Public employees are not the enemy

Voters have come to expect politicians to "frame" arguments in a way that supports their position. Unfortunately too many politicians are very generous with their definition of an "honest" discussion.

A recent example of this can be found on Tim Walberg’s twitter feed where he stated:

Today I voted to stop @whitehouse's executive action to raise Congressional pay. Washington doesn't need a pay raise

In these difficult economic times most would probably agree with his statement that congress doesn't need (deserve) a pay raise.

Of course if Representative Walberg was being completely honest he would have also mentioned in this tweet that the executive action from the White House was for all civil federal employees and that Congress could have easily excluded themselves from the deal while leaving the raise for the other 2 million federal employees.

The representative could have also included a few other relevant facts that would have made his "courageous" position seem a little less patriotic such as the fact that the pay for these federal employees has been frozen for the past two years and that the raise in question was only 0.5% compared to a nearly 2% annual increase in the private sector pay rate and a 3.6% cost of living increase for Social Security recipients.

Additionally it should be noted that this incremental increase would only cost the government $10 billion over 10 years while eliminating the capital gains tax - a move Tim Walberg supports and made an integral part of his election campaign - would cost 100 times as much or 1 trillion over the same time frame.

Both ideas accomplish the same goal of getting additional money into the hands of taxpayers who will theoretically spend it. The big difference is Tim Walberg supports $1 trillion dollars in lost revenue if it benefits the very rich while he opposes a fraction of that government spending if members of the working class are the main beneficiaries.

If Representative Walberg doesn't think 2 million working class American deserve a few hundred dollars in their pay checks this year that's fine and he should tweet that for all to see but in these tough economic times we should expect better from our elected officials than such dishonest campaign style rhetoric attacking our civil servants.

Business case for Climate Change

Regardless of the science behind it Climate Change is still a hotly debated topic. And this debate has far reaching implications that most don't consider. For example when parents deny the science of climate change or evolution and offer only their unprofessional opinion as proof they are teaching their kids that scientific methodologies that brought us a cure for Polio, that landed a man on the moon, and that lead to nuclear power are debatable.

And while many of these people will be the first to complain about the performance of our kids in school their arrogance could very well be the cause. After all if kids are constantly hearing that science is hokum then why would anyone want to become a scientist and if educators who teach evolution are "liars" why would kids treat them with respect. If parents are role models then these science denying parents are essentially telling kids that a layman’s understanding of the world is all you need and that professionals are not to be trusted.

Of course there are some who "believe" Climate Change is real they just don't think humans are responsible. But regardless of who is "responsible", Climate Change has a serious impact on all of us and we have a duty to find solutions. If a meteor were headed for the US we wouldn't just ignore it and say "well humans didn't create this problem". We would work together to prevent the devastating affects.

There is also a group that believes in Climate Change and thinks humans are responsible but think the solutions are "too expensive". While pervasive, this mentality couldn't be more wrong. As the old adage goes a stitch in time saves nine. The costs of Climate Change are not decreasing as the years go by. They are getting worse and failure to act now could have dire economic impacts later.

A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that as the temperature rises from Climate Change work production is lost. While some of that can be mitigated with air conditioners it should be noted that operating air conditioners has a cost as well. We are also losing out on the jobs that are created by accepting the reality of Climate Change and working to slow its progress, such as solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing because we have placed the concern over higher energy costs above that over job creation.

There is also the costs from events like Superstorm Sandy and the extreme drought that we experienced this year. Even the bastions of Republican ideology - corporations and the US military - agree that Climate Change represents a significant threat to America and the burden of the costs of these events will again fall on the American consumer.

Denying Climate Change may gain votes and sell ad time but like it or not the costs and catastrophes associated with it are real. However facts and data are not really being debated here. No, this debate exists because a segment of the population denies that the experts in the military, the science community and affected industries know more than they do. Until we fix the problem of unjustified ego and information deficit this country is currently experiencing - tackling a complex issue like Climate Change will be nearly impossible.

Criminals will still get guns myth

One of the silliest arguments coming from gun advocates is that we don't need more gun controls since criminals will always find a way to get guns. Having said that this argument is used often enough that it seems some people truly believe this logic is a valid rationale for rebuking any further gun control measures.

