exactly what Republicans accuse unions of doing. And the Republican response to these iniquitous organizations - demand less government interference.
If the Republican meme behind "right to work" legislation is a protection for workers, their history suggests they have been complete failures.
The reality is that the governor's decision was not based on "freedom", "choice", "retaliation", what jobs Indiana has in the pipeline, or any of the anecdotal evidence that provides nothing more than casual associations between "right to work" and job creation. This legislation is an attempt to end unions in Michigan. Expecting voters to believe anything different is insulting.
Of course nugatory displays such as these really add nothing to what should be a rational debate since nearly every organization or business where individuals don't have 100% autonomy contain people who don't like how that organization is run.
And while there may not be a direct cost to members of these organizations and businesses like a union due; corruption, greed and mismanagement certainly cost these individuals.
In 2000 Enron paid its top executives a total of $1.4 billion while reporting $3 billion in losses to the government for the previous three years. One year later the greed and fraud from top executives cost employees their jobs and countless investors their retirement savings.
Similar scenes have played out a WorldCom, Tyco, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, and Qwest. All resulting in big payouts to top officials who live high on the hog while doing everything in their power to protect their own interests regardless of how it affects employees or exactly what Republicans accuse unions of doing. And the Republican response to these iniquitous organizations - demand less government interference.
If the Republican meme behind "right to work" legislation is a protection for workers, their history suggests they have been complete failures.
The reality is that the governor's decision was not based on "freedom", "choice", "retaliation", what jobs Indiana has in the pipeline, or any of the anecdotal evidence that provides nothing more than casual associations between "right to work" and job creation. This legislation is an attempt to end unions in Michigan. Expecting voters to believe anything different is insulting.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Rick Snyder needs your help!
Great news! Governor Snyder has decided that Michigan residents should no longer be forced to pay money to an organization that doesn't represent their views or best interests.
I can only assume that given the current "pro choice" fervor in Michigan that the governor will give all Michigan businesses the choice of participating in what is currently a "forced tax" system. After all, this would give Michigan businesses the "the freedom to choose whether their resources go to the" state or not and as Governor Snyder himself said this would give him and the state of Michigan "an opportunity to better present their value case."
Why should union workers be the only ones to benefit from the governor's generosity?
Just imagine how many businesses would flock to Michigan if they could reap all of the benefits the state of Michigan provides without having to pay those pesky dues...err... taxes.
Of course it would be totally unfair to exclude the Michigan worker from this same choice. Being forced to pay the Michigan legislature simply because you have a job in Michigan just isn't right. What if you don't think the governor has your best interests in mind? Why should there be a mandate that you contribute money to an organization that might use your money on political activities you deem detrimental to your way of life?
As Governor Snyder also said "this is one of those issues that it's important to move forward with because it's all about being" pro-government. After all, why should the governor be restricted from the opportunity to present his value case to the people?
Listen, the governor is already bending over backwards by giving this early Christmas gift to unions so the least we can do here is let the governor know that we support his efforts and we are willing to do our part and make all of Michigan a "right to work" state.
Thank you governor! :)
I can only assume that given the current "pro choice" fervor in Michigan that the governor will give all Michigan businesses the choice of participating in what is currently a "forced tax" system. After all, this would give Michigan businesses the "the freedom to choose whether their resources go to the" state or not and as Governor Snyder himself said this would give him and the state of Michigan "an opportunity to better present their value case."
Why should union workers be the only ones to benefit from the governor's generosity?
Just imagine how many businesses would flock to Michigan if they could reap all of the benefits the state of Michigan provides without having to pay those pesky dues...err... taxes.
Of course it would be totally unfair to exclude the Michigan worker from this same choice. Being forced to pay the Michigan legislature simply because you have a job in Michigan just isn't right. What if you don't think the governor has your best interests in mind? Why should there be a mandate that you contribute money to an organization that might use your money on political activities you deem detrimental to your way of life?
As Governor Snyder also said "this is one of those issues that it's important to move forward with because it's all about being" pro-government. After all, why should the governor be restricted from the opportunity to present his value case to the people?
Listen, the governor is already bending over backwards by giving this early Christmas gift to unions so the least we can do here is let the governor know that we support his efforts and we are willing to do our part and make all of Michigan a "right to work" state.
Thank you governor! :)
Snyder's logic is embarrassingly simplistic
When Rick Snyder was elected as Governor of Michigan one had to be encouraged that his business background would be an asset in his decision making since he wouldn't be as beholden to the political party gridlock that dominates today's politics. We could instead expect that decisions would be made based on statistical analysis and return on investment.
Unfortunately through two years of governing it appears Snyder has abandoned his business acumen in favor of a more hard-line political approach and the recent decision regarding "right to work" is prime example of this shift.
In his email blast to support his controversial choice of making Michigan a "right to work" state the governor touts Indiana as the impetus for the change. Using such anecdotal evidence is a mind numbingly simplistic way of making such a contentious decision. You could just as easily point to Oklahoma and decide "right to work" laws don't work.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it suggests "right to work" is the only factor a company considers when deciding where to locate their business. Given that only 6.9% of private sector jobs are union jobs it would be a stretch to think that the average company gives the union environment of a state much consideration.
But even beyond that it should be noted the Governor Snyder himself indicated that the corporate tax cuts that he championed would create jobs. If corporate tax cuts create jobs then how can "right to work" status be credited with all of the jobs created by "right to work" states? And if Indiana is the model on which Governor Snyder is basing his decision it should be pointed out that they also dropped corporate tax rates in 2011. Based on the governor's own rhetoric one might assume that 100% of Indiana's recent job creation could be attributed to their corporate tax rates and that "right to work" has little to no impact on Indiana's job creation.
As a businessman one would expect the governor to look for a correlation between "right to work" and job creation if he is going to proclaim "right to work" as the solution to Michigan's job situation. But the governor has done no such thing because the data doesn't support his stance. As a matter of fact 5 of the top 7 states for job creation are workers rights states. Additionally since 2008 "right to work" states have seen private sector jobs losses of 4.14% with workers rights states losing a nearly identical 4.18%. If "right to work" created so many jobs then why is there almost no difference in the job creation in "right to work" states versus workers rights states?
But it seems that Rick Snyder has decided to ignore his business roots, which require a thorough analysis of data, and insist on masquerading this legislation as a "choice" for Michiganders. This means the governor must acknowledge that allowing 85 politicians in a lame duck session to decide this issue for an entire state is not an example of giving people a choice. If Rick Snyder and Republicans truly care about choice, then they should use the democratic process and put "right to work" on the ballot, letting the people choose at the polls.
Unfortunately through two years of governing it appears Snyder has abandoned his business acumen in favor of a more hard-line political approach and the recent decision regarding "right to work" is prime example of this shift.
In his email blast to support his controversial choice of making Michigan a "right to work" state the governor touts Indiana as the impetus for the change. Using such anecdotal evidence is a mind numbingly simplistic way of making such a contentious decision. You could just as easily point to Oklahoma and decide "right to work" laws don't work.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it suggests "right to work" is the only factor a company considers when deciding where to locate their business. Given that only 6.9% of private sector jobs are union jobs it would be a stretch to think that the average company gives the union environment of a state much consideration.
But even beyond that it should be noted the Governor Snyder himself indicated that the corporate tax cuts that he championed would create jobs. If corporate tax cuts create jobs then how can "right to work" status be credited with all of the jobs created by "right to work" states? And if Indiana is the model on which Governor Snyder is basing his decision it should be pointed out that they also dropped corporate tax rates in 2011. Based on the governor's own rhetoric one might assume that 100% of Indiana's recent job creation could be attributed to their corporate tax rates and that "right to work" has little to no impact on Indiana's job creation.
As a businessman one would expect the governor to look for a correlation between "right to work" and job creation if he is going to proclaim "right to work" as the solution to Michigan's job situation. But the governor has done no such thing because the data doesn't support his stance. As a matter of fact 5 of the top 7 states for job creation are workers rights states. Additionally since 2008 "right to work" states have seen private sector jobs losses of 4.14% with workers rights states losing a nearly identical 4.18%. If "right to work" created so many jobs then why is there almost no difference in the job creation in "right to work" states versus workers rights states?
But it seems that Rick Snyder has decided to ignore his business roots, which require a thorough analysis of data, and insist on masquerading this legislation as a "choice" for Michiganders. This means the governor must acknowledge that allowing 85 politicians in a lame duck session to decide this issue for an entire state is not an example of giving people a choice. If Rick Snyder and Republicans truly care about choice, then they should use the democratic process and put "right to work" on the ballot, letting the people choose at the polls.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Right to worse
Governor Snyder has portrayed his right to work legislation as a reaction to the push by unions to enshrine collective bargaining rights into the state constitution with Proposal 2 this past November. Essentially he is suggesting the unions brought this on themselves.
However the reality is that this was always the governor’s plan. He knew if he let the cat out of the bag before the election those who support collective bargaining but oppose amending the constitution might have supported a less than perfect bill. He also knew that picking this fight before the election could put some Republican legislators in jeopardy of losing their seats and he needed all of the support he could get if he was going to take down unions in the state of Michigan.
The governor also showed some of his cards when he made his first priority a tax break for corporations at the expense of public education. And when it became obvious that the state would have a budget surplus the governor made excuses as to why the schools would not see any of that money.
The governor may want to tread lightly on the idea of this just being a reaction to a union campaign. Not only does such a line of thinking seem childish and beneath a high ranking elected official but when a leader of a foreign country "punishes" his people simply because they opposed his wishes we label that leader as a dictator. Neither of these labels will help the governor in future legislation.
To make this "right to work" legislation seem less like a punishment, the governor has tried to spin this as the "right to choose". The problem is the governor has done nothing to make you think that he actually cares about a Michigander's right to choose.
He has castrated the voters ability to challenge many bills by inserting appropriations in to some of the most controversial bills meaning they can never face the same voter directed referendums that would remove bad laws such as was the case for the Emergency manager law that was voted on and repealed last month, ending the voters choice to contest ill-conceived legislation.
He supported an Emergency Manager law that took away the people's right to choose their city's own path to recovery and when the people chose to repeal this law the governor acted quickly to replace the law with a new one circumventing the people's choice.
He is supporting a bundle of education bills that allow the state to take over any school, regardless of performance, eliminating the local community's choice on how to run their own schools.
He signed legislation the past summer requiring public educators to pay 20% of the cost of health care, eliminating their choice to take health care benefits in lieu of other forms of compensation.
And now the governor is supporting a "choice" for a relatively small number of people that will lead to lower wages and a reduced likelihood of receiving health insurance and pensions for all Michigan workers - public or private. And since this legislation contains an appropriations it will be referendum proof - again eliminating the Michigan voters choice.
As much as the governor will want to frame this as a debate about choice, his own actions suggest the public's ability to choose is of little consequence to him. The belief that his decision regarding right to work is a retaliative measure is the thing most likely to stick in voters’ minds and unfortunately for the governor and Republican legislators retaliation is a never ending cycle.
However the reality is that this was always the governor’s plan. He knew if he let the cat out of the bag before the election those who support collective bargaining but oppose amending the constitution might have supported a less than perfect bill. He also knew that picking this fight before the election could put some Republican legislators in jeopardy of losing their seats and he needed all of the support he could get if he was going to take down unions in the state of Michigan.
The governor also showed some of his cards when he made his first priority a tax break for corporations at the expense of public education. And when it became obvious that the state would have a budget surplus the governor made excuses as to why the schools would not see any of that money.
The governor may want to tread lightly on the idea of this just being a reaction to a union campaign. Not only does such a line of thinking seem childish and beneath a high ranking elected official but when a leader of a foreign country "punishes" his people simply because they opposed his wishes we label that leader as a dictator. Neither of these labels will help the governor in future legislation.
To make this "right to work" legislation seem less like a punishment, the governor has tried to spin this as the "right to choose". The problem is the governor has done nothing to make you think that he actually cares about a Michigander's right to choose.
He has castrated the voters ability to challenge many bills by inserting appropriations in to some of the most controversial bills meaning they can never face the same voter directed referendums that would remove bad laws such as was the case for the Emergency manager law that was voted on and repealed last month, ending the voters choice to contest ill-conceived legislation.
