Michigan voters have been duped. The 2010 gubernatorial election may have been one of the biggest bait and switch cases in the history of the state of Michigan.
Rick Snyder's ads claimed "He's the only businessman running so he's the only one that even knows what he's doing." Business 101 suggests that if you want people to invest in your ideas you will need a business plan and as the Small Business Association sums up that plan should include research and predications:
"Your business plan is critical. Be sure to include accurate and realistic financials and market research to back up your predictions. Plan on being able to confidently communicate key sound bites from your plan on the fly—particularly how you will generate profit and how that will flow into your investor’s pockets."
Well the voters of the state of Michigan invested in Rick Snyder's business prowess yet here we are two years into his first term and none of the legislation the governor has signed into law smacks off the data driven-thorough analysis one would expect from a venture capitalist.
When asked to estimate the jobs that will be created from the corporate tax cuts the governor championed, he stated: "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it's going to happen.”
Rick Snyder continues to support an emergency manager law that the voters roundly rejected despite the fact that what data exists to analyze the success or failure of emergency managers in Michigan shows that nearly every entity taken over by a state appointed manager has left it worse than they found it.
When pressed on his rationale for signing right to work legislation in Michigan the governor sounded like one bullied nerd stuck in third grade with a "they started it" claim against unions and a "All the other kids were doing it" defense in pretending Indiana had become a draw because of right to work despite reports to the contrary.
When it comes to education the governor has hit the trifecta of unsupported solutions. It starts with privatizing schools even though data shows no value to doing so. Next he formed a secret group, known as "skunk works", tasked to skirting the Michigan constitution’s prohibition of vouchers. But perhaps his worst education decision so far is the Educational Achievement Authority (EAA). Not only does this entity operate outside of normal statewide school district system meaning it can use state funds without being forced to reveal how these funds are being allocated or who benefits, but it has no data to support its existence or the expansion the legislature is currently planning. And according to the Mackinac Center it would allow the state to take over more than just the lowest achieving schools as the governor claims.
So while Michiganders may have expected Rick Snyder to provide an independent analytical voice and solve Michigan's problems by "thinking outside the box" to find some "cutting edge" "game changers" that supply a good "return on investment" while creating "synergy" within the various government agencies in a "win-win" for the public, the reality Rick Snyder governance is more of a faith based initiative requiring voters to reject reason and facts and instead rely on Rick Snyder's usual aplomb.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
How Capitalism is killing educational achievement
Earlier this week Michigan Governor Rick Snyder kicked off the 18th annual Governor's Education Summit under the cloud of "skunk works" exposed by Chad Livengood here at the Detroit News.
"Skunk works" was the code name give to secret meetings between the governor and a group of twenty individuals that included one educational professional who quickly realized that the group was "discussing a special kind of school being created outside of the Michigan public school system,". To no one's surprise this project aims to take more money away from public schools and funnel it to private organizations using a voucher program.
Republicans who support the governor’s efforts claim our education system is broken and they insist that teachers unions and bad teachers are the crux of the problem. Unfortunately this is all based on anecdotal evidence as the data shows no such correlation.
But the reality is that contending that our education system is broken is a fundamentally flawed argument that Republicans are using as an excuse to push their alternate agenda of corporatize our children’s education. Corporatization which has shown to be no better than the system they are working so hard to replace.
Ironically it is the very capitalism that Republicans hold up as the answer to our lagging test scores that is actually the problem. The data shows that the biggest problem with education is poverty. If you do an apples to apples comparison using test results from American schools with 10% or less impoverished students the US comes out on top. Similarly in schools with a student body that contains 10% to 25% children living below the poverty line the US is third best in the world.
While having poor test scores is certainly a concern the fact that we have the second highest rate of childhood poverty among developed countries is an embarrassment.
And while Republicans will continue to calumniate the education profession to benefit their corporate sponsors the truth is that as long as we lead the world in income disparity and keep the playing field severely slanted in favor of the rich regaining our position as the world leaders in test scores will remain an unachievable goal.
