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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.