He supported an Emergency Manager law that took away the people's right to choose their city's own path to recovery and when the people chose to repeal this law the governor acted quickly to replace the law with a new one circumventing the people's choice.
He is supporting a bundle of education bills that allow the state to take over any school, regardless of performance, eliminating the local community's choice on how to run their own schools.
He signed legislation the past summer requiring public educators to pay 20% of the cost of health care, eliminating their choice to take health care benefits in lieu of other forms of compensation.
And now the governor is supporting a "choice" for a relatively small number of people that will lead to lower wages and a reduced likelihood of receiving health insurance and pensions for all Michigan workers - public or private. And since this legislation contains an appropriations it will be referendum proof - again eliminating the Michigan voters choice.
As much as the governor will want to frame this as a debate about choice, his own actions suggest the public's ability to choose is of little consequence to him. The belief that his decision regarding right to work is a retaliative measure is the thing most likely to stick in voters’ minds and unfortunately for the governor and Republican legislators retaliation is a never ending cycle.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Charter schools are not a solution
Most people would agree that every child should have the opportunity at a high quality education. Unfortunately Republicans have become obsessed with making changes that don't actually improve educational outcomes
The most recent examples of this obsession are a few bills (HB 6004, HB 5923, and SB 1358) being offered by Michigan Republicans. These bills would establish a statewide school district that would be accountable to a board composed of members appointed by the governor not elected by the people. For a group that is so opposed to government control and regulations this seems like an odd step to take decision making regarding local schools away from communities and pass it along to bureaucrats.
These bills would also allow nearly any for profit entity to establish a charter school. These charter schools could then siphon off money and good students from public schools leaving the neediest children for the public schools. The law only requires these corporate sponsored schools to accept 25% of their students from families outside of the corporate envelope making this law more of a corporate give away than a way for less privileged students to get ahead.
Of course the real issue here is that charter schools don't outperform public schools. Regardless of the anecdotal evidence that is often misrepresented as proof, studies show charter schools are just as likely to fare worse than public schools as they are to outperform them.
The reality is that charter schools are not the magic bullet that Republicans make them out to be. Instead a report by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, an organization funded by both the Walton Family Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, found that 1 in 5 charter schools should be closed for poor performance but aren't because while Republican legislators are quick to try and replace public schools with corporate charter schools they have done very little in implementing laws requiring that these school meet the same standards as their public school counterparts.
Republicans have a history of pushing for privatization of public services under the auspicious of lower costs and improved services yet time after time their "solutions" become a greater problem. One has to look to further than private prisons to see how Republican rhetoric has dire consequences for the American public since not only do private prisons cherry pick the least needy prisoners, they also cost more and provide a lower level of security than government run prisons.
In the end these bills look more like corporate giveaways and a government power grab than solutions to increase educational outcomes and provide every child an opportunity at a high quality education.
Contact your State Senator and State Representative and tell them to keep corporate greed and mismanagement out of education.
The most recent examples of this obsession are a few bills (HB 6004, HB 5923, and SB 1358) being offered by Michigan Republicans. These bills would establish a statewide school district that would be accountable to a board composed of members appointed by the governor not elected by the people. For a group that is so opposed to government control and regulations this seems like an odd step to take decision making regarding local schools away from communities and pass it along to bureaucrats.
These bills would also allow nearly any for profit entity to establish a charter school. These charter schools could then siphon off money and good students from public schools leaving the neediest children for the public schools. The law only requires these corporate sponsored schools to accept 25% of their students from families outside of the corporate envelope making this law more of a corporate give away than a way for less privileged students to get ahead.
Of course the real issue here is that charter schools don't outperform public schools. Regardless of the anecdotal evidence that is often misrepresented as proof, studies show charter schools are just as likely to fare worse than public schools as they are to outperform them.
The reality is that charter schools are not the magic bullet that Republicans make them out to be. Instead a report by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, an organization funded by both the Walton Family Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, found that 1 in 5 charter schools should be closed for poor performance but aren't because while Republican legislators are quick to try and replace public schools with corporate charter schools they have done very little in implementing laws requiring that these school meet the same standards as their public school counterparts.
Republicans have a history of pushing for privatization of public services under the auspicious of lower costs and improved services yet time after time their "solutions" become a greater problem. One has to look to further than private prisons to see how Republican rhetoric has dire consequences for the American public since not only do private prisons cherry pick the least needy prisoners, they also cost more and provide a lower level of security than government run prisons.
In the end these bills look more like corporate giveaways and a government power grab than solutions to increase educational outcomes and provide every child an opportunity at a high quality education.
Contact your State Senator and State Representative and tell them to keep corporate greed and mismanagement out of education.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Anyway you slice it, Papa John's a jerk
Papa John's owner John Schattner has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as Obamacare. And to prove how consumers will be affected by this legislation Papa john is threaten to raise the price of a pizza by $0.11.
As many have noted already the "free" pizza give away offer that Papa John's is currently running will cost the company between $24 and $32 million in profit this year which far exceeds the cost of supplying health insurance to his employees ($5 to $8 million). But John Schattner might also want to consider that by offering health insurance the Papa John's corporation will experience more productive employees who miss less work time which will further diminish the expense of providing insurance.
But the one thing I really don't understand is why this is big news. Reports show that 90 to 99 percent of large businesses offer health insurance. Does anyone think that these companies are not passing along the costs of providing their employee’s health insurance to the consumer?
The reality is that companies are always trying to maximize profit so consumers are forced to pay for things we may or may not like with every product we purchase. If you buy an American car a portion of your money goes to support the UAW, if you use electricity a portion of your money goes to support green energy, and if you buy a pizza from Papa John's a portion of your money goes to pay their tax bill which supports Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, NASA, Education, Oil subsidies, and Big Bird.
In the end, when your company has a profit of $87 million and you whine about providing a benefit that nearly every American wants and needs, it doesn't make you look like a virtuous patriot. It makes you look like a jerk.
As many have noted already the "free" pizza give away offer that Papa John's is currently running will cost the company between $24 and $32 million in profit this year which far exceeds the cost of supplying health insurance to his employees ($5 to $8 million). But John Schattner might also want to consider that by offering health insurance the Papa John's corporation will experience more productive employees who miss less work time which will further diminish the expense of providing insurance.
But the one thing I really don't understand is why this is big news. Reports show that 90 to 99 percent of large businesses offer health insurance. Does anyone think that these companies are not passing along the costs of providing their employee’s health insurance to the consumer?
The reality is that companies are always trying to maximize profit so consumers are forced to pay for things we may or may not like with every product we purchase. If you buy an American car a portion of your money goes to support the UAW, if you use electricity a portion of your money goes to support green energy, and if you buy a pizza from Papa John's a portion of your money goes to pay their tax bill which supports Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, NASA, Education, Oil subsidies, and Big Bird.
In the end, when your company has a profit of $87 million and you whine about providing a benefit that nearly every American wants and needs, it doesn't make you look like a virtuous patriot. It makes you look like a jerk.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The Party that cried wolf
I used to think that the conservative crutch of "liberal media bias" was one of the worst things about politics. After all it solves exactly zero actual problems facing the nation. It is a mainly opinion based measure which is why you can find some "studies" that show a liberal media bias, some that show a conservative media bias and others that show no media bias.
But that was before November 6th 2012. On Election Day it became apparent that Conservatives desire to insulate themselves from reality may have handed the election to the Democrats. Poll after poll showed the election favoring Democrats yet Conservative talking heads convinced themselves and their viewers, listeners and readers that it was all a lie. The media was lying, the polls were lying, the experts were lying, and the data was lying. The election was in the bag for Republicans.
Ironically it could be this conservative meme that cost them the Presidency and seats in congress. If this was an election that was going to be decided by who could best mobilize their base, having Fox News predicting a big win for Republicans may have had the opposite effect. Why should conservatives make any extra effort to get to the polls if all the "lame stream" media outlets were lying and Republicans were assured a win? Conversely Democrats may have gone out of their way to fill out their ballot given how close media reports showed the election to be.
What should really scare Republicans now is that they risk becoming and unreliable narrator. After all if Conservative "experts" had Romney winning the popular vote by five to ten points and then he loses by over a point it could call into question all of the other "facts" that these pundits offer. For example John Boehner thinks retaining control of the House somehow equates to an endorsement of the Republican obstinanace to a tax increase for the rich. Yet the same polls that show Boehner was wrong on his election day prediction also show that only 35% of American's share John Boehner's view on taxes.
This of course is only one item in a long list of items where Republicans ignore the experts and the data in favor of their "beliefs". From the science of conception to climate change to gun rights to taxes to the president’s birth place, Conservatives have made up their own reality. And this insistence that their opinions are correct in the face of piles of data to the contrary means these Republicans could soon turn themselves into the boy who cried wolf.
If Republicans can root out the tea party extremism that has become their party platform in favor of the more moderate views held by the majority of Americans they can easily restore the public’s faith in their party, but if they continue to insist that the media, the polls, the experts and the data are all bias for Democrats, November 8th 2016 may feel a lot like groundhogs day.
But that was before November 6th 2012. On Election Day it became apparent that Conservatives desire to insulate themselves from reality may have handed the election to the Democrats. Poll after poll showed the election favoring Democrats yet Conservative talking heads convinced themselves and their viewers, listeners and readers that it was all a lie. The media was lying, the polls were lying, the experts were lying, and the data was lying. The election was in the bag for Republicans.
Ironically it could be this conservative meme that cost them the Presidency and seats in congress. If this was an election that was going to be decided by who could best mobilize their base, having Fox News predicting a big win for Republicans may have had the opposite effect. Why should conservatives make any extra effort to get to the polls if all the "lame stream" media outlets were lying and Republicans were assured a win? Conversely Democrats may have gone out of their way to fill out their ballot given how close media reports showed the election to be.
What should really scare Republicans now is that they risk becoming and unreliable narrator. After all if Conservative "experts" had Romney winning the popular vote by five to ten points and then he loses by over a point it could call into question all of the other "facts" that these pundits offer. For example John Boehner thinks retaining control of the House somehow equates to an endorsement of the Republican obstinanace to a tax increase for the rich. Yet the same polls that show Boehner was wrong on his election day prediction also show that only 35% of American's share John Boehner's view on taxes.
This of course is only one item in a long list of items where Republicans ignore the experts and the data in favor of their "beliefs". From the science of conception to climate change to gun rights to taxes to the president’s birth place, Conservatives have made up their own reality. And this insistence that their opinions are correct in the face of piles of data to the contrary means these Republicans could soon turn themselves into the boy who cried wolf.
If Republicans can root out the tea party extremism that has become their party platform in favor of the more moderate views held by the majority of Americans they can easily restore the public’s faith in their party, but if they continue to insist that the media, the polls, the experts and the data are all bias for Democrats, November 8th 2016 may feel a lot like groundhogs day.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Mitch McConnell should resign as leader
On December 7th 2010 Mitch McConnell said "Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term." Yet with the deck stacked in his favor Mitch McConnell failed to put together a winning hand.
This seems to be a massive miscalculation by McConnell given that the majority of Americans put jobs as their top priority over the past two years. To accomplish his goal Mitch McConnell obstructed the president's jobs bill, blocked a veteran's jobs bill, and forced the country to accept a reductions in government jobs totaling almost 700,000 jobs. And he did all of this so he could pin the tail on the donkey for all of the medicore recovery data.
But while this should anger those who are looking for work or put American well being ahead of political power, this failure should also bother moderate Republicans. Thanks to Mitch McConnell's obsession with Barack Obama he let the tea party legitimately rape the Republican party. And this oversight cost Mitch the change to be the majority leader as extreme tea party candidates lost to moderate Democrats. Instead of taking control of the senate as many Republican talking heads had predicted they actually lost seats.
Bottom line, if the leader of the Senate Republicans can't deliver on his top priority and loses seats in an election that was gift wrapped by a global recession, perhaps he isn't the right man for the job.
This seems to be a massive miscalculation by McConnell given that the majority of Americans put jobs as their top priority over the past two years. To accomplish his goal Mitch McConnell obstructed the president's jobs bill, blocked a veteran's jobs bill, and forced the country to accept a reductions in government jobs totaling almost 700,000 jobs. And he did all of this so he could pin the tail on the donkey for all of the medicore recovery data.
