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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
