Tax or penalty?

With the decision by the Supreme Court regarding the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) we are seeing posturing from both sides on how to frame the debate moving forward. The White House is sticking to the term "penalty" to describe the tax assessed to those who don't buy health care insurance while those on the right such as Tommy De Seno on Fox News suggest that there is no precedence for a tax without an exchange of money.

The reality is that our tax code is filled with penalties similar to the one the Supreme Court just ruled constitutional. If you aren't married you pay a tax penalty, if you don't have kids you pay a tax penalty, if you don't own the home that you live in you pay a tax penalty, if you earn your income in the form of wages instead of capital gains you pay a tax penalty.

So regardless what you want to call it this ruling doesn't establish some completely new Marxist taxing tool, it just uses the tax code to promote certain behaviors. Is this the job of the government? Maybe. Maybe not. But if the government telling you what to do is the problem with the health care tax penalty then it is also a problem with the other penalties that we currently enjoy which help some and hurt others.

Legislating personal freedom

Over the weekend my colleague Mako Yamakura put together a post regarding his thoughts on the new motorcycle helmet law enacted recently in Michigan. This article generated a number of good comments with some support for Mako's stance that requiring helmets for motorcycle riders is one of the good types of regulations that saves lives while others feel that the choice to wear a helmet is a personal freedom.

While I’m not really concerned about the new law the reality is that the people who support it under the cover of personal freedom are complete hypocrites.

If these people truly believed in the personal freedoms of all American's they wouldn't legislate what collection of cells it is OK for a doctor to remove, they wouldn't legislate who a person is allowed to marry, they wouldn't legislate a person's ability to pay for sex, they wouldn't legislate a person's choice to end their own life, they wouldn't legislate who has to carry identification papers, they wouldn't legislate what drugs a person is allow to consume, and they wouldn't censure a legislator for expressing her first amendment right to say the word vagina.

The truth is that all American’s believe in personal freedom and it is embarrassingly simplistic logic to term every regulation you oppose as an attack on personal freedom while simultaneously supporting the suppression of other’s personal freedoms simply because of your moral objections.

Either you support personal freedom or you don’t but picking and choosing based on your personal biases means you don’t.

Personal freedom

Over the weekend my colleague Mako Yamakura put together a post regarding his thoughts on the new motorcycle helmet law enacted recently in Michigan. This article generated a number of good comments with some support for Mako's stance that requiring helmets for motorcycle riders is one of the good types of regulations that saves lives while others feel that the choice to wear a helmet is a personal freedom.

While I'm not really concerned about the new law I find the rhetoric of those who support it to be particularly fallacious.

When they use the term personal freedom what they really mean is the freedom to do the things they like and legislate and suppress the things they are against.

If these people truly believed in the personal freedoms of all American's they wouldn't legislate what collection of cells it is OK for a doctor to remove, they wouldn't legislate who a person is allowed to marry, they wouldn't legislate a person's ability to pay for sex, they wouldn't legislate a person's choice to end their own life, they wouldn't legislate who has to carry identification papers, they wouldn't legislate what drugs a person is allow to consume, and they wouldn't censure a legislator for expressing her first amendment right to say the word vagina.

So if you want to ride helmetless on your hog, swigging a 32 oz Slurpee, yelling out curse words, while smoking a cigarette, with a semi-automatic firearm strapped to your back on your way to a rally against polio vaccines you won't get an argument from me. But realize that your attempts to legislate my morals is just more job killing tax increasing big government overreach that infringes on my personal freedoms, which, of course, makes you a complete hypocrite.

Michigan Republicans need to abort their attacks on women rights

When the debate over health care was focused on the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare or Romneycare) Republican Senator John Barrasso said “I don’t want anybody between a doctor and a patient" and Republican Representative John Boehner said we need to "stop excessive regulations".

Well apparently Michigan Republican's didn't get the memo because the restrictions on abortion rights they are currently entertaining are both excessive regulations and another example of politicians putting themselves squarely between a doctor and their patient.