But while this should anger those who are looking for work or put American well being ahead of political power, this failure should also bother moderate Republicans. Thanks to Mitch McConnell's obsession with Barack Obama he let the tea party legitimately rape the Republican party. And this oversight cost Mitch the change to be the majority leader as extreme tea party candidates lost to moderate Democrats. Instead of taking control of the senate as many Republican talking heads had predicted they actually lost seats.
Bottom line, if the leader of the Senate Republicans can't deliver on his top priority and loses seats in an election that was gift wrapped by a global recession, perhaps he isn't the right man for the job.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Another half truth about Proposal 2
If you have watched any television recently you know there is no shortage of ads debating Proposal 2. Unfortunately there seems to be a vacuum of truth in many of these ads.
One of the big talking points for those opposed to Proposal 2 is the idea that we don't need to amend the constitution to guarantee the right to collectively bargain since it is already guaranteed by Federal law.
The reality is that the Federal law covering collective bargaining (the National Labor Relations Act of 1935) does not cover all unions. Public unions for instance are not guaranteed the right to collective bargaining under this law which is why it is currently illegal to form a public sector union in five states. Additionally according to Wikipedia "The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, and independent contractors."
But even if this were covered under Federal law Republicans don't have much a leg to stand on with this particular argument given the redundancy they insist on in bills pertaining to government money and abortions or illegal immigrants. If having something covered multiple times is OK for their priorities then it should be OK for the priorities of other groups as well.
Voting against Proposal 2 because you don't think that a person should have the right to collectively bargain is fine. But misleading people into believing that these rights are already part of Federal law is not.
One of the big talking points for those opposed to Proposal 2 is the idea that we don't need to amend the constitution to guarantee the right to collectively bargain since it is already guaranteed by Federal law.
The reality is that the Federal law covering collective bargaining (the National Labor Relations Act of 1935) does not cover all unions. Public unions for instance are not guaranteed the right to collective bargaining under this law which is why it is currently illegal to form a public sector union in five states. Additionally according to Wikipedia "The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, and independent contractors."
But even if this were covered under Federal law Republicans don't have much a leg to stand on with this particular argument given the redundancy they insist on in bills pertaining to government money and abortions or illegal immigrants. If having something covered multiple times is OK for their priorities then it should be OK for the priorities of other groups as well.
Voting against Proposal 2 because you don't think that a person should have the right to collectively bargain is fine. But misleading people into believing that these rights are already part of Federal law is not.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Shame on you Governor Snyder
The state of Michigan has six proposals on the ballot this year of which five would amend the state constitution. While many don't like the idea of amending the state's constitution, this is one of the few ways that electorate can directly deliver change when the legislature won't act or enacts laws that run counter to the will of the people.
Given the stakes, Michiganders are being inundated with opinions from all sides. This is especially true of proposal 2 which guarantees the right to collective bargaining.
The Governor has put together a short video regarding his opposition to proposal 2 in which he states that the proposal should be relabeled the "back in time proposal" because he claims it would repeal as many as 140 to 170 laws currently on the books that have existed for as many as 50 years.
While I support the governor's opposition to proposals 5 and 6 his rational on voting against prop 2 is perplexing and deceptive. If enacted, proposal 2 would roll back some laws. The question that everyone is debating is the extent of these roll backs.
The problem is rather that than attempting to give a good explanation the opposition has taken to speculation and conjecture which ends up coming off as fear mongering. I requested a list of the laws that would be affected from the governor's office but have not received a response to my inquiry.
Like the governor the Chamber of Commerce is also strongly opposed to proposal two but unlike the governor they eventually produced a list of laws they suspect could be affected. And while to governor claims that 140 to 170 laws that have been on the books for as long as 50 years the Chamber only found around 80 laws and every law they fear could be overturned was enacted in 2011.
The opposition likes to claim that proposal 2 would stymie important laws that make Michigan more competitive yet none of these laws that they deem paramount to Michigan's success have even been in place for two years. Instead the list reads like a conservative manifesto on how to limit unions and help big business.
They include laws with such descriptions as:
- Prohibits Graduate Students from having Collective Bargaining Rights.
- State imposed penalties for picketing.
- Expands Cyber Schools allowing taxpayer dollars to go to for profit business.
- Allows privatization of correctional facility.
- Prohibits public employers from allowing payroll deduction for dues of labor organizations.
- Forced privatization of non-instructional workers in public school districts.
- Prohibits Government from competing with private enterprise.
- Repeal Teacher Tenure.
- Repeals prevailing wage act.
- Interferes with local control and collective bargaining over teacher evaluation/pay.
- Create right-to-work zones.
- Creates health care plan for all public workers; eliminates collective bargaining.
- Repeal of Michigan Health and Safety Act.
- Allows districts to privatize public school teachers; expands Charter Schools; Remove collective bargaining agreement.
- Places restrictions on police officer and fire fighter arbitration rights.
They even go as far to suggest that this overreach of amending the constitution could affect the important work done by the Republican led legislature of amending the constitution to allow the legislature to regulate the health benefits of public employees and officers. This is awfully hypocritical for a group of people who don't want the government telling people what the can and cannot do and have ethical concerns about amending the constitution.
It should come as no surprise that the governor wants to avoid getting specific on the laws that would be affected since many of these laws are direct attacks on collective bargaining which many people support while others are massive government giveaways to big business which many people don't support.
The reality is that proposal 2 guarantees the right of Michigan workers to collectively bargain and repeals some of the overreach by the Republican controlled legislature over the past two years. Regardless of whether you are for it or against it we should expect more from our governor than misleading rhetoric that obfuscates the truth from Michigan voters.
Given the stakes, Michiganders are being inundated with opinions from all sides. This is especially true of proposal 2 which guarantees the right to collective bargaining.
The Governor has put together a short video regarding his opposition to proposal 2 in which he states that the proposal should be relabeled the "back in time proposal" because he claims it would repeal as many as 140 to 170 laws currently on the books that have existed for as many as 50 years.
While I support the governor's opposition to proposals 5 and 6 his rational on voting against prop 2 is perplexing and deceptive. If enacted, proposal 2 would roll back some laws. The question that everyone is debating is the extent of these roll backs.
The problem is rather that than attempting to give a good explanation the opposition has taken to speculation and conjecture which ends up coming off as fear mongering. I requested a list of the laws that would be affected from the governor's office but have not received a response to my inquiry.
Like the governor the Chamber of Commerce is also strongly opposed to proposal two but unlike the governor they eventually produced a list of laws they suspect could be affected. And while to governor claims that 140 to 170 laws that have been on the books for as long as 50 years the Chamber only found around 80 laws and every law they fear could be overturned was enacted in 2011.
The opposition likes to claim that proposal 2 would stymie important laws that make Michigan more competitive yet none of these laws that they deem paramount to Michigan's success have even been in place for two years. Instead the list reads like a conservative manifesto on how to limit unions and help big business.
They include laws with such descriptions as:
- Prohibits Graduate Students from having Collective Bargaining Rights.
- State imposed penalties for picketing.
- Expands Cyber Schools allowing taxpayer dollars to go to for profit business.
- Allows privatization of correctional facility.
- Prohibits public employers from allowing payroll deduction for dues of labor organizations.
- Forced privatization of non-instructional workers in public school districts.
- Prohibits Government from competing with private enterprise.
- Repeal Teacher Tenure.
- Repeals prevailing wage act.
- Interferes with local control and collective bargaining over teacher evaluation/pay.
- Create right-to-work zones.
- Creates health care plan for all public workers; eliminates collective bargaining.
- Repeal of Michigan Health and Safety Act.
- Allows districts to privatize public school teachers; expands Charter Schools; Remove collective bargaining agreement.
- Places restrictions on police officer and fire fighter arbitration rights.
They even go as far to suggest that this overreach of amending the constitution could affect the important work done by the Republican led legislature of amending the constitution to allow the legislature to regulate the health benefits of public employees and officers. This is awfully hypocritical for a group of people who don't want the government telling people what the can and cannot do and have ethical concerns about amending the constitution.
It should come as no surprise that the governor wants to avoid getting specific on the laws that would be affected since many of these laws are direct attacks on collective bargaining which many people support while others are massive government giveaways to big business which many people don't support.
The reality is that proposal 2 guarantees the right of Michigan workers to collectively bargain and repeals some of the overreach by the Republican controlled legislature over the past two years. Regardless of whether you are for it or against it we should expect more from our governor than misleading rhetoric that obfuscates the truth from Michigan voters.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Are you better off now is the wrong question
For months now Mitt Romney has been asking the question "Are you better now than you were four years ago". The insinuation is that the choices Barack Obama made over the past four years have been the wrong choices.
Ignoring the fact that Mitt Romney has never offered an alternative course to prosperity other than cutting taxes, just like Barack Obama did, there is a major problem with this question. It provides almost no context.
Unfortunately we can neither prove nor disprove the implication that had Mitt Romney been president the recovery would have been more swift and robust. But even if a Romney recovery had been better there are plenty of people who would still not be better off today than they were four years ago and this anecdote would still apply.
According to a report by The Guardian the US experienced a recession that was twice as large as any recession since the great depression.
This means if you really want to analyze the success or failure of the Obama recovery you shouldn't compare it to some mythological Romney recovery. You should compare it to other countries and how they have performed under similar circumstances with different tactics.
With this in mind it should be noted that since Barack Obama assumed the office of president the US has experienced greater GDP growth than Austria, Germany, Greece, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, The United Kingdom, Norway, Portugal, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, The Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, and Malta.
And while the US has experienced a drop in the unemployment rate many countries has seen their unmployment rate increase over the last four years including The United Kingdom, Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Cyprus, Spain, Greece, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and The Czech Republic. With others seeing a downward trend that mirrors the US such as Austria, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Malta, New Zealand and Latvia.
Additionally the US stock market was one of the only exchanges in the world that fully recovered to above prerecession numbers outpacing China, Russia, India, Hong Kong, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark, Taiwan, Canada, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Finland, Greece, Ireland, and Austria.
If should also be noted that the current recovery compares favorably to other recessions and subsequent recoveries in the US and other countries.
So are you better off than you were four years ago? Maybe, maybe not. But if you live in American odds are you are surviving the global financial crisis better than most. Because time after time America outperforms the rest of the world and our current recovery under Barack Obama is no exception to this American exceptionalism.
Ignoring the fact that Mitt Romney has never offered an alternative course to prosperity other than cutting taxes, just like Barack Obama did, there is a major problem with this question. It provides almost no context.
Unfortunately we can neither prove nor disprove the implication that had Mitt Romney been president the recovery would have been more swift and robust. But even if a Romney recovery had been better there are plenty of people who would still not be better off today than they were four years ago and this anecdote would still apply.
According to a report by The Guardian the US experienced a recession that was twice as large as any recession since the great depression.
This means if you really want to analyze the success or failure of the Obama recovery you shouldn't compare it to some mythological Romney recovery. You should compare it to other countries and how they have performed under similar circumstances with different tactics.
With this in mind it should be noted that since Barack Obama assumed the office of president the US has experienced greater GDP growth than Austria, Germany, Greece, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, The United Kingdom, Norway, Portugal, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, The Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, and Malta.
And while the US has experienced a drop in the unemployment rate many countries has seen their unmployment rate increase over the last four years including The United Kingdom, Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Cyprus, Spain, Greece, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and The Czech Republic. With others seeing a downward trend that mirrors the US such as Austria, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Malta, New Zealand and Latvia.
Additionally the US stock market was one of the only exchanges in the world that fully recovered to above prerecession numbers outpacing China, Russia, India, Hong Kong, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark, Taiwan, Canada, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Finland, Greece, Ireland, and Austria.
If should also be noted that the current recovery compares favorably to other recessions and subsequent recoveries in the US and other countries.
So are you better off than you were four years ago? Maybe, maybe not. But if you live in American odds are you are surviving the global financial crisis better than most. Because time after time America outperforms the rest of the world and our current recovery under Barack Obama is no exception to this American exceptionalism.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Blind Trust
A year and a half ago when Mitt Romney officially tossed his hat in the presidential ring, questions about his investments arose immediately. Having faced similar questions in his previous run for president Mitt now had the perfect answer, these investments weren't his. His wealth was now in a blind trust controlled by someone else.