While I'm inclined to think this is more of an excuse than credible justification perhaps Republicans are right. Perhaps we should get the government out of areas where individuals are likely to act regardless of laws or regulations. We could start by removing any and all government involvement in abortions - after all even if you make abortions illegal people are still going to get abortions and gun advocate logic tells us that given this reality the best course of action is to remove government completely.

We could do the same for illegal drugs. There is pretty strong data that shows even with increased volumes of laws, regulations and enforcement drugs are still being purchased and used at an alarming rate. Next we could eliminate border patrol. If we can't prevent 100% of illegal immigrants from piercing the veil of the moral utopia we call the United States of America then why bother stopping any. We could also do away with the puerile obsession with voter registration laws. Even the most ardent supporter will admit such laws are not perfect and if our congress has taught us anything over the past two years it's that the perfect is absolutely the enemy of the good - an enemy that must be defeated at all costs. And what are we really preventing with all of these laws against gay marriage. Homosexual Americans are still living together, raising kids and being intimate. Excluding them from tax breaks and visitation rights hasn't prevented a single person from being gay so why waste so much time and tax payer dollars to fight it?

But this is the problem with illogical logic. Its application defies reason. Gun advocates don't care about personal liberties, the constitution, or freedom anymore than gun control advocates. They disagree on the acceptable levels of government involvement and those levels change based on the topic.

If these advocates want to stick to their guns and insist that laws that don't prevent 100% of the crimes they are tasked with preventing aren't worth pursing they must also accept sweeping changes to a litany of other laws that are bound to change if crafting an infallible law is the new standard that government must meet or admit that they are complete hypocrites.

Republicans whining over minimum wage

The response could easily have been predicted. As soon as President Obama mentioned raising the federal minimum wage there was a corresponding raise in conservative ideologue's blood pressure.

Unfortunately rather than resulting in a rational reasoned debate we get Republican commentators making outrageous accusations like incremental increases in minimum wage could result in federal maximum wage restrictions or suggesting that this is a slippery slope leading to exponential increases in the minimum wage.

There is plenty of data to suggest that raising the minimum wage could cost jobs and it could be argured that a good portion of the people making minimum are single under 25 kids still working their way through school. Why we need to resort to "the sky is falling" tactics is beyond me.

Having said that the reason that minimum wage is on the table has less to do with its effectiveness than the ability to get it passed. Many economists would argue that a raise in the Earned Income Tax Credit is a better option for helping impoverish American's but thanks to the ignorance and obstinance of our current politicians doing what is good for the people has taken a back seat to what is politically palatable for re-election purposes.

The reality is that corporations are making record profits and the 99% would like to see a corresponding increase in their pay. These people are a cog in the machine that produces these profits and they deserve to enjoy some of the spoils as well. Instead we are seeing income inequality on the rise and politicians blocking any progress based on the "job creators" fallacy.

So rather than more government involvement we should demand less. We should let the free market operate and keep government out. The results of doing so could be much better than pursuing marginal increase in the minimum wage. For example if government didn't interfere in the free market negotiations of labor unions and corporations the working class would be allowed to increase their wages using capitalism instead of government. The data shows that as union membership increases income inequality decreases. The data also shows a strong correlation between the percentage of a state's population in a union and the percentage of the population earning minimum wage or less.

We could also help both corporation and low income earners by going to a single payer system for health care. Corporations are not in business to provide health care and our current system has proven to be woefully inadequate in providing health care to all Americans.

So while Republicans are more than happy to whine about the problems with increasing the minimum wage they are completely oblivious to the fact that this debate only exists because of their relentless pandering to the rich and to corporations. The way to end the minimum wage debate is to make employees a partner in the free market. Because minimum wage is just a bad solution to decades of bad Republican legislation.

Better pay equals better education

When it comes to education there is one thing that most Democrats and Republicans can agree on - improving outcomes. Unfortunately everything after that is up for debate.

The Cato Institute offers a good example of the standard Republican argument which basically boils down to we spend more money now than ever yet we get mediocre results. While both of these statements are true this is a massive oversimplification of the situation resulting in massively oversimplified and errant solutions.