"Skunk works" was the code name give to secret meetings between the governor and a group of twenty individuals that included one educational professional who quickly realized that the group was "discussing a special kind of school being created outside of the Michigan public school system,". To no one's surprise this project aims to take more money away from public schools and funnel it to private organizations using a voucher program.
Republicans who support the governor’s efforts claim our education system is broken and they insist that teachers unions and bad teachers are the crux of the problem. Unfortunately this is all based on anecdotal evidence as the data shows no such correlation.
But the reality is that contending that our education system is broken is a fundamentally flawed argument that Republicans are using as an excuse to push their alternate agenda of corporatize our children’s education. Corporatization which has shown to be no better than the system they are working so hard to replace.
Ironically it is the very capitalism that Republicans hold up as the answer to our lagging test scores that is actually the problem. The data shows that the biggest problem with education is poverty. If you do an apples to apples comparison using test results from American schools with 10% or less impoverished students the US comes out on top. Similarly in schools with a student body that contains 10% to 25% children living below the poverty line the US is third best in the world.
While having poor test scores is certainly a concern the fact that we have the second highest rate of childhood poverty among developed countries is an embarrassment.
And while Republicans will continue to calumniate the education profession to benefit their corporate sponsors the truth is that as long as we lead the world in income disparity and keep the playing field severely slanted in favor of the rich regaining our position as the world leaders in test scores will remain an unachievable goal.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Big spending equals great results
At the national level one of the areas of biggest concern for Republicans seems to be the cost of education. Based on the measures that have been pushed through many state legislatures it appears that Republicans believe one of the biggest problems we face as a country is that we spend too much money on education.
But if we apply the spending logic that Republicans have for other areas of government, improvements to education will require more spending not less.
For example, we as a country spend as much on national defense as the next eleven countries combined. But try and cut defense spending and Republicans throw a fit. Many, like former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, even argued for an increase defense spending.
The US spends nearly twice as much on health care as the next country on the list. But try and change it and Republicans will stand at the bully pulpit and claim the US health care system is the "greatest health care system the world has ever known".
We also spend more to incarcerate our citizens than any other country in the world. According to Fox News the US spends almost 4 times a much on inmates as it does educating students. But Republicans will tell you that this spending is needed becuase prisons play a key role providing a safe society for US citizens.
The reality is when it comes to their priorities Republicans have no problem with vastly outspending the rest of the world. And while we spend nearly 50% more on health care than the next country, and a full 310% more on defense than the second country on the list we actually spend 44% less on education than the highest spending country.
Given the fact that for Republicans outspending other countries is essentially a requirement for the US to maintain it superior performance in things like defense, health care, and citizen safety it follows that the biggest problem in education is the clear lack of commitment the government has to acheiving greatness or in Republican terms - outspending every other nation by at least 50%.
But if we apply the spending logic that Republicans have for other areas of government, improvements to education will require more spending not less.
For example, we as a country spend as much on national defense as the next eleven countries combined. But try and cut defense spending and Republicans throw a fit. Many, like former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, even argued for an increase defense spending.
The US spends nearly twice as much on health care as the next country on the list. But try and change it and Republicans will stand at the bully pulpit and claim the US health care system is the "greatest health care system the world has ever known".
We also spend more to incarcerate our citizens than any other country in the world. According to Fox News the US spends almost 4 times a much on inmates as it does educating students. But Republicans will tell you that this spending is needed becuase prisons play a key role providing a safe society for US citizens.
The reality is when it comes to their priorities Republicans have no problem with vastly outspending the rest of the world. And while we spend nearly 50% more on health care than the next country, and a full 310% more on defense than the second country on the list we actually spend 44% less on education than the highest spending country.
Given the fact that for Republicans outspending other countries is essentially a requirement for the US to maintain it superior performance in things like defense, health care, and citizen safety it follows that the biggest problem in education is the clear lack of commitment the government has to acheiving greatness or in Republican terms - outspending every other nation by at least 50%.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Time to stop big government overreach by Michigan Legislature
For years now Republicans have been calling for "common sense" regulatory reform. On GOP.gov Congressman Mike Pence stated that "The House Republican Regulatory Reform plan is a commonsense solution that puts taxpayers first".