Ironically this seems to be a theme for the Romney campaign. Interested in Mitt Romney's work at Bain Capital? You're going to have to exercise some blind trust in Mitt Romney because this information is off the table according to Mitt. Interested in the taxes that Mitt Romney pays? You will have to show a little blind trust in Mitt because he's only going to release the two years that his accounting firm has meticulously cleaned for public view. Interested in specific policy in a Mitt Romney presidency? You just need a bit of blind trust because Mitt Romney isn't going to give you any specifics.
Of course the blind trust doesn't only apply to you the American voter. Ever since securing his party’s nomination for president, Mitt Romney has put his policies in a blind trust. Essentially from day to day Romney is completely unaware of his current position on a give topic until he is coached on the answer that polls agree make him the most relatable.
At this point Romney has changed his position on abortion, minimum wage, health care mandates, Iran, gay rights, the GM bailout, climate change, tax cuts, immigration, Pell grants, and the 47% just to name a few.
Thanks to many voters blind trust in fallacies about Barack Obama they are willing to vote for anyone who labels themselves as "severely conservative" over the president. And if Mitt Romney wins the presidency on November 6th, he will owe it all to blind trust.
Ironically this seems to be a theme for the Romney campaign. Interested in Mitt Romney's work at Bain Capital? You're going to have to exercise some blind trust in Mitt Romney because this information is off the table according to Mitt. Interested in the taxes that Mitt Romney pays? You will have to show a little blind trust in Mitt because he's only going to release the two years that his accounting firm has meticulously cleaned for public view. Interested in specific policy in a Mitt Romney presidency? You just need a bit of blind trust because Mitt Romney isn't going to give you any specifics.
Of course the blind trust doesn't only apply to you the American voter. Ever since securing his party’s nomination for president, Mitt Romney has put his policies in a blind trust. Essentially from day to day Romney is completely unaware of his current position on a give topic until he is coached on the answer that polls agree make him the most relatable.
At this point Romney has changed his position on abortion, minimum wage, health care mandates, Iran, gay rights, the GM bailout, climate change, tax cuts, immigration, Pell grants, and the 47% just to name a few.
Thanks to many voters blind trust in fallacies about Barack Obama they are willing to vote for anyone who labels themselves as "severely conservative" over the president. And if Mitt Romney wins the presidency on November 6th, he will owe it all to blind trust.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Eliminating the competition at the expense of the middle class
One of the narratives that conservatives have been pushing recently is the idea that "unions are ruining our country".
Unfortunately the articles I find with such bold statements are often very light on details and proof. As an example if you compare union membership to the unemployment rate, GDP or inflation you will see there is no correlation.
There is however one group that is adversely affected by union membership in the US - the top 1%. Data shows that as the number of Americans in unions increases the share of the income taken home by the top 1% decreases. The pie becomes more evenly distributed as workers get an increasing percentage.
So when conservatives hop up on their soap box and suggest that supporting unions means you don't support America, our kids, or the free market realize that union support is directly linked to the growth of the middle class and helped level the playing field for the less fortunate.
Regardless of what conservatives might believe proponents of unions are not some singular entity that blindly agrees with every action a union takes. Union members have plenty of grips about the organizations that represent them however they support the overriding goal of unions as a balance to the power of large corporate entities.
But conservatives will use any excuse to eliminate the competition so rather than rationally discuss ways to improve upon some of the more eccentric union rules, they advocate for a complete end to unions.
Oddly enough conservative politicians may be cutting off their nose to spite their face with this mentality. If we are going to start eliminating organizations that are detrimental to the country Congress would be first on the chopping block given that they block more legislation than the pass and unlike the 61% support collective bargaining enjoys congress is hovering closer to a 10% approval rating.
Very few people would argue that unions are perfect but their existence is good for the middle class and subsequently for the overall economy. The reality is that working to end union rights has almost nothing to do with job creation. It is a power grab to essentially create a jobs bank for do nothing politicians.
Unfortunately the articles I find with such bold statements are often very light on details and proof. As an example if you compare union membership to the unemployment rate, GDP or inflation you will see there is no correlation.
There is however one group that is adversely affected by union membership in the US - the top 1%. Data shows that as the number of Americans in unions increases the share of the income taken home by the top 1% decreases. The pie becomes more evenly distributed as workers get an increasing percentage.
So when conservatives hop up on their soap box and suggest that supporting unions means you don't support America, our kids, or the free market realize that union support is directly linked to the growth of the middle class and helped level the playing field for the less fortunate.
Regardless of what conservatives might believe proponents of unions are not some singular entity that blindly agrees with every action a union takes. Union members have plenty of grips about the organizations that represent them however they support the overriding goal of unions as a balance to the power of large corporate entities.
But conservatives will use any excuse to eliminate the competition so rather than rationally discuss ways to improve upon some of the more eccentric union rules, they advocate for a complete end to unions.
Oddly enough conservative politicians may be cutting off their nose to spite their face with this mentality. If we are going to start eliminating organizations that are detrimental to the country Congress would be first on the chopping block given that they block more legislation than the pass and unlike the 61% support collective bargaining enjoys congress is hovering closer to a 10% approval rating.
Very few people would argue that unions are perfect but their existence is good for the middle class and subsequently for the overall economy. The reality is that working to end union rights has almost nothing to do with job creation. It is a power grab to essentially create a jobs bank for do nothing politicians.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Who cares about the kids
Given that we are in the middle of the political debate season I wanted to take this chance to submit a rebuttal to a recent post by Henry Payne regarding public education versus private or charter school education.
To start with I whole heartedly agree with Henry that "high school graduation is a gateway out of poverty". Having said that there are a number of items where our positions differ.
Henry asserts that Cornerstone Schools in Detroit represent innovation in education.
One glaring omission in Henry's comparison of Detroit Public and Cornerstone Schools is the fact that to get into Cornerstone Schools you have to apply and be accepted. That is not the case with Detroit Public Schools (DPS). They are required to take any students who live in the area.
This ability to pick and choose the best students could easily explain the graduation gap that Henry mentions. Perhaps Cornerstone Schools do have cutting edge teaching methods but the difference could just as easily be explained by the students they select as the practices of their educators.
It should also be noted that while Cornerstone Schools is a top performer, the percentage of their students that meet or exceed the math and reading standards is only marginally better than the best Detroit Public School.
The problem is Henry chose the top performing private school and then compared their results to the aggregate of the entire DPS system. The reality is that in Detroit, the Charter schools don't outperform the public schools. They both have successful schools as well as unsuccessful schools.
The goal shouldn't be to eliminate one type of education provider in favor of another but rather to discover the best practices at every successful school and implement those practices at the struggling schools.
Cherry picking data to imply that public schools and union teachers are the problem in spite of the data to the contrary suggests that Henry values the well being of corporate education over the education of Detroit's children, which oddly enough is exactly what Henry accuses Joe Biden of doing by holding up the success of public education.
The reality is that supporting public or corporate schools doesn't have any correlation with how much you value education for Detroit’s children. It merely suggests a difference in beliefs about the best system of education.
Every teacher and administrator I have ever encountered in either public or private schools cares about the kids that they teach. Caring about your own compensation and caring about the students you teach are not mutually exclusive ideas. The idea that a union teacher cares less about students because of the fact that they are in a union is a political talking point with no basis in reality.
As an example, I saw this post on Facebook from a local middle school teacher:
"Getting a sincere and heartfelt hug from a student's parent is what makes my job so rewarding! Feeling appreciated is a great way to end a day!"
The idea that educators join the profession just to get rich is absurd. Data shows that secretaries and retail sales clerks are just a likely to be in the top 1% as a teacher.
In the end if we really want to prove our devotion to our students we should focus on the providing the best methods of education regardless of who is delivering that education instead of vilifying public schools and union teachers based on skewed numbers, because no one wins in such a politicized debate, especially our children.
To start with I whole heartedly agree with Henry that "high school graduation is a gateway out of poverty". Having said that there are a number of items where our positions differ.
Henry asserts that Cornerstone Schools in Detroit represent innovation in education.
One glaring omission in Henry's comparison of Detroit Public and Cornerstone Schools is the fact that to get into Cornerstone Schools you have to apply and be accepted. That is not the case with Detroit Public Schools (DPS). They are required to take any students who live in the area.
This ability to pick and choose the best students could easily explain the graduation gap that Henry mentions. Perhaps Cornerstone Schools do have cutting edge teaching methods but the difference could just as easily be explained by the students they select as the practices of their educators.
It should also be noted that while Cornerstone Schools is a top performer, the percentage of their students that meet or exceed the math and reading standards is only marginally better than the best Detroit Public School.
The problem is Henry chose the top performing private school and then compared their results to the aggregate of the entire DPS system. The reality is that in Detroit, the Charter schools don't outperform the public schools. They both have successful schools as well as unsuccessful schools.
The goal shouldn't be to eliminate one type of education provider in favor of another but rather to discover the best practices at every successful school and implement those practices at the struggling schools.
Cherry picking data to imply that public schools and union teachers are the problem in spite of the data to the contrary suggests that Henry values the well being of corporate education over the education of Detroit's children, which oddly enough is exactly what Henry accuses Joe Biden of doing by holding up the success of public education.
The reality is that supporting public or corporate schools doesn't have any correlation with how much you value education for Detroit’s children. It merely suggests a difference in beliefs about the best system of education.
Every teacher and administrator I have ever encountered in either public or private schools cares about the kids that they teach. Caring about your own compensation and caring about the students you teach are not mutually exclusive ideas. The idea that a union teacher cares less about students because of the fact that they are in a union is a political talking point with no basis in reality.
As an example, I saw this post on Facebook from a local middle school teacher:
"Getting a sincere and heartfelt hug from a student's parent is what makes my job so rewarding! Feeling appreciated is a great way to end a day!"
The idea that educators join the profession just to get rich is absurd. Data shows that secretaries and retail sales clerks are just a likely to be in the top 1% as a teacher.
In the end if we really want to prove our devotion to our students we should focus on the providing the best methods of education regardless of who is delivering that education instead of vilifying public schools and union teachers based on skewed numbers, because no one wins in such a politicized debate, especially our children.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
The real numbers conspiracy
Denial has been a big winner in recent weeks with Mitt Romney denying that he ever stated he would cut taxes for the rich, Todd Akin denying the science of conception, and Paul Ryan denying that he cuts Medicare by $700 billion. These of course fit in the general Republican denial of things like climate change, evolution, and the presidency of George W. Bush but perhaps my favorite denial yet is the denial of the September jobs numbers.
Never mind that when W. was running for reelection this same organization mysteriously showed positive jobs numbers and never mind that conservative pundits have used the data from this same organization for months to show how poorly the president was doing. Now that the numbers run counter to their narrative the Bureau of Labor and Statistics is suddenly in the bag for Barack Obama? Ironically these are the same people that think the government is completely inept yet they think they are smart enough to rig the employment data.
What I don't get is why these same people aren't pointing out the real conspiracy's that are currently occurring.
Since bottoming out shortly after his inauguration the Dow Jones Industrial Average nearly doubled gaining almost 6,000 points. Yet once Mitt Romney officially tossed his hat in the ring for the office of the President of the United States of America, almost a year a half ago, the Dow has only increased by about 1,000 points.
Sure the Dow Jones Industrial Average is based on math and other scientific calculations but the company in charge of reporting this number is owned by noted Republican zealot Rupert Murdoch. Obviously Murdoch is cooking the books to make Obama look bad. The Dow would be much higher now if it weren't for the influence of Rupert Murdoch.
But Rupert Murdoch is a smart guy and he knew that just fixing the results of the Dow wouldn't guarantee an Election Day victory for Mitt Romney so he started fixing the results of other major indicators as well. In order to rain on the parade of the Democratic Convention the Wall Street Journal cherry picked two "falling" economic indicators, one by the Commerce Department regarding construction and one by the Institute for Supply Management regarding manufacturing.
One might think that these organizations have no skin in the game and therefore their numbers should be trustworthy. However if you take a closer look you will see that the Institute for Supply Management is run by the former COO of the Association for Financial Professionals - a group that touts their universal opposition to regulations, just like those who back Mitt Romney.