The bill they have been discussing puts new regulations on abortion clinics and makes having an abortion after 20 weeks a crime even in case of rape or incest and even when a doctor recommends an abortion for the safety of the mother.

Roe vs. Wade makes the right to have an abortion as much of a constitutional right as the right to bear arms yet for some reason any attempt to limit gun rights is framed as infringing on personal freedom and on one's right to defend themselves. So to these people having an abortion to save your life is murder but shooting someone who you believe poses a threat is not only justifiable but warranted.

If these people truly valued human life they would use their power and the litany of research that exists on the topic to help prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place like what Planned Parenthood does. Instead Republicans have set as their top priorities cutting education spending, social welfare programs, and access to health care for the poor - all of which negatively affect the teen pregnancy rates - and then have the audacity to whine about the consequences their own misguided policies have caused.

It is time that our politicians took a little personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions instead of always blaming someone else for the problems they create.

The Finnish model of improving education

The recent Scott Walker win in Wisconsin has led to a lot a talk about how to successfully improve the American education system. Clearly the two parties have different solutions for fixing education but determining what makes a successful education system could be key to cutting through the partisan rhetoric and finding real answers. By most measures Finland has one of if not the best education systems in the world while also managing to achieve this success at a lower cost than most. So what makes Finland so successful?

There is no merit pay for teachers in Finland.

Students in Finland rarely have homework or take exams until they are in their teens.

There are no private schools in Finland.

There is only one mandatory standardized test administered at age 16.

Teachers are given the same status as Doctors and Lawyers

95% of teachers in Finland are unionized.

High school teachers in Finland make 102% of what other college graduates make compared to 62% for the US.

30 percent of children receive additional help in their first 9 years of school.

Unlike the US system the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location.

Teahcers only spend 4 hours per day in class and take 2 hours a week for professional development.

Finland has approximately the same number of teachers as New York City with nearly half the students.

Teachers have a great deal of educational control in choosing textbooks and customizing their lessons to meet national standards.

Elementary students get 75 minutes of recess per day versus an average of 27 in the US.

All of Finland's teachers must have a Master's Degree which is state subsidized.

The national curriculum is only broad outlines.

Teachers are selected from the top 10% of graduates.

Children are not measured at all in their first six years of education.

All children are taught in the same classroom.

What is most striking about this list is how completely opposite it is to current thinking in America. When Finland made changes to their education system their goal was to provide equality not excellence. As John F. Kennedy said "a rising tide lifts all boats" and the same appears to be true in Finland where providing equal opportunity for all, improves the results for everyone. While in the US President Obama has fallen in line with Republicans to push ideas like charter schools, merit pay, and standardized testing. So if you believe that education is getting worse, it’s getting worse as we move closer to a system of Republican ideas.

Essentially the US system represents the free market idea of education while the Finnish system represents the socialist plan for education and right now the socialists are winning.

Comment section house cleaning

One of the best parts of blogging for the Detroit News is the debate that often occurs after the article. Sometimes these conversations bring about good questions that deserve more than just a quick response in the comment section. For example in my recent post on Michelle Malkin I stated that "Republicans defend the wages of CEOs, because the more you pay, the better CEO you get." which prompted Tim Kelly to ask "Show us anyone that says that."

The Heritage Foundation November 16th, 2011:

"As frustrating as it may seem to watch top executives at government-backed firms take in millions in bonuses, in other words, the alternative is to limit those firms’ abilities to attract the best talent. The inevitable result is a crop of less-skilled managers, which put those companies at even greater risk of financial loss."

Cato Institute September 10, 2008:

"High executive compensation is a market outcome caused by limited supply and high and rising demand for top talent."

Glencore Chief Executive Ivan Glasenberg June 7th 2012:

"If you want good CEOs, you are going to have to pay."

Or these four talking heads on Fox News :

"If the shareholders want to get their money's worth, they better pay a good CEO what a good CEO demands."

