Last week the good folks over at Breitbart.com and Fox News trotted out their latest in faux outrage - Obama filled out an NCAA bracket but didn't submit a Federal Budget. And of course good soldiers like Representative Tim Walberg were more than happy to fall in line and tweet their enmity.
I'm not sure how many brackets these people have filled out but if they are spending as much time on their NCAA brackets as they would a Federal Budget they are either investing way too much time on their bracket or way too little time on a Federal Budget.
Having said that, seeing someone like Tim Walberg call out the President for wasting time, is laughably ironic. 36 times now Republicans have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a vote that if successful would have to get by a presidential veto from the same guy have championed the legislation in the first place. And this doesn't just waste the time of one person. This involves valuable legislative time.
Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg. Rather than having substantive meetings working out meaningful compromises, Congress has become one big political advertisement where votes are mainly held to put the views of legislators on record. These include such symbolic votes as the Ryan budget, the Keystone XL pipeline, opposition to increasing the D=debt-limit, the Bush tax cuts, internet sales tax, ban on abortions for "gender-selection", cutting DOJ salaries, and defunding Planned Parenthood, PBS, and NPR.
Not surprisingly, the complaints about what the president spends his time on are equally as symbolic since the issues surrounding the Federal Budget are significantly more involved than can possibly be explained in a tweet. But this is a sign of the times and a large part of the reason why congressional approval continues to hover in the teens. Politicians are constantly running for office which has forced them to treat members of the opposite party as combatants instead of colleagues. They have essentially become power hungry used car salesmen - willing to do anything to seal the deal.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Republican hypocrisy on Emergency Manager Protest
Republicans have got themselves whipped up into a frenzy over the protests Jesse Jackson has organized in opposition to the takeover of Detroit by the governor appointed Emergency Manager.
They view these protests as some form of extortion of thuggery. The irony of course is how little concern they have for these tactics when the shoe is on the other foot. When corporate CEO's informed employees that an Obama victory in November would mean layoffs it was meant to influence their employee's votes. When Papa John's CEO John Schnatter threatened to raise the price of pizzas if the Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed he did so to pressure politicians. And when corporations threaten employees who are considering forming a union they do it to compel these employees to abandon their efforts.
Be it organized by the common man or the global corporation, these tactics are meant to intimidate and coerce and Republicans support these methods every time when the perpetrators bankroll the advancement of an ideology they agree with.
But being hypocritical is par for the course with these people. The difference between right and wrong is determined by who benefits most not some phantom moral belief they pretend dictates their decisions. So rather than have an honest discussion about how the Emergency Manager law, that grants Governor Snyder the authority to usurp the power of elected officials in favor of a Detroit dictator, was voted down by the people and only exists because of political maneuvering much like the maneuvering that has been the source of much consternation for conservatives regarding legislation enacted under President Obama.
And it wouldn't be a Republican rant without the racial undertones. Given that a true grass roots movement of the people often includes a multitude of skin colors not oft associated with the Republican Party, conservatives are again trotting out their recently minted meme that minorities are racist and old white guys are being repressed.
Look, if you don't like being called racist then stop being so racist. If you don't like protests that force your covert agenda into the light of day then stop plotting against the will of the people. And if you don't want Jesse Jackson in your town then don't give him a reason to be there.
The protestors are not rooting for Detroit to fail. They are just voicing their concerns and hoping to sway public opinion to address the problems with Detroit in a more democratic way. My colleague Dawud Walid does a good job of laying out the concerns that many of the people of Detroit probably have with the new Emergency Manager. Unfortunately Republicans are too either too ignorant or arrogant to understand.
While the work of Jesse Jackson and fight against the Emergency Manager law are probably a lost cause, this is a moment Detroiter's, union members, R.I.N.O's and Democrats across Michigan should remember because the only thing more entertaining than watching all of these Republicans completely contradict all the values and principles they claim to hold so dear will be watching newly elected Democrats and reasonable Republicans slowly dismantle all of the big government, anti-democratic, overreach these congressman and their corporate backers spend so much time and money on.
They view these protests as some form of extortion of thuggery. The irony of course is how little concern they have for these tactics when the shoe is on the other foot. When corporate CEO's informed employees that an Obama victory in November would mean layoffs it was meant to influence their employee's votes. When Papa John's CEO John Schnatter threatened to raise the price of pizzas if the Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed he did so to pressure politicians. And when corporations threaten employees who are considering forming a union they do it to compel these employees to abandon their efforts.