Well good news Michigan Republicans - Bill Lucas and his organization, Voters for Fair Use of Ballot Referendum, have a petition that is right up their alley.
Over the past two years the Michigan legislature has gone out of their way to expose an issue with the Michigan constitution that clearly needs to be addressed if they truly believe in putting taxpayers first and as Wikipedia states: "The term constitution comes through French from the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations and orders".
What they do is utilize a rule in the state constitution that prevents voters from exercising their constitutional right to repeal a law using the referendum process. All it takes is inserting a small budgetary measure known as an appropriation into any bill that voters might otherwise reject.
Their test case was the a repeal of Michigan's 33 year old item pricing bill that required retailers to mark the price on every item they sell. At the time polls showed opposition to repealing this so rather than present a value case for the repeal the legislature simply removed any possibility of repeal by including an appropriation in the bill.
Once they realized that they could get away with this anti-democratic big government power grab without much push back from voters the legislature started including appropriations in any bill that might be considered remotely controversial. Right to work, the previously repealed Emergency Manager, tax on pensions, redistricting and most recently wolf hunting have all been given appropriations to exclude Michigan voters from the democratic process.
Of course these legislators know that these aren't really appropriations bills since none of them appear on the legislature.mi.gov web page labeled "Appropriation Bills". Additionally there are hundreds of bills that have passed over the last two years with bipartisan support that don't include appropriations but easily could have.
So call it regulations or constitutional loopholes the reality is the rights of the taxpayers should be put ahead of politicians and their corporate sponsors. While the legislature can prevent us from repealing certain bills they can't prevent us from amending the state constitution to put the power of government back where it belongs - in the hands of the people.
If you're interested in finding out how you can help or contributing to this cause visit the Voters for Fair Use of Ballot Referendum website to learn more.
Well good news Michigan Republicans - Bill Lucas and his organization, Voters for Fair Use of Ballot Referendum, have a petition that is right up their alley.
Over the past two years the Michigan legislature has gone out of their way to expose an issue with the Michigan constitution that clearly needs to be addressed if they truly believe in putting taxpayers first and as Wikipedia states: "The term constitution comes through French from the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations and orders".
What they do is utilize a rule in the state constitution that prevents voters from exercising their constitutional right to repeal a law using the referendum process. All it takes is inserting a small budgetary measure known as an appropriation into any bill that voters might otherwise reject.
Their test case was the a repeal of Michigan's 33 year old item pricing bill that required retailers to mark the price on every item they sell. At the time polls showed opposition to repealing this so rather than present a value case for the repeal the legislature simply removed any possibility of repeal by including an appropriation in the bill.
Once they realized that they could get away with this anti-democratic big government power grab without much push back from voters the legislature started including appropriations in any bill that might be considered remotely controversial. Right to work, the previously repealed Emergency Manager, tax on pensions, redistricting and most recently wolf hunting have all been given appropriations to exclude Michigan voters from the democratic process.
Of course these legislators know that these aren't really appropriations bills since none of them appear on the legislature.mi.gov web page labeled "Appropriation Bills". Additionally there are hundreds of bills that have passed over the last two years with bipartisan support that don't include appropriations but easily could have.
So call it regulations or constitutional loopholes the reality is the rights of the taxpayers should be put ahead of politicians and their corporate sponsors. While the legislature can prevent us from repealing certain bills they can't prevent us from amending the state constitution to put the power of government back where it belongs - in the hands of the people.
If you're interested in finding out how you can help or contributing to this cause visit the Voters for Fair Use of Ballot Referendum website to learn more.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Republicans rewriting Michigan history
Last week my colleague Joshua Pugh took aim at the Michigan House Republicans for their right wing agenda that runs counter to the interest of the people. He also called out Jase Bolger in his critique which unsurprisingly elicited a response from Representatives Bolger's press secretary Ari Adler.