Of course these are just individuals and organization who don't speak for all Republicans but it should be noted that in a survey of companies "over 40 percent of companies say that they want to pay their CEO's above market average -- numbers like 60 percent and 75 percent of market are often used."


Another good conversation was started in a post Libby had regarding Federal Spending where a few commenter’s took exception to the idea that George W. Bush would be responsible for the 2009 budget (excluding the 2009 stimulus spending).

The Cato Institute had this to say on the topic :

"critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt.

But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House."

Also from this topic was the data that under Obama federal spending, after inflation, has actually decreased. Commenter Kevin Burke said "It is a fact that federal spending under Obama has skyrocketed. Just because you keep repeating a lie doesn't make it true."

Daniel J Mitchell of the Cato Institute did a more nuanced review of the numbers quoted in Libby's post and found that by certain measures "it turns out that Obama does win the prize for being the most fiscally conservative president in recent memory." After a few more tweaks Daniel eventually concludes that in terms of government spending Obama falls somewhere in the middle of the last eight presidents.

In the end I as a blogger always appreciate those of you who take the time to read these posts and comment and try my best to read and respond to as many of the good questions as I can. Hopefully these conversations help us to agree on some of the facts which should help us to respectfully disagree on our subsequent solutions.

Michelle Malkin takes it down a notch

With the failure of the Scott Walker recall election, Michelle Malkin took the opportunity to voice her distain for the unions and in particular the teachers unions that organized the recall vote.

While she may have some good points they are difficult to weed out among the 7th grade level tone Mrs. Malkin takes with her piece. Apparently Michelle believes name calling is an effective form of debate.

Mixed in with her juvenile taunts are the occasional examples of how one teacher acted inappropriately meant to paint the entire profession with the same brush. But who doesn't love equating the actions of one individual to the intentions of everyone within that group.

She of course follows this up with some data on union spending for the recall which conveniently ignores the fact that Republicans and their supporters outspent Democrats by a 7 to 1 margin in the run up to this vote. If her point is that money in elections is a problem, I agree. But that wouldn't fit with her theme that teachers unions are a bunch of booger eating doody-heads.

I imagine that one of the big reasons for Mrs. Malkin's condescending tone is the fact that she doesn't understand what the unions are fighting for. Michelle seems to think that Scott Walker and state Republicans were simply "asking teachers to contribute more to their pension plans". The reality is that Walker never asked. Framing this government power grab as union obstinance is a massive mischaracterization of the union’s position.

But the cherry on top of her article is her final paragraph where she states that "the union bosses have made one thing clear as a playground whistle: It's not about the children. It's never about the children." While fighting for the right to collectively bargain may have little to do with the children, Michelle Malkin should recognize that fighting to end collective bargaining rights isn't about the children either. As a matter of fact the cost cutting measures that Malkin apparently supports will have a detrimental effect on the education that Wisconsin students receive.

Michelle Malkin seems to prescribe to this Republican notion that we have a bunch of bad teachers and education will only improve when these awful teachers are removed. Yet it is also these same Republicans that defend that wages of CEO because the more you pay, the better CEO you get. I'm not sure where the disconnect comes in but a recent study shows that education is no different than other professions. The more you pay, the better the employee and the better the employee, the better the results.

If Republicans wanted to return to the glory days of the US they would see that a starting teacher made almost as much as first year lawyer while today the gap in pay is around $115,000. They might also be interested in knowing that there is a correlation with how much a country pays its teachers and the educational achievement of that country.



So while Michelle Malkin can take issue with the union bosses and the occasional radical teacher, acting like she and her party somehow have the best interests of students in mind as they systematically dismantle the collective bargaining rights of US union members shows how much of a bean pole poopy face she is.

Republicans have no business in government

Mitt Romney claims he is better for the country because of his business background. This is based on the conservative idea that government should be run like a business.

So the question then becomes how have companies successfully emerged from this recession? Ford is a good example given their size, debt issues and near collapse leading up to the great recession. Losing millions of dollars a year the company went deep into debt and cut costs by eliminating employees and shuttering unprofitable plants. This part of the Ford recovery plan is very similar to what the US government has done so far reducing government spending by an average of 1.4% per year under Obama after inflation and cutting government personnel by around 600,000 employees.