Be it organized by the common man or the global corporation, these tactics are meant to intimidate and coerce and Republicans support these methods every time when the perpetrators bankroll the advancement of an ideology they agree with.
But being hypocritical is par for the course with these people. The difference between right and wrong is determined by who benefits most not some phantom moral belief they pretend dictates their decisions. So rather than have an honest discussion about how the Emergency Manager law, that grants Governor Snyder the authority to usurp the power of elected officials in favor of a Detroit dictator, was voted down by the people and only exists because of political maneuvering much like the maneuvering that has been the source of much consternation for conservatives regarding legislation enacted under President Obama.
And it wouldn't be a Republican rant without the racial undertones. Given that a true grass roots movement of the people often includes a multitude of skin colors not oft associated with the Republican Party, conservatives are again trotting out their recently minted meme that minorities are racist and old white guys are being repressed.
Look, if you don't like being called racist then stop being so racist. If you don't like protests that force your covert agenda into the light of day then stop plotting against the will of the people. And if you don't want Jesse Jackson in your town then don't give him a reason to be there.
The protestors are not rooting for Detroit to fail. They are just voicing their concerns and hoping to sway public opinion to address the problems with Detroit in a more democratic way. My colleague Dawud Walid does a good job of laying out the concerns that many of the people of Detroit probably have with the new Emergency Manager. Unfortunately Republicans are too either too ignorant or arrogant to understand.
While the work of Jesse Jackson and fight against the Emergency Manager law are probably a lost cause, this is a moment Detroiter's, union members, R.I.N.O's and Democrats across Michigan should remember because the only thing more entertaining than watching all of these Republicans completely contradict all the values and principles they claim to hold so dear will be watching newly elected Democrats and reasonable Republicans slowly dismantle all of the big government, anti-democratic, overreach these congressman and their corporate backers spend so much time and money on.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Better education requires smarter politicians.
When it comes to education the goal for changes we make to the system should be based on improvement. Unfortunately the Republican solutions seem to value privatization over all else.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter schools perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
For some Republicans outcomes is secondary to their belief that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure as 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter schools perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
For some Republicans outcomes is secondary to their belief that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure as 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
Climate change will kill us all!
Every time the weather gets a little colder that usual conservative conspiracy theories come out of the woodworks, thumping their chests and claiming the "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are just some liberal media hoax imagined by Al Gore and his posse of green corporate pirates (also known as "job creators" when lead by Republicans). And rather than supply anything that counters the litany of data that exists in opposition to their position they pretend that because they have to put on a winter hat and jacket they are suddenly experts in science.
Each week they come up with a new completely unsupported argument that is instantly embraced by climate deniers regardless of the facts. Last week it was "remember when it was Global Cooling" and this week's trendy denial is "no statistically significant warming’ between 1995 and 2009". Next week it will be another misunderstanding of the facts or clever manipulation of reality and you can guarantee that every week it will include some form of "liberal media bias" since believing in a meme is much easier for climate denying simpletons than reading a scientific article.
The reality is that the earth is getting warmer, there is more CO2 in the air now than ever, and the strength and severity of storms are growing.
While many conservatives may not take climate change seriously entities like the insurance industry, the US military and even Exxon Mobil certainly do.
In a recent report to investors Exxon Mobil made the following statements:
"Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks poses by rising greenhouse gas emissions"
"we believe an economy-wide, revenue neutral, greenhouse gas (carbon) tax is the tool most likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the minimum cost to society."
"Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world's growing energy need over the coming decades will incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change."
"In 2010, ExxonMobil and SGI opened a new greenhouse research and testing facility, entering an important second stage in the collaboration to develop strains of
algae that could produce refinery feedstock and make transportation fuels."
If President Obama or other leading Democrats made these statements you could be certain Fox News and the "Society of Climate Change Deniers" would make fun of algae as a solution or lament the Socialism of a carbon tax, but the truth is when you are forced to put your money where your mouth is - climate change is a real and serious issue.
Each week they come up with a new completely unsupported argument that is instantly embraced by climate deniers regardless of the facts. Last week it was "remember when it was Global Cooling" and this week's trendy denial is "no statistically significant warming’ between 1995 and 2009". Next week it will be another misunderstanding of the facts or clever manipulation of reality and you can guarantee that every week it will include some form of "liberal media bias" since believing in a meme is much easier for climate denying simpletons than reading a scientific article.
The reality is that the earth is getting warmer, there is more CO2 in the air now than ever, and the strength and severity of storms are growing.