Outside of the campaign style personal attack on Joshua and his employer Progress Michigan which seemed below the standards we would expect from the office of the speaker of the house, Adler made a number of salient points that many Republicans would probably blindly accept as fact. Unfortunately these claims are more talking point than accurate portrayal of the Republican accomplishments over the past two years.
For instance Mr. Adler starts off his argument by pointing out that in Michigan since Republicans took control in 2011 there have been two budgets that passed four months early avoiding the government shut downs of the past. What he conveniently fails to mention is that those shut downs were the results of the two parties being forced to compromise. The quick budget resolutions are due to Democrats being shut out of the conversation which is not something the voters of a Democrat leaning state would see as something to celebrate like Mr. Adler does.
He goes one to suggest Republicans have eliminated $20 billion dollars in debt yet the data shows that Republicans just approved a budget that leaves Michigan with the largest debt in its history and that the per person debt in Michigan has gone up every year under Republicans and currently stands at record highs.
Next Mr. Adler touts Michigan Republicans efforts to restock the Rainy Day Fund (Budget Stabilization Fund) from $2 million to $500 million. Ironically this is a thorn in the sides to both parties since Republicans would prefer that taxes be cut instead of government savings while Democrats point out that Republicans cut $1 billion from education and increased taxes on the elderly by $300 million to achieve these gains in the Rainy Day Fund.
And of course no fallacious argument would be complete without a couple of unsubstantiated feel good anecdotal non-facts so Mr. Adler says "moving companies are reporting that people are returning to Michigan" and "we are hearing from many grandparents who are thrilled to see their kids returning, bringing their grandkids with them".
But perhaps the worst argument Ari Adler makes is attributing all the job creation and other economic gains from January 2011 to Republicans. While unemployment has gone down since 2011 it was already on a steady decline before Republicans showed up. Similarly while there has been private sector job creation since January 2011 the Republicans self proclaimed job creating business tax cuts didn't even take effect until 2012.
If you really wanted to understand Michigan’s economic performance over the past decade you need look no further than business to find the answers. For decades Michigan had put all of their eggs in the auto industry basket and as the big three lost ground so did Michigan. Ford for example lost more money in 2006 than at any point in the companies history. Given these huge losses they cut staff, downsized facilities and invested in the next generation of products. Three years later they emerged a profitable company.
Michigan followed a very similar path of cutting, downsizing and investing. Now years late thanks to the resurgence of the automotive industry, a focus on diversification, and years of government cuts paired with tax increases which Republicans have mainly left unchanged - Michigan is making a comeback.
While Ari Adler is long on talking points meant to fool voters into thinking this is solely a Republican recovery he never once mentions a single piece of legislation passed by his boss when talking about these improvements. Make no mistake; this was not an oversight on his part. The reality is Mr. Adler knows Michigan Republicans are just the beneficiaries of hard choices made by the previous administration, smart decisions by the auto industry and a resurging US economy. But if Ari Adler wants to give the new wave a Republicans the credit they deserve he can thank than for setting up Jase Bolger to become the next Minority Leader starting in January 2015.
Outside of the campaign style personal attack on Joshua and his employer Progress Michigan which seemed below the standards we would expect from the office of the speaker of the house, Adler made a number of salient points that many Republicans would probably blindly accept as fact. Unfortunately these claims are more talking point than accurate portrayal of the Republican accomplishments over the past two years.
For instance Mr. Adler starts off his argument by pointing out that in Michigan since Republicans took control in 2011 there have been two budgets that passed four months early avoiding the government shut downs of the past. What he conveniently fails to mention is that those shut downs were the results of the two parties being forced to compromise. The quick budget resolutions are due to Democrats being shut out of the conversation which is not something the voters of a Democrat leaning state would see as something to celebrate like Mr. Adler does.