But wait you say. The Commerce Department is part of the government surely they don't want to upset the Commander and Chief. That may have been true before the president announced that he wanted to eliminate the department. Clearly the folks at the commerce department have an ax to grind with the president are purposely rigging the numbers to make him look bad. What other explanation can there be?
You don't need to be Jack Welsh to know this doesn't pass the smell test. Republicans are right to be suspicious - this election is being fixed and numbers are being manipulated. The Wall Street corporate overlords are stacking the deck in their favor and the American public is just pawns in their game.
Never mind that when W. was running for reelection this same organization mysteriously showed positive jobs numbers and never mind that conservative pundits have used the data from this same organization for months to show how poorly the president was doing. Now that the numbers run counter to their narrative the Bureau of Labor and Statistics is suddenly in the bag for Barack Obama? Ironically these are the same people that think the government is completely inept yet they think they are smart enough to rig the employment data.
What I don't get is why these same people aren't pointing out the real conspiracy's that are currently occurring.
Since bottoming out shortly after his inauguration the Dow Jones Industrial Average nearly doubled gaining almost 6,000 points. Yet once Mitt Romney officially tossed his hat in the ring for the office of the President of the United States of America, almost a year a half ago, the Dow has only increased by about 1,000 points.
Sure the Dow Jones Industrial Average is based on math and other scientific calculations but the company in charge of reporting this number is owned by noted Republican zealot Rupert Murdoch. Obviously Murdoch is cooking the books to make Obama look bad. The Dow would be much higher now if it weren't for the influence of Rupert Murdoch.
But Rupert Murdoch is a smart guy and he knew that just fixing the results of the Dow wouldn't guarantee an Election Day victory for Mitt Romney so he started fixing the results of other major indicators as well. In order to rain on the parade of the Democratic Convention the Wall Street Journal cherry picked two "falling" economic indicators, one by the Commerce Department regarding construction and one by the Institute for Supply Management regarding manufacturing.
One might think that these organizations have no skin in the game and therefore their numbers should be trustworthy. However if you take a closer look you will see that the Institute for Supply Management is run by the former COO of the Association for Financial Professionals - a group that touts their universal opposition to regulations, just like those who back Mitt Romney.
But wait you say. The Commerce Department is part of the government surely they don't want to upset the Commander and Chief. That may have been true before the president announced that he wanted to eliminate the department. Clearly the folks at the commerce department have an ax to grind with the president are purposely rigging the numbers to make him look bad. What other explanation can there be?
You don't need to be Jack Welsh to know this doesn't pass the smell test. Republicans are right to be suspicious - this election is being fixed and numbers are being manipulated. The Wall Street corporate overlords are stacking the deck in their favor and the American public is just pawns in their game.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Presidential politics and the religious side show
A recent Pew Research poll found that 32% of voters don't know what religion Mitt Romney is. Unfortunately, of the people who know he is a Mormon, 22% are uncomfortable with this fact.
I personally think religion plays far too prominent a roll in the presidential election process when considering how little a president's religion affects his legislative actions. Of course there is a large portion of the population that would disagree with my position.
Having said that, if a candidates religion is important to you there are a few details about the Mormon religion that you might be interested in.
As Mitt Romney has explained he pays a lower tax rate because of all of the charity donations he makes. The thing that he doesn't talk about is the fact that in order for Mitt to attend the Church of Latter-day Saints and get into heaven he is required to tithe at least 10% of his Gross income. So while the IRS may consider this a charitable deduction it is really more a membership fee with a great pension.
Of course there are also questions about the charitable nature of the Mormon Church since it has been suggested that much of the money goes into for-profit organizations instead of what most would consider typical charitable uses.
This should also call into question the charitable nature that many people hold up as a virtue of Mitt Romney's since in 2009 and 2010 80% of the donations to "charity" Mitt made have gone to pay for his church membership.
It should also be noted that when asked to pay his fair share for roads, bridges, military, education, cops, and firefighters Mitt Romney stated that he "paid all the taxes that were required by law" however in 2011 he gave 12.4% of his income to the Mormon church - more than was required. And when asked about the money they are required to give their church his wife Ann said “I love tithing. When Mitt and I give that check, I actually cry.”
I imagine many wish Mitt had this sort of passion for his country.
The good news for Mitt is that 34% of conservative Republicans think Barack Obama is a Muslim so regardless of their reservations about Mitt, their misinformed beliefs about President Obama will supersede any concerns about Mitt Romney's religion.
The bad news is way too many people will think that this stuff makes a difference in how either man will lead.
I personally think religion plays far too prominent a roll in the presidential election process when considering how little a president's religion affects his legislative actions. Of course there is a large portion of the population that would disagree with my position.
Having said that, if a candidates religion is important to you there are a few details about the Mormon religion that you might be interested in.
As Mitt Romney has explained he pays a lower tax rate because of all of the charity donations he makes. The thing that he doesn't talk about is the fact that in order for Mitt to attend the Church of Latter-day Saints and get into heaven he is required to tithe at least 10% of his Gross income. So while the IRS may consider this a charitable deduction it is really more a membership fee with a great pension.
Of course there are also questions about the charitable nature of the Mormon Church since it has been suggested that much of the money goes into for-profit organizations instead of what most would consider typical charitable uses.
This should also call into question the charitable nature that many people hold up as a virtue of Mitt Romney's since in 2009 and 2010 80% of the donations to "charity" Mitt made have gone to pay for his church membership.
It should also be noted that when asked to pay his fair share for roads, bridges, military, education, cops, and firefighters Mitt Romney stated that he "paid all the taxes that were required by law" however in 2011 he gave 12.4% of his income to the Mormon church - more than was required. And when asked about the money they are required to give their church his wife Ann said “I love tithing. When Mitt and I give that check, I actually cry.”
I imagine many wish Mitt had this sort of passion for his country.
The good news for Mitt is that 34% of conservative Republicans think Barack Obama is a Muslim so regardless of their reservations about Mitt, their misinformed beliefs about President Obama will supersede any concerns about Mitt Romney's religion.
The bad news is way too many people will think that this stuff makes a difference in how either man will lead.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Integrity of elections really a secondary concern
One of the objectives of the Republican Party over the last few years has been to eradicate voter fraud. No matter how few cases actually exist or how many legal voters must be purged from the system, the cost of not acting is simply too high.
The catalyst for this movement was the voter registration fraud committed by ACORN. As Michelle Bachmann pointed out this obviously covert wing of the Democratic party has probably infultrated the census bureau in an effort to collect sensitive data on the American public like how many people live at a given address and the racial makeup of those people. She also stated that there is a definite possibility that ACORN might be able to possibly regulate the financial sector - maybe.
Very scary stuff if it had any basis in reality.
But rather than sit back and just watch things happen Republicans decided to fight fire with fire and started falsifying voter registration forms of their own and to make sure the job was done right the RNC hired who a gentleman who had been accused of cooking the registration books in the past.
Of course now that they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar the RNC is taking personal responsibility for the fraud and blaming someone else. Because as they stated "We have zero tolerance for any threat to the integrity of elections".
I wonder if these Republicans realize that purging legal voters is a threat to the integrity of elections or that passing a "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" might be a threat to the integrity of elections or that championing unlimited undisclosed campaign contributions could be a threat to the integrity of elections or that running campaign ads that have no basis in reality may be a threat to the integrity of elections?
So while the media will latch onto this RNC story because of how bananas Republicans became when ACORN did the same thing, the truth is that registering fake names has almost zero impact on the integrity of elections. The real damage is being done by power hunger politicians who put their personal well being ahead of that of their constituents.
The catalyst for this movement was the voter registration fraud committed by ACORN. As Michelle Bachmann pointed out this obviously covert wing of the Democratic party has probably infultrated the census bureau in an effort to collect sensitive data on the American public like how many people live at a given address and the racial makeup of those people. She also stated that there is a definite possibility that ACORN might be able to possibly regulate the financial sector - maybe.
Very scary stuff if it had any basis in reality.
But rather than sit back and just watch things happen Republicans decided to fight fire with fire and started falsifying voter registration forms of their own and to make sure the job was done right the RNC hired who a gentleman who had been accused of cooking the registration books in the past.
Of course now that they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar the RNC is taking personal responsibility for the fraud and blaming someone else. Because as they stated "We have zero tolerance for any threat to the integrity of elections".
I wonder if these Republicans realize that purging legal voters is a threat to the integrity of elections or that passing a "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" might be a threat to the integrity of elections or that championing unlimited undisclosed campaign contributions could be a threat to the integrity of elections or that running campaign ads that have no basis in reality may be a threat to the integrity of elections?
So while the media will latch onto this RNC story because of how bananas Republicans became when ACORN did the same thing, the truth is that registering fake names has almost zero impact on the integrity of elections. The real damage is being done by power hunger politicians who put their personal well being ahead of that of their constituents.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The political tradition of attacking celebrities
Republicans have a long history of dismissing the opinions of celebrities who support liberal positions while simultaneously embracing the celebrities who support their ideals (see Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, Fred Grandy, Kelsey Grammer, Patricia Heaton, Jim Bunning, and Jack Kemp).
The latest attack is an attempt to smear Natalie Portman. Apparently her view that Democrats are doing a better job of defending women's rights has put her in the crosshairs of conservatives.
The claim against her seems to be that it is hypocritical of Natalie Portman to campaign for Barack Obama using the rhetoric about the rights of middle class women given the fact that she is not in the middle class.
One author claims that Natalie Portman has been "showered with goodies" by the current administration. The examples of this? Natalie Portman owns two hybrids.
Other than the obvious issue that one tax credit does not a shower make, it should be noted that the tax credit in question was approved back in 2005 in a bill sponsored by a Republican with a Republican controlled House and Senate and a Republican president.
Does Barack Obama support tax credits for green energy projects like hybrid cars? Yes. But claiming this particular tax credit as an Obama "goodie" is not factually accurate.
The second issue with this is that like Mitt Romney, Natalie Portman does not release her tax returns and there is no evidence supplied by the author which proves that she actually took the tax credit that is the basis for the argument. But if conjecture is all that is required, it is worth mentioning that celebrities don't typically get paid with capital gains so odds are the income taxes paid by Natalie Portman even with a $3,000 hybrid tax credit would be significantly higher than that of Mitt Romney.
Additionally, one provision of this credit is that if you pay the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure that rich pay their fair share of taxes, you do not qualify for the hybrid credit. So if Natalie Portman was using a bunch of tax loopholes to avoid taxes then she would not receive the tax credit.
Of course Republicans certainly aren't against tax credits and they aren't against ones that help out their celebrity friends. For example as governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney enacted a tax break for the film industry which noted chair whisperer, Clint Eastwood, promptly took advantage of.
But even if we take this accusation at face value and Natalie Portman did get a tax credit for purchasing a hybrid car, Republicans should applaud her since after all it was their candidate that said "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more".
The reality is that politicians support a litany of tax breaks that help a certain segment of their supporters. For every Obama green energy tax break there is a subsidy for coal and oil. I hope those that think the hypocrisy of Natalie Portman is a big deal also acknowledge that believing so makes them hypocrites as well.
The latest attack is an attempt to smear Natalie Portman. Apparently her view that Democrats are doing a better job of defending women's rights has put her in the crosshairs of conservatives.
The claim against her seems to be that it is hypocritical of Natalie Portman to campaign for Barack Obama using the rhetoric about the rights of middle class women given the fact that she is not in the middle class.
One author claims that Natalie Portman has been "showered with goodies" by the current administration. The examples of this? Natalie Portman owns two hybrids.
Other than the obvious issue that one tax credit does not a shower make, it should be noted that the tax credit in question was approved back in 2005 in a bill sponsored by a Republican with a Republican controlled House and Senate and a Republican president.
Does Barack Obama support tax credits for green energy projects like hybrid cars? Yes. But claiming this particular tax credit as an Obama "goodie" is not factually accurate.
The second issue with this is that like Mitt Romney, Natalie Portman does not release her tax returns and there is no evidence supplied by the author which proves that she actually took the tax credit that is the basis for the argument. But if conjecture is all that is required, it is worth mentioning that celebrities don't typically get paid with capital gains so odds are the income taxes paid by Natalie Portman even with a $3,000 hybrid tax credit would be significantly higher than that of Mitt Romney.