While many conservatives may not take climate change seriously entities like the insurance industry, the US military and even Exxon Mobil certainly do.
In a recent report to investors Exxon Mobil made the following statements:
"Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks poses by rising greenhouse gas emissions"
"we believe an economy-wide, revenue neutral, greenhouse gas (carbon) tax is the tool most likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the minimum cost to society."
"Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world's growing energy need over the coming decades will incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change."
"In 2010, ExxonMobil and SGI opened a new greenhouse research and testing facility, entering an important second stage in the collaboration to develop strains of
algae that could produce refinery feedstock and make transportation fuels."
If President Obama or other leading Democrats made these statements you could be certain Fox News and the "Society of Climate Change Deniers" would make fun of algae as a solution or lament the Socialism of a carbon tax, but the truth is when you are forced to put your money where your mouth is - climate change is a real and serious issue.
Monday, March 18, 2013
The New Host Of UP?
There was something of a bombshell dropped last Wednesday night (3/13/13) when Ed Schultz abruptly, at least to the non-insider, announced he was abandoning the 8pm slot (M-F) in the MSNBC lineup. This announcement put the preimo time slot up for grabs (even if the show is likely destined to lose to Fox blowhard, Bill O'Reilly).
Speculation quickly grew over who would get the time slot, with Ezra Klein being called the front-runner. However,it was announced within ~12 hours of Schultz's announcement that Chris Hayes would be moving to host a new show in that time slot. This leaves an opening at Up which airs Saturday and Sunday from 8am-10am. So, who is going to replace Chris Hayes? The post is about making that prediction.
LONGSHOTS:
JOY REID (8%): Joy will get a look. She is a frequent commentator on the network and does a nice job. I see her as a longshot because, as far as I know, she has very little hosting experience. To be honest, I've never seen her host a show so I can't comment on her ability to interview or lead a panel discussion. I'm giving her as much as a 10% chance because she was guest hosting Melissa Harris-Perry the very weekend that the job opened up... was this something of a test? If so, did she pass? I have no idea - I didn't watch!
SAM SEDER (5%): The chances for Sam are slim because he currently has no official role with the network. This does not fit the model that we have witnessed with Maddow, O'Donnell, Hayes, & MHP all being insiders prior to getting their respective hosting gigs. However, Ed Schultz was brought in from the outside, so it is not impossible. Moreover, Seder is one of only a couple guest hosts in the relatively brief history of Up with Chris Hayes; that has got to give him at least a punchers chance.
ARI MELBER (2%): There seems to be little buzz around Ari's chances. He has no hosting experience (as far as I know). However, he is a frequent MSNBC commentator who really knows his stuff. A likeable wonk who would presumably be able to hold the current viewers of Up.
OTHER (10%): There are other players within the network (moving an Alex Wagner or Krystal Ball) but mostly this covers the possibility that the network will look outside and go for a big splash. Jennifer Granholm!?!? Could Eliot Spitzer get on his third network in the past three years? Don't count on it!
CO-FAVORITES:
EZRA KLEIN (35%): Ezra has a bright future with MSNBC; there seems to be little question about that. I have no doubt he could do a great job as the new host of Up. He's smart and engaging - seemingly a very hard worker and a team-player (given how often he shows up on the assorted MSNBC shows in his role as a policy analyst) - and, importantly, likeable. The only reason I will not call him the definitive favorite is that it's possible he is so valuable in his current role (policy analyst and, often, the Friday night host of The Last Word), that perhaps the network heads could hope to keep him in his current role for the time being with the intention of giving him a more high profile role down the line (replacement for Lawrence O'Donnell? Taking the 7pm hour from Hardball? This is, needless to say, nothing but wild speculation!)?
STEVE KORNACKI (40%): To me, this just makes the most sense. The fans of Up with Chris Hayes should embrace Kornacki. He brings the same wonkish style and formidable intellect. Morever, he has guest hosted for Chris Hayes before (over the X-Mas holiday as I recall) and did a fine job in my opinion. This, presumably, gives him at least a small advantage over Klein. His current role as one of four co-hosts on The Cycle (3pm) is expendable. He could be replaced on that show with little problem... would Ari Melber want the role?
The announcement will be coming soon. Who ya got?!?
UPDATE: Nailed it! Steve Kornacki has been announced as the new host of Up.
Speculation quickly grew over who would get the time slot, with Ezra Klein being called the front-runner. However,it was announced within ~12 hours of Schultz's announcement that Chris Hayes would be moving to host a new show in that time slot. This leaves an opening at Up which airs Saturday and Sunday from 8am-10am. So, who is going to replace Chris Hayes? The post is about making that prediction.