He goes one to suggest Republicans have eliminated $20 billion dollars in debt yet the data shows that Republicans just approved a budget that leaves Michigan with the largest debt in its history and that the per person debt in Michigan has gone up every year under Republicans and currently stands at record highs.
Next Mr. Adler touts Michigan Republicans efforts to restock the Rainy Day Fund (Budget Stabilization Fund) from $2 million to $500 million. Ironically this is a thorn in the sides to both parties since Republicans would prefer that taxes be cut instead of government savings while Democrats point out that Republicans cut $1 billion from education and increased taxes on the elderly by $300 million to achieve these gains in the Rainy Day Fund.
And of course no fallacious argument would be complete without a couple of unsubstantiated feel good anecdotal non-facts so Mr. Adler says "moving companies are reporting that people are returning to Michigan" and "we are hearing from many grandparents who are thrilled to see their kids returning, bringing their grandkids with them".
But perhaps the worst argument Ari Adler makes is attributing all the job creation and other economic gains from January 2011 to Republicans. While unemployment has gone down since 2011 it was already on a steady decline before Republicans showed up. Similarly while there has been private sector job creation since January 2011 the Republicans self proclaimed job creating business tax cuts didn't even take effect until 2012.
If you really wanted to understand Michigan’s economic performance over the past decade you need look no further than business to find the answers. For decades Michigan had put all of their eggs in the auto industry basket and as the big three lost ground so did Michigan. Ford for example lost more money in 2006 than at any point in the companies history. Given these huge losses they cut staff, downsized facilities and invested in the next generation of products. Three years later they emerged a profitable company.
Michigan followed a very similar path of cutting, downsizing and investing. Now years late thanks to the resurgence of the automotive industry, a focus on diversification, and years of government cuts paired with tax increases which Republicans have mainly left unchanged - Michigan is making a comeback.
While Ari Adler is long on talking points meant to fool voters into thinking this is solely a Republican recovery he never once mentions a single piece of legislation passed by his boss when talking about these improvements. Make no mistake; this was not an oversight on his part. The reality is Mr. Adler knows Michigan Republicans are just the beneficiaries of hard choices made by the previous administration, smart decisions by the auto industry and a resurging US economy. But if Ari Adler wants to give the new wave a Republicans the credit they deserve he can thank than for setting up Jase Bolger to become the next Minority Leader starting in January 2015.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Regulations: The enemy of no one
A core aspect of the Republican platform over recent years is the desire to eliminate government regulations. The rationale most often associated with this push is the idea that government regulations cost jobs. Unfortunately jobs are really just a red herring in this argument since the actual impetus has more to do with corporate profits and campaign donations than jobs.
The reality is that even if one product is deemed unacceptable, the market demand for that product will still exist and whatever products fills the void should create an equivalent number of jobs. In the past, for example, when it was determined that asbestos and lead paint cost lives, the government, as the protector of the people, stepped in and essentially regulated these products out of business. Luckily at the time corporate money was much less important and the good of the people easily trumped "jobs" or any other misdirection corporations could dream up.
Did the country suddenly slip into a recession because the asbestos and lead paint industries no longer existed? No. Instead other companies that produced better products which were less harmful gain market share.
Today a similar war is being waged over coal, but now corporate money is wagging the dog and the good of the people has taken a backseat.
Employees in the coal industry are nearly seven times a likely to die on the job than similar occupations. They also miss four times as many days of work. Additionally some 24,000 people die each year from the affects of coal. So regardless of how many hypothetical jobs are lost in the conversion to clean energy, as long as another product is available and is less detrimental, we should support that change.
The problem here is that Republicans are portraying regulations as the enemy instead of the public protection devise they really are.
The truth is, regulations only exist because some unscrupulous or ignorant person or corporation messed it up for the rest of us. When congress passed Dodd-Frank is was a result of banks acting badly not some imaginary lust for punishing big business. When a compounding facility in Massachusetts failed to operate within the law - causing a fungal meningitis outbreak that has claimed fifty lives so far - calls to increase regulations are an effort to prevent future issues not an affront to capitalism. And when Congress passed Sarbanes–Oxley it was a direct result of Enron's failure to self-regulate costing many their life savings and thousands of jobs not some socialist government overreach.