Additionally, one provision of this credit is that if you pay the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure that rich pay their fair share of taxes, you do not qualify for the hybrid credit. So if Natalie Portman was using a bunch of tax loopholes to avoid taxes then she would not receive the tax credit.
Of course Republicans certainly aren't against tax credits and they aren't against ones that help out their celebrity friends. For example as governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney enacted a tax break for the film industry which noted chair whisperer, Clint Eastwood, promptly took advantage of.
But even if we take this accusation at face value and Natalie Portman did get a tax credit for purchasing a hybrid car, Republicans should applaud her since after all it was their candidate that said "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more".
The reality is that politicians support a litany of tax breaks that help a certain segment of their supporters. For every Obama green energy tax break there is a subsidy for coal and oil. I hope those that think the hypocrisy of Natalie Portman is a big deal also acknowledge that believing so makes them hypocrites as well.
Friday, September 21, 2012
The hypocrisy over the faux war on coal
Recent conservative media reports suggest the jobs picture won't get better unless Obama and the EPA roll back clean air regulations that are leading to job losses in the coal industry.
It should be noted that the job losses in the coal industry are mainly due to less power being used and the fact that coal is losing market share to natural gas. And that is the really odd part about this argument. Conservatives love the free market and competition yet the reality is that coal just isn't competitive right now.
Sure a small part of the reason that coal isn't competitive is the clean air regulations that require lower emissions which are more expensive for the coal industry to meet than the natural gas industry but conservatives are more than happy to make extraneous regulations that costs jobs when it comes to other industries so why is coal such a sacred cow?
Additionally we know that Mitt Romney's chief energy advisor believes the subsidies to the oil industry are necessary for the industry to "produce jobs" while when it comes to renewable energy Mitt thinks would like to remove all subsidies and let it "thrive wherever it is economically competitive". Regardless of whether the advantage given by the government comes from subsidies or regulations it is still a manipulation of the free market.
Of course it should also be noted that jobs in energy are not disappearing because the coal mining industry is shrinking. The jobs are just moving. The Natural gas industry, for example, added more jobs from 2006 to 2008 (105,000) than ever existed in the coal mining industry (peaked at 89,000 jobs in 1997). The country is also adding tens of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy segment.
According to the American Lung Association 72% of Americans support new standards for carbon emissions. Capitalism tells us that if coal isn't cost effective in an environment where clean air is a priority then they should and will die.
The reality is that the US only uses so much energy and saving coal jobs will end up costing natural gas jobs. Typically when the government makes special exceptions like this that interfere in the free market, conservatives complain about the government picking the winners and losers but this debate is not about the insincere implication that conservatives hate all regulations. It's about votes.
It should be noted that the job losses in the coal industry are mainly due to less power being used and the fact that coal is losing market share to natural gas. And that is the really odd part about this argument. Conservatives love the free market and competition yet the reality is that coal just isn't competitive right now.
Sure a small part of the reason that coal isn't competitive is the clean air regulations that require lower emissions which are more expensive for the coal industry to meet than the natural gas industry but conservatives are more than happy to make extraneous regulations that costs jobs when it comes to other industries so why is coal such a sacred cow?
Additionally we know that Mitt Romney's chief energy advisor believes the subsidies to the oil industry are necessary for the industry to "produce jobs" while when it comes to renewable energy Mitt thinks would like to remove all subsidies and let it "thrive wherever it is economically competitive". Regardless of whether the advantage given by the government comes from subsidies or regulations it is still a manipulation of the free market.
Of course it should also be noted that jobs in energy are not disappearing because the coal mining industry is shrinking. The jobs are just moving. The Natural gas industry, for example, added more jobs from 2006 to 2008 (105,000) than ever existed in the coal mining industry (peaked at 89,000 jobs in 1997). The country is also adding tens of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy segment.
According to the American Lung Association 72% of Americans support new standards for carbon emissions. Capitalism tells us that if coal isn't cost effective in an environment where clean air is a priority then they should and will die.
The reality is that the US only uses so much energy and saving coal jobs will end up costing natural gas jobs. Typically when the government makes special exceptions like this that interfere in the free market, conservatives complain about the government picking the winners and losers but this debate is not about the insincere implication that conservatives hate all regulations. It's about votes.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Mitt Romney built that
If you have been the least bit tuned into political news the past few days you know that there has been a considerable amount of flap over a video of Mitt Romney pigeonholing about half of the US population.
While it is true that 46% of households paid no federal income tax, Mitt Romney's statement that these people "believe that they are victims" and "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them" certainly is not.
First this ignores the fact that 1.5% of millionaires, 2% of Americans making between $200,000 and $1 million, and 3.5% of Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000 pay no federal income tax. Does Mitt really think that the "job creators" (millionaires) believe the government has a responsibility to care for them?
Second this ignores that once you add in all taxes many in the "47%" actually pay a higher percentage of their wages in taxes than many in the 53%.
And of course it Mitt also ignores the other facts pointed out in articles here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
But the inaccuracies aren't even the most disappointing part. Given how much conservatives have invested in beating Barack Obama they are coming out in support of Mitt Romney's statement with a few even calling Mitt Romney's statements "courageous".
How low has the bar been set when slandering millions of people behind closed doors at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser becomes courageous? This is like calling Chris Christie health conscious when he orders a salad with his 1/2 pound cheeseburger.
Is there a rational debate to be had about entitlement programs? Sure there is but Mitt Romney did not make that argument. Instead he chose to pigeonhole millions of American's to appease a group of elites.
So while conservatives desperate to oust Obama continue to try and put lipstick on this pig there is one thing they can all be proud of, Mitt didn't need any government assistance on his latest deregulation of the mouth because the firestorm regarding these remarks, well, Mitt built that.
While it is true that 46% of households paid no federal income tax, Mitt Romney's statement that these people "believe that they are victims" and "believe the government has a responsibility to care for them" certainly is not.
First this ignores the fact that 1.5% of millionaires, 2% of Americans making between $200,000 and $1 million, and 3.5% of Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000 pay no federal income tax. Does Mitt really think that the "job creators" (millionaires) believe the government has a responsibility to care for them?
Second this ignores that once you add in all taxes many in the "47%" actually pay a higher percentage of their wages in taxes than many in the 53%.
And of course it Mitt also ignores the other facts pointed out in articles here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
But the inaccuracies aren't even the most disappointing part. Given how much conservatives have invested in beating Barack Obama they are coming out in support of Mitt Romney's statement with a few even calling Mitt Romney's statements "courageous".
How low has the bar been set when slandering millions of people behind closed doors at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser becomes courageous? This is like calling Chris Christie health conscious when he orders a salad with his 1/2 pound cheeseburger.
Is there a rational debate to be had about entitlement programs? Sure there is but Mitt Romney did not make that argument. Instead he chose to pigeonhole millions of American's to appease a group of elites.
So while conservatives desperate to oust Obama continue to try and put lipstick on this pig there is one thing they can all be proud of, Mitt didn't need any government assistance on his latest deregulation of the mouth because the firestorm regarding these remarks, well, Mitt built that.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The costs of education
I wanted to follow up on my most recent post regarding education spending. As I had expected many commenters took issue with my assertions about teachers pay.
First there is the standard complaint that my source is bias even though the link provided was to a government agency that took its data from the Bureau of Labor and statistics (BLS). Regardless it should be noted that according to the BLS the increase in pay for education over the past decade is 0.2% while categories like business and financial operations (3%), Architecture and engineering (4.5%) Healthcare practitioners (11.4%), and Management (13.2%) have all seen much higher increases.
This of course leads to the next standard complaint that maybe teacher pay is stagnant but pension and healthcare costs are the real problem.
While the cost of increased pensions is a major contributor, attributing these costs to current teachers as an "increase in benefits" is inaccurate. First the employee contribution portion has been increasing steadily for the past several years. Second the teachers union does not set this rate. Lansing does.
There are a number of reasons for this increase and they have nothing to do with greed by the current teachers.
Back in 1991 John Engler decided that the state no longer needed to prefund the pension fund and funneled this money elsewhere. Unfortunately this decision led to a shortfall in the pension fund which taxpayers and teachers are now being asked to cover.
The dot-com crash also put a strain on the system and again rather than take their medicine and make the necessary changes it was agreed that reserves would be used to cover the shortfall.
Of course the Republican legislative agenda has also contributed to the problems. The push for more private schools has left less teachers contributing for more retirees. According to an article on Mlive "A decade ago, there were roughly 2.5 school employees paying into MPSERS for every retiree drawing benefits. The ratio this year is 1.23 employees for every retiree." This number is also a result of the Republican austerity measures which led to as many as 350,000 less teachers in the US since 2009.
So while the per pupil costs of pensions are increasing the benefits to current teachers are not. If anything they are decreasing due to the additional contributions currently required to make up for past mistakes.
As far as healthcare costs are concerned, again while per pupil spending is affected by healthcare costs it is bizarre to blame educators for the increasing costs in the healthcare industry. The cost of text books have increased by twice the rate of inflation over the past 20 years. Are teachers somehow to blame for this as well?
The reality is that teachers are not getting better insurance now than a decade ago. They are getting the same or less coverage and contributing a higher percentage of their salary for it.
So why are per pupil costs on the rise? Like the cost of text books the cost for special education has risen by twice the rate of inflation. The same is true of gasoline which makes transportation more expensive than 10 years ago. Additionally between 2000 and 2007 infrastructure spending for public education hit record highs and the cost for keeping up with technology is a never ending quest.
In Michigan teachers are already making less and contributing more. So while there are a number of reasons that per pupil spending has increased, it is a fallacy to suggest wages and benefits for teachers are the cause.
First there is the standard complaint that my source is bias even though the link provided was to a government agency that took its data from the Bureau of Labor and statistics (BLS). Regardless it should be noted that according to the BLS the increase in pay for education over the past decade is 0.2% while categories like business and financial operations (3%), Architecture and engineering (4.5%) Healthcare practitioners (11.4%), and Management (13.2%) have all seen much higher increases.
This of course leads to the next standard complaint that maybe teacher pay is stagnant but pension and healthcare costs are the real problem.
While the cost of increased pensions is a major contributor, attributing these costs to current teachers as an "increase in benefits" is inaccurate. First the employee contribution portion has been increasing steadily for the past several years. Second the teachers union does not set this rate. Lansing does.
There are a number of reasons for this increase and they have nothing to do with greed by the current teachers.
Back in 1991 John Engler decided that the state no longer needed to prefund the pension fund and funneled this money elsewhere. Unfortunately this decision led to a shortfall in the pension fund which taxpayers and teachers are now being asked to cover.
The dot-com crash also put a strain on the system and again rather than take their medicine and make the necessary changes it was agreed that reserves would be used to cover the shortfall.
Of course the Republican legislative agenda has also contributed to the problems. The push for more private schools has left less teachers contributing for more retirees. According to an article on Mlive "A decade ago, there were roughly 2.5 school employees paying into MPSERS for every retiree drawing benefits. The ratio this year is 1.23 employees for every retiree." This number is also a result of the Republican austerity measures which led to as many as 350,000 less teachers in the US since 2009.
So while the per pupil costs of pensions are increasing the benefits to current teachers are not. If anything they are decreasing due to the additional contributions currently required to make up for past mistakes.
As far as healthcare costs are concerned, again while per pupil spending is affected by healthcare costs it is bizarre to blame educators for the increasing costs in the healthcare industry. The cost of text books have increased by twice the rate of inflation over the past 20 years. Are teachers somehow to blame for this as well?
The reality is that teachers are not getting better insurance now than a decade ago. They are getting the same or less coverage and contributing a higher percentage of their salary for it.
So why are per pupil costs on the rise? Like the cost of text books the cost for special education has risen by twice the rate of inflation. The same is true of gasoline which makes transportation more expensive than 10 years ago. Additionally between 2000 and 2007 infrastructure spending for public education hit record highs and the cost for keeping up with technology is a never ending quest.