LONGSHOTS:
JOY REID (8%): Joy will get a look. She is a frequent commentator on the network and does a nice job. I see her as a longshot because, as far as I know, she has very little hosting experience. To be honest, I've never seen her host a show so I can't comment on her ability to interview or lead a panel discussion. I'm giving her as much as a 10% chance because she was guest hosting Melissa Harris-Perry the very weekend that the job opened up... was this something of a test? If so, did she pass? I have no idea - I didn't watch!
SAM SEDER (5%): The chances for Sam are slim because he currently has no official role with the network. This does not fit the model that we have witnessed with Maddow, O'Donnell, Hayes, & MHP all being insiders prior to getting their respective hosting gigs. However, Ed Schultz was brought in from the outside, so it is not impossible. Moreover, Seder is one of only a couple guest hosts in the relatively brief history of Up with Chris Hayes; that has got to give him at least a punchers chance.
ARI MELBER (2%): There seems to be little buzz around Ari's chances. He has no hosting experience (as far as I know). However, he is a frequent MSNBC commentator who really knows his stuff. A likeable wonk who would presumably be able to hold the current viewers of Up.
OTHER (10%): There are other players within the network (moving an Alex Wagner or Krystal Ball) but mostly this covers the possibility that the network will look outside and go for a big splash. Jennifer Granholm!?!? Could Eliot Spitzer get on his third network in the past three years? Don't count on it!
CO-FAVORITES:
EZRA KLEIN (35%): Ezra has a bright future with MSNBC; there seems to be little question about that. I have no doubt he could do a great job as the new host of Up. He's smart and engaging - seemingly a very hard worker and a team-player (given how often he shows up on the assorted MSNBC shows in his role as a policy analyst) - and, importantly, likeable. The only reason I will not call him the definitive favorite is that it's possible he is so valuable in his current role (policy analyst and, often, the Friday night host of The Last Word), that perhaps the network heads could hope to keep him in his current role for the time being with the intention of giving him a more high profile role down the line (replacement for Lawrence O'Donnell? Taking the 7pm hour from Hardball? This is, needless to say, nothing but wild speculation!)?
STEVE KORNACKI (40%): To me, this just makes the most sense. The fans of Up with Chris Hayes should embrace Kornacki. He brings the same wonkish style and formidable intellect. Morever, he has guest hosted for Chris Hayes before (over the X-Mas holiday as I recall) and did a fine job in my opinion. This, presumably, gives him at least a small advantage over Klein. His current role as one of four co-hosts on The Cycle (3pm) is expendable. He could be replaced on that show with little problem... would Ari Melber want the role?
The announcement will be coming soon. Who ya got?!?
UPDATE: Nailed it! Steve Kornacki has been announced as the new host of Up.
Congress is the Post Office's biggest problem
If you watched any television this weekend you probably saw the National Association of Letter Carriers ad extolling the virtues of the US Postal service while spreading the fear of the diminished service Americans can expect from reduced hours and staff.
Many Republicans conveniently place the blame for the USPS’s financial troubles at the feet of unions using cleverly manipulated statistics, yet when comparing apples to apples the cost of employees for USPS are similar to that of USP and FedEx. Additionally it should be noted that the employees at UPS are also unionized and FedEx claims that the wages and benefits they offer are competitive with UPS.
Given this, it seems like a stretch to place the blame for the postal service’s troubles at the feet of unions. While the cost of employees tends to be similar across these organizations there is one thing holding back the USPS that doesn’t affect UPS and FedEx – their management.
If UPS or FedEx wants to raise the rates on their services they simply raise their rates without any government involvement. The USPS on the other hand can only raise rates if Congress gives them the green light to do so.
If you take a look at the costs to ship the USPS wins hands down. It doesn’t matter is you ship overnight or standard ground, USPS wins - often times charging half of what it would take to ship using their competitors.
So perhaps the real problem here is Congress. While the Post Office should certainly be examining changes they can make to streamline their service and cut costs, it will all be for naught unless Congress lets the USPS compete in the free market. Otherwise the blood for the death of the post office falls squarely on the hands of our elected officials not postal employees.
Many Republicans conveniently place the blame for the USPS’s financial troubles at the feet of unions using cleverly manipulated statistics, yet when comparing apples to apples the cost of employees for USPS are similar to that of USP and FedEx. Additionally it should be noted that the employees at UPS are also unionized and FedEx claims that the wages and benefits they offer are competitive with UPS.