The vast majority of Americans would love it if their mortgage documents were a few short pages instead of a Stephen King like horror novel or if they could board a plane without having to take off half of their clothes however the same greed and drive that make capitalism so successful also leads to many doing whatever it takes to increase their share of the pie. Pretending that preventing these deviants from being able to act unimpeded is the main reason for our sluggish economy helps no one but the very corporate despoilers that precipitated the problems in the first place.
The reality is that even if one product is deemed unacceptable, the market demand for that product will still exist and whatever products fills the void should create an equivalent number of jobs. In the past, for example, when it was determined that asbestos and lead paint cost lives, the government, as the protector of the people, stepped in and essentially regulated these products out of business. Luckily at the time corporate money was much less important and the good of the people easily trumped "jobs" or any other misdirection corporations could dream up.
Did the country suddenly slip into a recession because the asbestos and lead paint industries no longer existed? No. Instead other companies that produced better products which were less harmful gain market share.
Today a similar war is being waged over coal, but now corporate money is wagging the dog and the good of the people has taken a backseat.
Employees in the coal industry are nearly seven times a likely to die on the job than similar occupations. They also miss four times as many days of work. Additionally some 24,000 people die each year from the affects of coal. So regardless of how many hypothetical jobs are lost in the conversion to clean energy, as long as another product is available and is less detrimental, we should support that change.
The problem here is that Republicans are portraying regulations as the enemy instead of the public protection devise they really are.
The truth is, regulations only exist because some unscrupulous or ignorant person or corporation messed it up for the rest of us. When congress passed Dodd-Frank is was a result of banks acting badly not some imaginary lust for punishing big business. When a compounding facility in Massachusetts failed to operate within the law - causing a fungal meningitis outbreak that has claimed fifty lives so far - calls to increase regulations are an effort to prevent future issues not an affront to capitalism. And when Congress passed Sarbanes–Oxley it was a direct result of Enron's failure to self-regulate costing many their life savings and thousands of jobs not some socialist government overreach.
The vast majority of Americans would love it if their mortgage documents were a few short pages instead of a Stephen King like horror novel or if they could board a plane without having to take off half of their clothes however the same greed and drive that make capitalism so successful also leads to many doing whatever it takes to increase their share of the pie. Pretending that preventing these deviants from being able to act unimpeded is the main reason for our sluggish economy helps no one but the very corporate despoilers that precipitated the problems in the first place.
Friday, April 5, 2013
The government and market greed
In an effort to extol the virtues of capitalism my colleague Gary Wolfram a piece in which he blames government cost controls for long lines at gas stations after Hurricane Sandy.
Unfortunately this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The reality is that after this catastrophe there was a spike in demand for gasoline since the power was out for millions of people. Additionally the supply was limited since some gas stations did not have backup generators handy. Simple supply and demand was the reason for long lines at gas stations after Hurricane Sandy not socialism.
To further the fallacy Mr. Wolfram claims that no such lines existed for other products such as "milk, bread, coffee, sugar etc...”. A quick image search of Hurricane Sandy grocery stores would refute this position. Also contrary to what Gary would have you believe there were long lines for items like milk, bread, water, and sugar. And unlike is assertion the market didn't suddenly produce more of these items to meet demand. Instead you can find photos of empty shelves.
Of course it should be noted that if price controls are somehow to blame then we should be seeing long lines for milk every day since milk has been price controlled by both Republicans and Democrat lead congress' since 1949.
But the biggest problem here is this idea that somehow Democrats, liberals, independents, and R.I.N.O's who support some government involvement are against the free market. Polls show this isn't even remotely accurate. Instead these polls show that Democrats have a general mistrust of large corporations similar to the mistrust that Republicans have for the Federal Government.
Those who support legislation against price gouging in cases of emergency are not fighting against capitalism, they are fighting for the fair treatment of those who would be pushed out of the market if prices of everyday staples suddenly spiked.