In Michigan teachers are already making less and contributing more. So while there are a number of reasons that per pupil spending has increased, it is a fallacy to suggest wages and benefits for teachers are the cause.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Dumbing down the debate on teachers unions
Since the start of the teacher strike in Chicago I have received a number of comments and emails from people who either purposefully or unintentionally misrepresent my views on unions and education from calling me a "WHORE to the unions" to suggesting the problems with education are "expressly [my] fault".
While I have posted on both unions and education in the past, my intention has never been blanket support of unions and their goals but rather to counter the misinformation being spread by those who oppose unions.
For example the rhetoric surrounding teachers recently has been that teachers unions are at fault for the increase in spending and as a result their wages should be cut. Whether teachers are properly compensated when compared to the private sector has been debated Ad nauseam but I take issue with the idea that teachers should reduce their pay because of higher per pupil spending.
This solution draws a conclusion without all of the facts. In Michigan the average teachers pay has been reduced by 7.7% since the 1999-2000 school year yet per pupil spending has increased by nearly 20%. How can you blame the teachers for the increase in spending when they have taken a pay cut?
Similarly people act like the Teachers unions are to blame for the stagnation of test scores over the past 30 years yet the percentage of teachers in unions went from 84% in 1989 to 38% in 2010. If the rhetoric surrounding this were correct and unions were to blame for low test scores we should have seen a steady increase in test scores as the number of teachers in unions decreased.
So does presenting this information that runs counter to current talking points mean I support the Chicago teachers union protecting poor performing teachers? Nope. Does it mean I care more about teachers unions than the kids? Nope.
It means there is a rational debate to be had regarding teachers, unions and the success of America's education system and that debate should include a thorough analysis of what works and what doesn't. Because panning information solely on the basis of political affiliation doesn't help the kids either.
While I have posted on both unions and education in the past, my intention has never been blanket support of unions and their goals but rather to counter the misinformation being spread by those who oppose unions.
For example the rhetoric surrounding teachers recently has been that teachers unions are at fault for the increase in spending and as a result their wages should be cut. Whether teachers are properly compensated when compared to the private sector has been debated Ad nauseam but I take issue with the idea that teachers should reduce their pay because of higher per pupil spending.
This solution draws a conclusion without all of the facts. In Michigan the average teachers pay has been reduced by 7.7% since the 1999-2000 school year yet per pupil spending has increased by nearly 20%. How can you blame the teachers for the increase in spending when they have taken a pay cut?
Similarly people act like the Teachers unions are to blame for the stagnation of test scores over the past 30 years yet the percentage of teachers in unions went from 84% in 1989 to 38% in 2010. If the rhetoric surrounding this were correct and unions were to blame for low test scores we should have seen a steady increase in test scores as the number of teachers in unions decreased.
So does presenting this information that runs counter to current talking points mean I support the Chicago teachers union protecting poor performing teachers? Nope. Does it mean I care more about teachers unions than the kids? Nope.
It means there is a rational debate to be had regarding teachers, unions and the success of America's education system and that debate should include a thorough analysis of what works and what doesn't. Because panning information solely on the basis of political affiliation doesn't help the kids either.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Policy concern or political posturing?
In his recent stop here in Detroit, Vice-President Joe Biden went out of his way to talk about how the Obama administration helped GM survive the great recession. It should be noted that George W. Bush actually started the process however I imagine the distinction that Biden was attempted to draw was between the fact that Mitt Romney did not support the auto bailouts and Barack Obama did.
Regardless of the jobs saved, conservatives by and large still oppose the bailouts and with the election process in full swing pundits like Michelle Malkin have gone on the offensive to diminish the value of the program. Unfortunately all of the pundits seem to be working from the same flawed playbook.
Malkin laments the fact the GM is expanding their operations in other countries using “tax payer” funds. As though she supports a government mandate dictating how GM can run their business. Conversely, you can bet that if GM failed because they didn't compete globally like every other auto company is doing Malkin would be first in line to suggest Obama was at fault for supporting such a short sighted business plan.
Malkin also blames Obama for the troubles GM is experiencing even though the biggest drag on the company currently is their European division which the board of GM, not Obama, decided to retain rather than sell back in 2009.
Another idea that seems to have really rankled the conservative pundits is the idea that the firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner as part of the bailout is unprecedented. Never mind that this also happened with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and Chrysler. Never mind that the GM lost $85 billion under Wagoner's watch. Never mind that the government owns over 50% of the GM stock and is able to make any changes it wants. Never mind that Wagoner asked for and agreed to accept money from the government. And never mind that long before Obama became president members of the board of GM maneuvered to get Wagoner removed. Conservatives don't want government involved in "private" decisions.
Oddly enough these are often the same people who want to put preconditions on any individual who asks for and accepts government funds.
If you want to get welfare, conservatives think you should submit to a drug test and search for a job or get training for a new job. If you want to get food stamps, conservatives have a list of things that they don't think you should be allowed to purchase. If you want to get Medicaid, conservatives won't pay for an abortion even though it is a legal activity.
The reality is that the US has a long history of setting preconditions for receiving government money and acting like the requirements Rick Wagoner agreed to are an example of a massive socialist shift is outlandish.
As with most things these days it seems like this political posturing has more to do with the man at the top of the ticket than any actual policy concerns. But I suppose that is what happens when your number one goal is to make that man a one term president and you use the theory of "anyone but" in deciding how to vote.
Regardless of the jobs saved, conservatives by and large still oppose the bailouts and with the election process in full swing pundits like Michelle Malkin have gone on the offensive to diminish the value of the program. Unfortunately all of the pundits seem to be working from the same flawed playbook.
Malkin laments the fact the GM is expanding their operations in other countries using “tax payer” funds. As though she supports a government mandate dictating how GM can run their business. Conversely, you can bet that if GM failed because they didn't compete globally like every other auto company is doing Malkin would be first in line to suggest Obama was at fault for supporting such a short sighted business plan.
Malkin also blames Obama for the troubles GM is experiencing even though the biggest drag on the company currently is their European division which the board of GM, not Obama, decided to retain rather than sell back in 2009.
Another idea that seems to have really rankled the conservative pundits is the idea that the firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner as part of the bailout is unprecedented. Never mind that this also happened with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and Chrysler. Never mind that the GM lost $85 billion under Wagoner's watch. Never mind that the government owns over 50% of the GM stock and is able to make any changes it wants. Never mind that Wagoner asked for and agreed to accept money from the government. And never mind that long before Obama became president members of the board of GM maneuvered to get Wagoner removed. Conservatives don't want government involved in "private" decisions.
Oddly enough these are often the same people who want to put preconditions on any individual who asks for and accepts government funds.
If you want to get welfare, conservatives think you should submit to a drug test and search for a job or get training for a new job. If you want to get food stamps, conservatives have a list of things that they don't think you should be allowed to purchase. If you want to get Medicaid, conservatives won't pay for an abortion even though it is a legal activity.
The reality is that the US has a long history of setting preconditions for receiving government money and acting like the requirements Rick Wagoner agreed to are an example of a massive socialist shift is outlandish.
As with most things these days it seems like this political posturing has more to do with the man at the top of the ticket than any actual policy concerns. But I suppose that is what happens when your number one goal is to make that man a one term president and you use the theory of "anyone but" in deciding how to vote.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Stacking the deck
This election season Republicans have finally decided to fight back against this country's repressive policies which have been limiting the opportunities for rich white men for decades.
If you are a woman, the Republican Party has a new set of rules for you to follow. If you're in a union, the Republican Party is going to take away right to collectively bargain. If you're an immigrant, you better have your papers ready. If you want to vote, you are going to need to more I.D. than it takes to get a gun. If you're poor, the Republican Party is going to cut your benefits.
But while these are all important ways for the Republican Party to suppress the groups that tend to vote for Democrats, one of the biggest ways Republicans are stacking the deck for oppressed rich white men is education.
Republicans want to cut funding to public education, cut wages for educators, and eliminate the department of education. When President Obama stated he wanted everyone to go to college he got push back from the top to GOP presidential candidates suggesting that Obama was a "snob" who was trying to indoctrinate American children.
But given that these same men attended private school and hold multiple degrees it seems that they do value education. Just not yours, because what both of these men know is what a recent poll revealed. The only segment of the population that consistently supports Mitt Romney over Barack Obama are those without a college education.
So how better to broaden the Republican base and ensure future election success than to limit the opportunity for the middle class and the poor to get an education.
They start with the fallacy that educators make too much while simultaneously suggesting that in business to get the best employees you have to be willing to pay above market value.
They cut funding for early education programs which have been shown to increase a child’s odds of completing college. This of course builds on itself since children of parents who didn't attend college were less likely to attend college themselves.
They are also looking to cut funding for Pell Grants and other student aid programs. Studies show the more a student works while attending college the less likely they are to graduate.
Of course this tactic also has the added benefit of giving the privileged children of these men a leg up when they hit the job market since with less college graduates from the poor and middle class there will be less competition for the high paying jobs.
So if you're part of the vastly underserved minority of rich white men, don't worry. Mitt Romney has your back. If you're not a rich white man Mitt Romney has a plan for you too. He is going to offer you the "dignity of work" to pay for your own schooling. That way you will truly appreciate it when you become successful. Until then, Mitt thanks you for your vote.
If you are a woman, the Republican Party has a new set of rules for you to follow. If you're in a union, the Republican Party is going to take away right to collectively bargain. If you're an immigrant, you better have your papers ready. If you want to vote, you are going to need to more I.D. than it takes to get a gun. If you're poor, the Republican Party is going to cut your benefits.
But while these are all important ways for the Republican Party to suppress the groups that tend to vote for Democrats, one of the biggest ways Republicans are stacking the deck for oppressed rich white men is education.
Republicans want to cut funding to public education, cut wages for educators, and eliminate the department of education. When President Obama stated he wanted everyone to go to college he got push back from the top to GOP presidential candidates suggesting that Obama was a "snob" who was trying to indoctrinate American children.
But given that these same men attended private school and hold multiple degrees it seems that they do value education. Just not yours, because what both of these men know is what a recent poll revealed. The only segment of the population that consistently supports Mitt Romney over Barack Obama are those without a college education.
So how better to broaden the Republican base and ensure future election success than to limit the opportunity for the middle class and the poor to get an education.
They start with the fallacy that educators make too much while simultaneously suggesting that in business to get the best employees you have to be willing to pay above market value.
They cut funding for early education programs which have been shown to increase a child’s odds of completing college. This of course builds on itself since children of parents who didn't attend college were less likely to attend college themselves.
They are also looking to cut funding for Pell Grants and other student aid programs. Studies show the more a student works while attending college the less likely they are to graduate.
Of course this tactic also has the added benefit of giving the privileged children of these men a leg up when they hit the job market since with less college graduates from the poor and middle class there will be less competition for the high paying jobs.
So if you're part of the vastly underserved minority of rich white men, don't worry. Mitt Romney has your back. If you're not a rich white man Mitt Romney has a plan for you too. He is going to offer you the "dignity of work" to pay for your own schooling. That way you will truly appreciate it when you become successful. Until then, Mitt thanks you for your vote.
David Koch: Radical Socialist
According to some, Barack Obama is a radical socialist. Among the list of things that these people feel make him a radical socialist is his support for raising taxes, support of gay marriage and support for cutting defense spending.
In a related story, noted Romney supporter and general Republican political philanthropist David Koch recently came out in support of raising taxes, in support of gay marriage and in support of cutting defense spending.
This is not to say that David Koch suddenly agrees with Barack Obama but rather to point out that politicians and the media love to gin up a rational debate with unnecessary rhetoric that vastly exaggerates the truth.
This sort of divisiveness gets Barack Obama labeled as unpatriotic when he opposed the war in Iraq while David Koch's opposition to the war went un-chastised.
Neither Barack Obama or Mitt Romney represent even a small threat to liberty, freedom, social welfare or capitalism and the fact that Romney, Obama and Koch all essentially agreed at one point on increasing taxes and supporting the rights of gays to marry tells you how not radically different the choice is this fall.
So when Chuck Norris's wife tells you that electing Barack Obama will plunge the US into a thousand years of darkness realize how absolutely crazy such a statement is and base your decision on the actual policies each party presents not the ramblings of an actor or the misleading rhetoric of your party's talking heads.
In a related story, noted Romney supporter and general Republican political philanthropist David Koch recently came out in support of raising taxes, in support of gay marriage and in support of cutting defense spending.