Given this, it seems like a stretch to place the blame for the postal service’s troubles at the feet of unions. While the cost of employees tends to be similar across these organizations there is one thing holding back the USPS that doesn’t affect UPS and FedEx – their management.
If UPS or FedEx wants to raise the rates on their services they simply raise their rates without any government involvement. The USPS on the other hand can only raise rates if Congress gives them the green light to do so.
If you take a look at the costs to ship the USPS wins hands down. It doesn’t matter is you ship overnight or standard ground, USPS wins - often times charging half of what it would take to ship using their competitors.
So perhaps the real problem here is Congress. While the Post Office should certainly be examining changes they can make to streamline their service and cut costs, it will all be for naught unless Congress lets the USPS compete in the free market. Otherwise the blood for the death of the post office falls squarely on the hands of our elected officials not postal employees.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Better education requires smarter politicians
When it comes to education the goal for changes we make to the system should be based on improvement. Unfortunately the Republican solutions seem to value privatization over all else.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter school perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
Having said that, one of the topics typically left out of this discussion is the leeway given to Charter schools and their teachers. Leeway that is not available to public schools. Since government has set up a system to standardize public schools which limits innovation, it is not an apples to apples comparison. If innovation is the key driver behind improved performance at some Charter schools then perhaps the answer is less government involvement in the class room not more Charter schools.
For some Republicans having equivalent outcomes is better because they have been told that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure and 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
While the added protections of tenure do require school systems to provide reason behind their release, preventing some of the questionable firings that you are seeing today, it is hardly the guaranteed "job for life" opponents make it out it be. The reality is that the turnover rate for educators is higher than the national average because many of the lowest performing teachers leave voluntarily.
And while the belief that teachers are overpaid is popular among reformist it should be noted that our stagnation of educational outcomes tracks closely with the drop in pay for teachers when compared with other similarly educated Americans. The data also shows that many of the countries that we trail in educational achievement place a higher value on their educators than America does.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter school perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
Having said that, one of the topics typically left out of this discussion is the leeway given to Charter schools and their teachers. Leeway that is not available to public schools. Since government has set up a system to standardize public schools which limits innovation, it is not an apples to apples comparison. If innovation is the key driver behind improved performance at some Charter schools then perhaps the answer is less government involvement in the class room not more Charter schools.
For some Republicans having equivalent outcomes is better because they have been told that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure and 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
While the added protections of tenure do require school systems to provide reason behind their release, preventing some of the questionable firings that you are seeing today, it is hardly the guaranteed "job for life" opponents make it out it be. The reality is that the turnover rate for educators is higher than the national average because many of the lowest performing teachers leave voluntarily.
And while the belief that teachers are overpaid is popular among reformist it should be noted that our stagnation of educational outcomes tracks closely with the drop in pay for teachers when compared with other similarly educated Americans. The data also shows that many of the countries that we trail in educational achievement place a higher value on their educators than America does.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Why "right to work" is wrong
Groups like the NFIB will tell anyone who will listen how awful they think unions are for businesses and why "right to work" legislation is so great. It should be noted however that the NFIB is a bias source. That doesn't mean their information is inherently wrong it just means it should certainly be questioned and when it comes to their stance on unions they are only giving you half of the story.
Contrary to what these groups would have you believe the formation of unions is not some Communist process. The members of a given organization must vote to become and union and that vote is majority rule just like the rest of our democracy. If the union is failing its members they can vote at anytime to decertify the union. Making a special exemption in democracy to allow some union members to receive all of the benefits of union representation without having to pay for it is not democratic.
Ironically Republicans can't stand when citizens "don't pay any taxes" while still receiving the benefits of roads, police, and military yet when it comes to getting higher pay, insurance, and a safe work place being a freeloader is just fine with them.
And while being "forced" to pay to work is clearly unconstitutional these same groups don't seem to care about being forced to pay to live where you want. If you live in a subdivision where you are forced to pay an "association due" in exchange for "services" you cannot refuse to pay simply because you "don't see any value in" the association.
Perhaps your dues are all being used properly or perhaps your home owners association is misusing the money like in California where association dues were giving to a political action committee against the wishes of the residents, or in North Carolina where friends of the some HOA board members were giving contracts that amounted to price gouging, or in Oregon where some $2 millions in dues went "missing".
Abuses like this are part of the rationale for ending the "forced" pay to unions so why should HOAs be exempt?