The truth is Hurricane Sandy represents the best of government not the worst.
Unfortunately this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The reality is that after this catastrophe there was a spike in demand for gasoline since the power was out for millions of people. Additionally the supply was limited since some gas stations did not have backup generators handy. Simple supply and demand was the reason for long lines at gas stations after Hurricane Sandy not socialism.
To further the fallacy Mr. Wolfram claims that no such lines existed for other products such as "milk, bread, coffee, sugar etc...”. A quick image search of Hurricane Sandy grocery stores would refute this position. Also contrary to what Gary would have you believe there were long lines for items like milk, bread, water, and sugar. And unlike is assertion the market didn't suddenly produce more of these items to meet demand. Instead you can find photos of empty shelves.
Of course it should be noted that if price controls are somehow to blame then we should be seeing long lines for milk every day since milk has been price controlled by both Republicans and Democrat lead congress' since 1949.
But the biggest problem here is this idea that somehow Democrats, liberals, independents, and R.I.N.O's who support some government involvement are against the free market. Polls show this isn't even remotely accurate. Instead these polls show that Democrats have a general mistrust of large corporations similar to the mistrust that Republicans have for the Federal Government.
Those who support legislation against price gouging in cases of emergency are not fighting against capitalism, they are fighting for the fair treatment of those who would be pushed out of the market if prices of everyday staples suddenly spiked.
The truth is Hurricane Sandy represents the best of government not the worst.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Choosing money over life is un-American
In an attempt to drum up fear, the oil industry recently released data suggesting new EPA rules meant to clean up sulfur pollution from gasoline will add as much as $0.09 per gallon to the cost of fuel for your car. The EPA however feels the cost would be closer to $0.01 per gallon since refineries are already producing gasoline with the same specs for other countries.
The EPA estimates that the change will save 2,400 people per year from dying a premature death and prevent as many as 23,000 cases of respiratory illness in children per year.
China is experiencing a similar pollution issue which has had devastating consequences. It is currently estimated that air pollution in China prematurely ends the lives of 1.2 million Chinese residents per year, costing the economy a full 5.8% of GDP.
So while the Oil industry and others may be sounding the alarms regarding the costs of fixing a problem that cuts short the lives of thousands while also making life much more difficult for tens of thousands more the reality is that doing nothing also has a cost which we are already paying.
Of course the real irony here for those who oppose the EPA change is what many of them do support. If money is the sole concern we should consider ending our patent system since it is estimated that this adds 13% to the cost of an item like a cell phone. While 22 Republican Senators voted against it, domestic violence against women leads to over 1,200 deaths per year while costing over $5 billion a year in health care costs. And when it comes to saving a collection of cells, anti-abortion advocates spare no expense even putting measures in place to increase the cost of the medical procedure to remove these unwanted cells.
The reality is that increased costs are a red herring in this debate. Most would gladly spend an extra hundred dollars a year if they knew it would give them more time to spend with elderly family members. Unfortunately we have reached a point where politics now trumps decency and compassion and we get people booing a serviceman because he is gay, cheering the death of an uninsured man, and wild applause for executing death row inmates.
While most Americans could use more dollars in their pocket, believing that a nominal amount of cash is an acceptable rationale for letting others suffer and die shows that as a country our biggest deficiency has nothing to do with money.
The EPA estimates that the change will save 2,400 people per year from dying a premature death and prevent as many as 23,000 cases of respiratory illness in children per year.
China is experiencing a similar pollution issue which has had devastating consequences. It is currently estimated that air pollution in China prematurely ends the lives of 1.2 million Chinese residents per year, costing the economy a full 5.8% of GDP.
So while the Oil industry and others may be sounding the alarms regarding the costs of fixing a problem that cuts short the lives of thousands while also making life much more difficult for tens of thousands more the reality is that doing nothing also has a cost which we are already paying.