This is not to say that David Koch suddenly agrees with Barack Obama but rather to point out that politicians and the media love to gin up a rational debate with unnecessary rhetoric that vastly exaggerates the truth.
This sort of divisiveness gets Barack Obama labeled as unpatriotic when he opposed the war in Iraq while David Koch's opposition to the war went un-chastised.
Neither Barack Obama or Mitt Romney represent even a small threat to liberty, freedom, social welfare or capitalism and the fact that Romney, Obama and Koch all essentially agreed at one point on increasing taxes and supporting the rights of gays to marry tells you how not radically different the choice is this fall.
So when Chuck Norris's wife tells you that electing Barack Obama will plunge the US into a thousand years of darkness realize how absolutely crazy such a statement is and base your decision on the actual policies each party presents not the ramblings of an actor or the misleading rhetoric of your party's talking heads.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Veterans get homes - Banks boost bottom line
NPR recently had a human interest piece discussing a Bank of America program invovling the donation of foreclosed homes to veterans. Clearly this is great for veterans receiving a home and good PR for Bank of America but there are a number of things that NPR failed to discuss.
While Bank of America is planning on donating 2,500 homes to veterans, NPR never mentioned that over 20,000 veterans were foreclosed on in 2010. Bank of America is essentially stealing homes from some veterans and giving them away to other veterans.
Of course NPR also failed to mention that Bank of America illegally foreclosed on veterans and that these illegal foreclosures resulted in a lawsuit which Bank of America lost. As part of the settlement they get to lower the amount of money they owe by donating homes.
Obviously the idea of including a donation provision in the settlement is to get some of these people who were illegally foreclosed on back into a house but institutions that handle mortgages already routinely donate homes for a variety of reasons. Typically they would do this for the tax break that donating the house affords them.
But thanks to this settlement they now get to donate a home reducing what they owe for their illegal activity while simultaneously dumping a home they can't sell.
Bank of America motivation here is not altruism, its profit and PR and NPR took the bait.
While Bank of America is planning on donating 2,500 homes to veterans, NPR never mentioned that over 20,000 veterans were foreclosed on in 2010. Bank of America is essentially stealing homes from some veterans and giving them away to other veterans.
Of course NPR also failed to mention that Bank of America illegally foreclosed on veterans and that these illegal foreclosures resulted in a lawsuit which Bank of America lost. As part of the settlement they get to lower the amount of money they owe by donating homes.
Obviously the idea of including a donation provision in the settlement is to get some of these people who were illegally foreclosed on back into a house but institutions that handle mortgages already routinely donate homes for a variety of reasons. Typically they would do this for the tax break that donating the house affords them.
But thanks to this settlement they now get to donate a home reducing what they owe for their illegal activity while simultaneously dumping a home they can't sell.
Bank of America motivation here is not altruism, its profit and PR and NPR took the bait.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Mitt Romney vague on details
Mitt Romney has put in his application to be the leader of the free world. The question now is what is the plan if he wins? What are his legislative priorities? What does Mitt Romney believe?
Well we know he thinks taxes should be cut for the rich but as far as his tax rate is concerned - you don't need to know.
We know he made his money at Bain Capital but how would that translate to his presidency - Mitt would rather not talk about it. Bain should be off the table.
We know he is a man of faith but what his views are or how they might influence his presidency - Mitt would prefer to keep that to himself.
We know he made changes the health care system in Massachusetts which were the basis for the Affordable Care Act but what is his plan for a the Federal Health care system - It is not the same as the ACA nor is it the same as his running mate, Paul Ryan's plan but the two are on the same page, but it is not the time to discuss specifics.
We know he has a budget that claims to make deep cuts to some programs, expand some programs, cut some taxes, and cut the deficit but what specifically will be cut and expanded - details aren't important, just trust Mitt.
We know he blames Obama for everything that is wrong in the country but what will he do differently - all of the things you like and none of the things you don't.
We know he thinks immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. His policy - he'll "find a long term solution".
We know from his interview on the Today Show that he likes to read. When asked what newspapers and magazines he reads he said "all of them".
I understand that Mitt Romney would rather run against Barack Obama than on his own ideas but I find it odd that a group that hated the idea of "passing the bill so you find out what's in it" support the candidate that stands for nothing in particular until you elect him.
Well we know he thinks taxes should be cut for the rich but as far as his tax rate is concerned - you don't need to know.
We know he made his money at Bain Capital but how would that translate to his presidency - Mitt would rather not talk about it. Bain should be off the table.
We know he is a man of faith but what his views are or how they might influence his presidency - Mitt would prefer to keep that to himself.
We know he made changes the health care system in Massachusetts which were the basis for the Affordable Care Act but what is his plan for a the Federal Health care system - It is not the same as the ACA nor is it the same as his running mate, Paul Ryan's plan but the two are on the same page, but it is not the time to discuss specifics.
We know he has a budget that claims to make deep cuts to some programs, expand some programs, cut some taxes, and cut the deficit but what specifically will be cut and expanded - details aren't important, just trust Mitt.
We know he blames Obama for everything that is wrong in the country but what will he do differently - all of the things you like and none of the things you don't.
We know he thinks immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. His policy - he'll "find a long term solution".
We know from his interview on the Today Show that he likes to read. When asked what newspapers and magazines he reads he said "all of them".
I understand that Mitt Romney would rather run against Barack Obama than on his own ideas but I find it odd that a group that hated the idea of "passing the bill so you find out what's in it" support the candidate that stands for nothing in particular until you elect him.
Mitt-lib
Mitt Romney is 100% committed to being uncommitted.
The strategy is to appeal to everyone and offend no one. With this in mind the Romney campaign has come out with a new policy agenda which I have listed below.
If elected President I will cut federal spending by (number) trillion dollars. These cuts will come from (government program), (entitlement program), and (program for the poor). Additionally I will secure our borders by (adverb) changing things to give (local law enforcement) the ability to do as they see fit. This will help keep our (plural noun), (plural noun), and (plural noun) safe.
To promote jobs I will (cut or increase) the top tax rate to (number) percent and remove the regulations from (largest Romney donor corporation industry), (second largest Romney donor corporation industry), and (any industry not producing green energy). I will also (verb) at the chance to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by expanding our efforts in (energy producing industry) industry.
To preserve and strengthen Medicare I will repeal (juvenile name for the Affordable Care Act) and replace it with (leave blank).
To assure our safety I will expand our commitment to national defense with an (increase or decrease) in spending. Additionally we will work (with or without) the support of the global community and exercise our solemn duty to prevent (Muslim country) from attaining (nuclear weapons or chemical weapons).
After four (verb) years of Barack Obama’s (verb) policies it’s time to consider a new direction. Mitt Romney considers (your top concern) his top concern and will move (adverb) to address this issue.
So if you believe in America like Mitt Romney does commit (money, time or your vote) to Mitt Romney today!
To see if Mitt Romney is the right choice for you just fill in the blanks as instructed.
The strategy is to appeal to everyone and offend no one. With this in mind the Romney campaign has come out with a new policy agenda which I have listed below.
If elected President I will cut federal spending by (number) trillion dollars. These cuts will come from (government program), (entitlement program), and (program for the poor). Additionally I will secure our borders by (adverb) changing things to give (local law enforcement) the ability to do as they see fit. This will help keep our (plural noun), (plural noun), and (plural noun) safe.
To promote jobs I will (cut or increase) the top tax rate to (number) percent and remove the regulations from (largest Romney donor corporation industry), (second largest Romney donor corporation industry), and (any industry not producing green energy). I will also (verb) at the chance to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by expanding our efforts in (energy producing industry) industry.
To preserve and strengthen Medicare I will repeal (juvenile name for the Affordable Care Act) and replace it with (leave blank).
To assure our safety I will expand our commitment to national defense with an (increase or decrease) in spending. Additionally we will work (with or without) the support of the global community and exercise our solemn duty to prevent (Muslim country) from attaining (nuclear weapons or chemical weapons).
After four (verb) years of Barack Obama’s (verb) policies it’s time to consider a new direction. Mitt Romney considers (your top concern) his top concern and will move (adverb) to address this issue.
So if you believe in America like Mitt Romney does commit (money, time or your vote) to Mitt Romney today!
To see if Mitt Romney is the right choice for you just fill in the blanks as instructed.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Nitpicking the winners and losers
Conservatives love the free market and when in power they make policy decisions meant to expand the role of the free market. In particular they extol the virtues of the stock market. George W. Bush and Paul Ryan wanted to allow citizens to invest some of their Social Security money in the stock market because as then President Bush explained "Here’s why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver"
Also tied to this idea is the dogma that investing in the stock market creates jobs. This is the theory behind ending capital gains tax supported by Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan and Jon Huntsman. During the GOP presidential debates Huntsman stated “We will also eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends, which will lower the cost of capital and encourage investment in the economy".
And investment in the stock market is so important that should you lose money the government will give you a tax break, assuming you made enough to itemize in the first place.
On a related note the White House just reported that their investment in GM, of which the government still holds 500 million shares, looks a little worse than it did a few months ago because the stock price fell. And to conservatives this investment in GM stock proves that Obama wants to end capitalism.
Never mind that the investment in GM created jobs just like conservatives suggest the buying of stocks will do.
Never mind that typically the stock market has one of the higher returns on investment.
Never mind that the government hasn't realized a loss on their holdings yet because they are still holding these stocks.
Never mind that George W. Bush actually started the loans to the automotive industry.
Never mind that the US has a long history of bailing out private companies which includes both President Bush 41 and Bush 43.
Never mind that even Reagan invested government money in a flailing industry, gave loans to the renewable energy industry, and gave kickbacks to big donors.
Conservatives hate this because they hate Obama.
As cover for their hate they will claim they don't want the government picking the winners and the loser while simultaneously supporting unlimited corporate money in the election process even though this money ends up picking the winners and losers. Subsidies for the oil, ethanol, and farm industries all enjoy broad support from Republicans and are also examples of the government picking the winners and losers. As governor Mitt Romney made a litany of choices that favored certain industries and individuals as he picked the winners and losers.
Just because you don't like the man, the party or the industry doesn't make the loans and investments made under the Obama administration any different than the ones given out by the darlings of the Republican Party. Acting like Republicans have a moral high ground to stand on here due to GM and Solyndra ignores the history of Presidents investing in America for the good of the people despite the unfounded paranoia of a socialist takeover.
Also tied to this idea is the dogma that investing in the stock market creates jobs. This is the theory behind ending capital gains tax supported by Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan and Jon Huntsman. During the GOP presidential debates Huntsman stated “We will also eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends, which will lower the cost of capital and encourage investment in the economy".
And investment in the stock market is so important that should you lose money the government will give you a tax break, assuming you made enough to itemize in the first place.
On a related note the White House just reported that their investment in GM, of which the government still holds 500 million shares, looks a little worse than it did a few months ago because the stock price fell. And to conservatives this investment in GM stock proves that Obama wants to end capitalism.
Never mind that the investment in GM created jobs just like conservatives suggest the buying of stocks will do.
Never mind that typically the stock market has one of the higher returns on investment.
Never mind that the government hasn't realized a loss on their holdings yet because they are still holding these stocks.
Never mind that George W. Bush actually started the loans to the automotive industry.
Never mind that the US has a long history of bailing out private companies which includes both President Bush 41 and Bush 43.
Never mind that even Reagan invested government money in a flailing industry, gave loans to the renewable energy industry, and gave kickbacks to big donors.
Conservatives hate this because they hate Obama.
As cover for their hate they will claim they don't want the government picking the winners and the loser while simultaneously supporting unlimited corporate money in the election process even though this money ends up picking the winners and losers. Subsidies for the oil, ethanol, and farm industries all enjoy broad support from Republicans and are also examples of the government picking the winners and losers. As governor Mitt Romney made a litany of choices that favored certain industries and individuals as he picked the winners and losers.
Just because you don't like the man, the party or the industry doesn't make the loans and investments made under the Obama administration any different than the ones given out by the darlings of the Republican Party. Acting like Republicans have a moral high ground to stand on here due to GM and Solyndra ignores the history of Presidents investing in America for the good of the people despite the unfounded paranoia of a socialist takeover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)