But this is always the problem with groups like the NFIB. They pretend that unions can do no right and businesses can do no wrong.
The truth is eliminating unions doesn't eliminate abuses, corruption or top officials living high on the hog. It just shifts the beneficiaries.
If the rhetoric from conservative is correct and union members earn more than their private sector counterparts then cases like school bus services, private prisons, and contracted TSA agents, that all cost more than their corresponding public sector entity, show that union leadership is taking less of the public's money than the top brass in the private sector.
And this is the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. They are all for fleecing US citizens if that money goes to private corporations who donate 15 times as much money to political campaigns as labor unions. Republicans continue to game the system and design special rules for unions not because they believe in choice, value propositions, or economic benefits. No, it is a scam to win elections and weaken the power of the working class further; concentrating the wealth of the nation under the fallacy of job creators.
The reality is unions are the best tool available to the working class to close the income gap while guaranteeing basic human needs of health and safety. Unions may not be perfect but the Republican "solution" of lowering working class wages and increasing tax payer costs to pad the pockets of top contributors is worse.
Contrary to what these groups would have you believe the formation of unions is not some Communist process. The members of a given organization must vote to become and union and that vote is majority rule just like the rest of our democracy. If the union is failing its members they can vote at anytime to decertify the union. Making a special exemption in democracy to allow some union members to receive all of the benefits of union representation without having to pay for it is not democratic.
Ironically Republicans can't stand when citizens "don't pay any taxes" while still receiving the benefits of roads, police, and military yet when it comes to getting higher pay, insurance, and a safe work place being a freeloader is just fine with them.
And while being "forced" to pay to work is clearly unconstitutional these same groups don't seem to care about being forced to pay to live where you want. If you live in a subdivision where you are forced to pay an "association due" in exchange for "services" you cannot refuse to pay simply because you "don't see any value in" the association.
Perhaps your dues are all being used properly or perhaps your home owners association is misusing the money like in California where association dues were giving to a political action committee against the wishes of the residents, or in North Carolina where friends of the some HOA board members were giving contracts that amounted to price gouging, or in Oregon where some $2 millions in dues went "missing".
Abuses like this are part of the rationale for ending the "forced" pay to unions so why should HOAs be exempt?
But this is always the problem with groups like the NFIB. They pretend that unions can do no right and businesses can do no wrong.
The truth is eliminating unions doesn't eliminate abuses, corruption or top officials living high on the hog. It just shifts the beneficiaries.
If the rhetoric from conservative is correct and union members earn more than their private sector counterparts then cases like school bus services, private prisons, and contracted TSA agents, that all cost more than their corresponding public sector entity, show that union leadership is taking less of the public's money than the top brass in the private sector.
And this is the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. They are all for fleecing US citizens if that money goes to private corporations who donate 15 times as much money to political campaigns as labor unions. Republicans continue to game the system and design special rules for unions not because they believe in choice, value propositions, or economic benefits. No, it is a scam to win elections and weaken the power of the working class further; concentrating the wealth of the nation under the fallacy of job creators.
The reality is unions are the best tool available to the working class to close the income gap while guaranteeing basic human needs of health and safety. Unions may not be perfect but the Republican "solution" of lowering working class wages and increasing tax payer costs to pad the pockets of top contributors is worse.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
What Republicans could learn from Ronald Reagan
Since the 2012 presidential election Republicans have been spending a lot of time trying to figure out what went wrong and how they can fix those issues moving forward. Unfortunately all of their actions suggest they still don't get it.
A recent Fox News interview with Mitt Romney and his wife Ann give some insight into the thought process of many top Republican leaders. When talking about why he lost the election Mitt said "We weren’t effective taking our message to minority voters". But the reality is the message was received loud and clear, thanks to nearly $500 million in campaign spending, and minorities didn't like what they heard.
And when Ann discussed how she felt when they realized they had lost she said "It was a crushing disappointment. Not for us. Our lives are going to be fine. It's for the country." because Ann can't comprehend how anyone could view things differently. How could anyone not want the America that Mitt Romney envisioned?
The Romney's statements represent the core of the problem; the Republican message doesn't resonate with enough American's. But rather than accepting this lesson they continue to insist it is just an image problem.
So when a black man beats them for the President of the United States of America they go out and hire a black man to run the party. When women flock to the Democrat party Republicans tap a women for the Vice President position. And when they lose the Hispanic vote they thrust one of the few Hispanic voices in their party into the spotlight.