For example the Cato Institute points out that per pupil spending his risen by 133% since 1970 and lays the blame for this increase at the feet of teachers unions. The reality however is much more complicated. First it should be noted that in Michigan the average teachers pay has decreased by 7.7% since 1999 while per pupil spending has increased by nearly 20%. Second the number of educators in unions has dropped from 84% in 1989 to 38% in 2010. This data does not support the Cato Institute's assertion.

Additionally the Cato Institute also completely ignores the fact that in 1975 Congress passed the "Education for All Handicapped Children Act which resulted in twice as many special education students for public education. At a cost two to three times that of students without disabilities the needs of special education figures prominently in the new education spending since 1970.

The Cato Institute also fails to mention that nearly twice as many Americans live in poverty now than they did in 1970 and as Education Secretary Arnie Duncan stated "Educators across the country understand that low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed."

So while the data points to education costs’ rising it doesn’t show that teachers are the cause or that higher paid teachers lead to worse outcomes. In fact quite the opposite is true. The data shows that states that spend more money on education tend to have better outcomes. More importantly the data in Michigan shows that the top performing schools spend a much greater percentage of their per pupil funding on teachers than the lowest performing schools. So rather than attacking teachers and their salary as the problem the data suggests that we need to look at teachers and competitive pay as the solution.

If education spending it out of control then we should look at where the money goes to and what can be changed. But those changes should be predicated on improving educational outcomes. Arbitrarily cutting teachers’ salaries and benefits even when the data suggests that doing so will result in worse educational outcomes is not a solution - it's a witch hunt and our children deserve better.

The Republican case for unions

At the core of the American system of Democracy is the idea of checks and balances. This is why we have three different branches of government and it also manifests itself in the form of a two party system which forces both parties to compete for votes. This same idea is also at the core of labor unions. They act as a counterbalance to corporations and government entities.

Regardless of the many benefits of labor unions there are still those who would like to see them disappear. They claim that unions aren't needed anymore to protect workers since there are government regulations in place now to ensure worker safety. Unfortunately Republicans have proven that their number one priority is helping big business get bigger in spite of the affects on the working class and this servitude has lead to their current obsession with "job killing regulations". As soon as they can eradicate labor unions they will eradicate government worker protections under their oft used mantra that companies will self regulate.

This happens to be the same line of thinking that nearly sent the global economy into an all out depression. After 70 years on the books big banks asked for and congress obliged in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act because unlike the lead up to the great depression, this time, banks would act responsibly when given free reign. It turns out however, when left to their own devices; big business took less than 8 years to completely forget to the lessons of the past and nearly destroyed the world economy.

Regardless of the Republican selective memory when it comes to the dangers of trusting businesses to police themselves, the worst part of this fight from Republicans is how it undercuts their own ideals.

Here is a group who claims to hold up capitalism as the answer to all problems yet when it comes to labor unions they embrace the same bureaucracy they claim to despise. Labor unions are not a government entity. They are subject to the same demands of other capitalist organizations. If they fail to provide value they will disappear. The reason the US has seen its union workforce steadily decline over the past five decades has nothing to do with "right to work" legislation.

The reality is that labor unions have priced themselves out of the market in certain areas. If they want to survive they must adapt. The UAW, for example, in recent negotiations with Ford offered up significant cuts in exchange for 12,000 US jobs. This happens because companies like Ford have options on the world market not because of government intervention.

What should be concerning for fiscal conservatives is how quickly Republicans were to abandon the core values of capitalism. A true believer would never resort to using government to pick the winners and losers. If there are problems with union leaders, those problems should be addressed by those union's members. If there are issues with union contracts, those issues should be fixed at the negotiating table. And if there are union members who should be removed, that should be handled by the organizations involved.

In the end Republicans should demand a government that removes itself from capitalist interactions instead of a government that fights for lower wages, less protections, fewer benefits and less competition. Because labor unions are the free market check and balance of the working class and legislation like "right to work" is the tyrannical bureaucratic regulatory overreach that undermines American capitalism.