But that is where the similarities end. Unlike the federal government Ford has actually increased the cost of their products and reduced incentives boosting their profit by about $2,000 per car. Yes, running the government like a company requires that, as the economy improves, the costs of products and services increase or in terms of the federal government, taxes increase.

Suggesting a tax increase of course elicits cries from the right of already being overtaxed by the most radically socialist president this country has ever seen. Ignoring the ignorance of this claim it should be noted that according the Heritage Foundation we are currently near record lows when it comes to tax revenue and tax rates.

These same people also claim that any increase in tax rates will have a detrimental effect on the economy. Ford however seems to have experienced no such correlation as their increased prices have not produced a slowdown in sales. In fact sales are still increasing.

No businessman worth his salt would run his business like the Republicans are attempting to run the government. Even Mitt Romney raised an additional $750 in revenue from taxes in his time as governor. The reality is that these people don't want to run the government like a business. They want to run the government into the ground.

Barack Obama's economic policies are failing!

The May jobs report shows that our economy's slow growth is getting slower and Republicans are suggesting this proves the president’s economic policies are failing. I couldn't agree more.

The president has allowed corporate interests and Republicans to run roughshod over American economic policy and the affects have been slow growth. This includes the following:

A too small stimulus bill chock full of tax cuts.

Using corporate tax cuts as a method of economic stimulus.
"Company profits ... increased at an 11.7 percent annual rate from the previous quarter and were up 14.8 percent from a year ago."

Continuing of the Bush tax cuts.
"federal taxes as a share of gross domestic product were at their lowest level in generations."

Failure to get implement public option in health care reform.
"CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer."

Buying into the "Job Creators" argument which allows the rich like Mitt Romney to pay a tax rate lower than the average American.
"Millionaire entrepreneur and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer puts it this way: “An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.”

Allowing states and the federal government to cut massive amounts of public sector jobs costing the country over a million jobs and reducing the GDP by 0.78 percentage point in the first quarter of 2012.
"Typically, the government offers a base level of support" when the economy is weak, says Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates. "In this case, the government is actually contributing to the weakness of the recovery.

Continuing two costly wars.
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed to the U.S. having severe unsustainable structural imbalances in its government finances,"

The truth is Barack Obama isn't even remotely close to the radical socialist that Republicans love to portray him as. Heck, he's hardly even a liberal but regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office next January the reality is that we live in a global economy and blaming one person or even one party for our current economic situation is asinine.

Going Bostal

This past week Illinois State Representative Mike Bost lost it. After Democrats used a 1995 rule to block amendments and debate on a bill regarding changes to the states pension system, Bost started yelling and throwing papers around because, as he says "I'm sick of it." "Total power in one person's hands—not the American way!" "Let my people go!" "They sent me here to vote for them ... but I'm trapped. I'm trapped by rules that have been forced down our throats."

I don't know much about Mike Bost or his politics but I can say to some extent I actually agree with his complaints. Total power in one person's hands historically is not the American way. What I find perplexing is that this only seems to be a concern because his party is in the minority. For instance, I haven't heard too many Michigan Republicans complain about the Emergency Financial Manager law that allows one person the power to "sell assets like the water department, undo union contracts, abrogate collective bargaining agreements without discussion, and dissolve local governments."

Similarly Republicans don't seem very concerned about trapping Democrats with rules like the filibuster and holds that have lead to the least productive congress in history and the lowest percentage of judicial confirmations on record.

The real problem here is not the politicians are complete hypocrites. Everyone knows this. No, the problem is that the electorate blindly defends their party’s hypocrisies while simultaneously blindly attacking those on the other side.

Mike Bost's statements may have been true in the past since we used to live in a country where these political tactics were not the American way but the American people no longer hold their party accountable for their actions instead we live in a time where the phrase "bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans" is an applause line.