While the attempt to increase diversity in the Republican Party is a welcome sight, the message never changed. Having a black man as the head of the RNC didn't change the belief among Republicans that blacks were takers. Having a women as the VP candidate didn't stop the onslaught of attacks on women's rights. And pushing a Hispanic Senator to the fore hasn't changed the overall Republican opposition to immigration reform.
Right now the Republican "fix" to their lack of popularity is the ultimate in putting lipstick on the pig and this strategy only magnifies how little they understand the very people they are trying to court.
Picking minorities whose views are out of step with the bulk of voters in their given demographic simply because they are minorities will not make Republicans more attractive to these voters.
No the real answer for the solving the Republican popularity problem can be found in the teachings of Ronald Reagan. While many in the Republican Party claim to idolize the former president they seem to forget that his greatest accomplishment wasn't his policy but his accessibility.
If Republicans truly understood this lesson they would invite Chris Christie to be the key note speaker at C-PAC instead of ostracizing him. They would also drop the moniker RINO since it only serves to further constrict the reach of the party. As Jeb Bush and Michael Reagan both pointed out recently Ronald Reagan would be too moderate for today's Republican Party and that should be a giant red flag.
What Republicans need to do now is Fabreze the old man smell out of the congressional chambers and moderate. Keeping the same "stand for nothing" legislators in place while allowing the base to pull the Republican party further to the right only assures future failure.
A recent Fox News interview with Mitt Romney and his wife Ann give some insight into the thought process of many top Republican leaders. When talking about why he lost the election Mitt said "We weren’t effective taking our message to minority voters". But the reality is the message was received loud and clear, thanks to nearly $500 million in campaign spending, and minorities didn't like what they heard.
And when Ann discussed how she felt when they realized they had lost she said "It was a crushing disappointment. Not for us. Our lives are going to be fine. It's for the country." because Ann can't comprehend how anyone could view things differently. How could anyone not want the America that Mitt Romney envisioned?
The Romney's statements represent the core of the problem; the Republican message doesn't resonate with enough American's. But rather than accepting this lesson they continue to insist it is just an image problem.
So when a black man beats them for the President of the United States of America they go out and hire a black man to run the party. When women flock to the Democrat party Republicans tap a women for the Vice President position. And when they lose the Hispanic vote they thrust one of the few Hispanic voices in their party into the spotlight.
While the attempt to increase diversity in the Republican Party is a welcome sight, the message never changed. Having a black man as the head of the RNC didn't change the belief among Republicans that blacks were takers. Having a women as the VP candidate didn't stop the onslaught of attacks on women's rights. And pushing a Hispanic Senator to the fore hasn't changed the overall Republican opposition to immigration reform.
Right now the Republican "fix" to their lack of popularity is the ultimate in putting lipstick on the pig and this strategy only magnifies how little they understand the very people they are trying to court.
Picking minorities whose views are out of step with the bulk of voters in their given demographic simply because they are minorities will not make Republicans more attractive to these voters.
No the real answer for the solving the Republican popularity problem can be found in the teachings of Ronald Reagan. While many in the Republican Party claim to idolize the former president they seem to forget that his greatest accomplishment wasn't his policy but his accessibility.
If Republicans truly understood this lesson they would invite Chris Christie to be the key note speaker at C-PAC instead of ostracizing him. They would also drop the moniker RINO since it only serves to further constrict the reach of the party. As Jeb Bush and Michael Reagan both pointed out recently Ronald Reagan would be too moderate for today's Republican Party and that should be a giant red flag.
What Republicans need to do now is Fabreze the old man smell out of the congressional chambers and moderate. Keeping the same "stand for nothing" legislators in place while allowing the base to pull the Republican party further to the right only assures future failure.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Republicans casting stones over union extensions
Republicans seem to have a real problem with Democrats using constitutionally guaranteed loopholes to subvert the laws they worked so hard gerrymandering districts to secure.
The latest target of their hypocritical outrage involves Michigan unions that are working to extend their contracts in order to avoid the "right to work" law that Republicans snuck in the backdoor during last year’s lame duck session.
According to State Representative Bill Rogers this action by the unions is "unconscionable". Merriam Webster defines unconscionable as "shockingly unfair". It should be noted that the Federal Constitution is the basis for the union’s ability to avoid the “right to work” law that many would consider a shockingly unfair overreach by the Michigan legislature.
And in response to the union’s actions Greg McNeilly of the Michigan Freedom Fund says they will consider lawsuits against the unions and board members as well as recall campaigns. Yes for acting within the scope of the US Constitution Mr. McNeilly thinks that anyone agreeing to a contract that he dislikes should be punished to the fullest extent.
While the objections of both Mr. McNeilly and Representative Rogers are understandable the furor they are exhibiting seems unjust given their past actions.
Mr. McNeilly for example took a short break from his time as the Executive Director of the Michigan Republican party to support independent candidate Ralph Nader during the 2004 presidential election because everyone knows how closely Ralph Nader's views parallel that of an ardent Republican like Greg McNeilly - clearly no ill intentions here.
Bill Rogers on the other hand is so devoted to the sanctity of the democratic process that he never complained when his chamber of the legislature ingnored the states constitutional "immediate effect" roll call voting rules.
Representative Rogers also doesn't seem to find anything unconscionable about changing the Electoral College process for Michigan - a process that has been in place for nearly 200 years. And the sole purpose of these changes is to game the system to give Republicans a better shot at the White House.
Nor was he outraged when he voted to reinstate the Emergency Law that the people of Michigan had repealed just a month earlier which now includes a small appropriation thus avoiding any possible referendum in the future. Yes thumbing you nose at the will of the people and then intentionally removing their voice from the process moving forward is completely fine with Rep. Rogers.
Of course there is also the law that Representative Rogers introduced that was later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and the law he supported, which has been found unconstitutional elsewhere, to prevent Federal laws regarding any potential gun restriction from affecting Michigan. But perhaps the slimiest manipulation that Bill Rogers has pulled off was during his time as the Livingston County Commissioner when he gave construction companies in his county a sweetheart deal at the expense of tax payers. A deal that is still costing residents today. A deal with the potential to benefit his family’s construction business based in the area.
Perhaps the actions some unions around the state are taking seem in poor taste to Republicans but having two man who have tried to rig the outcome of elections, ignored the State and Federal Constitutions, and used the power of public office to possibly help the family business boost profits as your spokesmen is brazenly ironic and embarrassingly self serving.
The latest target of their hypocritical outrage involves Michigan unions that are working to extend their contracts in order to avoid the "right to work" law that Republicans snuck in the backdoor during last year’s lame duck session.
According to State Representative Bill Rogers this action by the unions is "unconscionable". Merriam Webster defines unconscionable as "shockingly unfair". It should be noted that the Federal Constitution is the basis for the union’s ability to avoid the “right to work” law that many would consider a shockingly unfair overreach by the Michigan legislature.
And in response to the union’s actions Greg McNeilly of the Michigan Freedom Fund says they will consider lawsuits against the unions and board members as well as recall campaigns. Yes for acting within the scope of the US Constitution Mr. McNeilly thinks that anyone agreeing to a contract that he dislikes should be punished to the fullest extent.
While the objections of both Mr. McNeilly and Representative Rogers are understandable the furor they are exhibiting seems unjust given their past actions.
Mr. McNeilly for example took a short break from his time as the Executive Director of the Michigan Republican party to support independent candidate Ralph Nader during the 2004 presidential election because everyone knows how closely Ralph Nader's views parallel that of an ardent Republican like Greg McNeilly - clearly no ill intentions here.
Bill Rogers on the other hand is so devoted to the sanctity of the democratic process that he never complained when his chamber of the legislature ingnored the states constitutional "immediate effect" roll call voting rules.
Representative Rogers also doesn't seem to find anything unconscionable about changing the Electoral College process for Michigan - a process that has been in place for nearly 200 years. And the sole purpose of these changes is to game the system to give Republicans a better shot at the White House.
Nor was he outraged when he voted to reinstate the Emergency Law that the people of Michigan had repealed just a month earlier which now includes a small appropriation thus avoiding any possible referendum in the future. Yes thumbing you nose at the will of the people and then intentionally removing their voice from the process moving forward is completely fine with Rep. Rogers.
Of course there is also the law that Representative Rogers introduced that was later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and the law he supported, which has been found unconstitutional elsewhere, to prevent Federal laws regarding any potential gun restriction from affecting Michigan. But perhaps the slimiest manipulation that Bill Rogers has pulled off was during his time as the Livingston County Commissioner when he gave construction companies in his county a sweetheart deal at the expense of tax payers. A deal that is still costing residents today. A deal with the potential to benefit his family’s construction business based in the area.
Perhaps the actions some unions around the state are taking seem in poor taste to Republicans but having two man who have tried to rig the outcome of elections, ignored the State and Federal Constitutions, and used the power of public office to possibly help the family business boost profits as your spokesmen is brazenly ironic and embarrassingly self serving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