Of course the real irony here for those who oppose the EPA change is what many of them do support. If money is the sole concern we should consider ending our patent system since it is estimated that this adds 13% to the cost of an item like a cell phone. While 22 Republican Senators voted against it, domestic violence against women leads to over 1,200 deaths per year while costing over $5 billion a year in health care costs. And when it comes to saving a collection of cells, anti-abortion advocates spare no expense even putting measures in place to increase the cost of the medical procedure to remove these unwanted cells.
The reality is that increased costs are a red herring in this debate. Most would gladly spend an extra hundred dollars a year if they knew it would give them more time to spend with elderly family members. Unfortunately we have reached a point where politics now trumps decency and compassion and we get people booing a serviceman because he is gay, cheering the death of an uninsured man, and wild applause for executing death row inmates.
While most Americans could use more dollars in their pocket, believing that a nominal amount of cash is an acceptable rationale for letting others suffer and die shows that as a country our biggest deficiency has nothing to do with money.
Gay Marriage, Bestiality and Polygamy - one of these things is not like the others
One of the queerest arguments I've heard against gay marriage is the slippery slope idea that if gays are allowed to get married then a man marrying an animal or a man having multiple wives is next.
It should be noted that zoophilia and polygamy are both illegal while being gay is not. The reality is that being gay does not preclude one from getting a license to drive, vote or purchase a handgun. So if gay marriage is not illegal and homosexuals are not seen as second class citizens by any other measure why should they be subject to restrictions others are not.
Of course these people never consider the counterfactual to their simplistic argument. If sexual orientation can be used to discriminate when it comes to marriage what's next? Perhaps these same people will take aim at other sinners like overweight gluttons, lazy sloths or those who exhibited the rage of wrath. But why stop there, felons aren't allowed to own a gun so why should they be allowed to get a marriage license? Adulterers have obviously proven they aren't serious about the solemn vows of marriage. Maybe anyone with a handicap shouldn't be given the opportunity to share their life with someone. Marriages between individuals of different faiths are three times as likely to end in divorce so why let them get married in the first place. Also some believe the purpose of marriage is to birth children so perhaps anyone incapable of producing offspring shouldn't be allowed to marry.
The reason these people manufacture such off the wall arguments is because there is no reality based justification for their bigotry. If these people really cared as deeply as the claim about the institution of marriage they would put their anti-gay energy into improving marriages instead of restricting who can marry. With nearly 50% of marriages ending in divorce they could use their exuberance to lower that number by eliminating spousal abuse, helping some before they have an affair, counseling those with addiction, warning people of the pitfalls of working too much or increasing everyone's educational achievement - all of which will lower divorce rates and secure the sanctity of marriage.
But if you think that 1 in 25 people that you see on the street who were born gay are somehow inhuman deviants who deserve to have their rights restricted - I will pray for you.
It should be noted that zoophilia and polygamy are both illegal while being gay is not. The reality is that being gay does not preclude one from getting a license to drive, vote or purchase a handgun. So if gay marriage is not illegal and homosexuals are not seen as second class citizens by any other measure why should they be subject to restrictions others are not.
Of course these people never consider the counterfactual to their simplistic argument. If sexual orientation can be used to discriminate when it comes to marriage what's next? Perhaps these same people will take aim at other sinners like overweight gluttons, lazy sloths or those who exhibited the rage of wrath. But why stop there, felons aren't allowed to own a gun so why should they be allowed to get a marriage license? Adulterers have obviously proven they aren't serious about the solemn vows of marriage. Maybe anyone with a handicap shouldn't be given the opportunity to share their life with someone. Marriages between individuals of different faiths are three times as likely to end in divorce so why let them get married in the first place. Also some believe the purpose of marriage is to birth children so perhaps anyone incapable of producing offspring shouldn't be allowed to marry.
The reason these people manufacture such off the wall arguments is because there is no reality based justification for their bigotry. If these people really cared as deeply as the claim about the institution of marriage they would put their anti-gay energy into improving marriages instead of restricting who can marry. With nearly 50% of marriages ending in divorce they could use their exuberance to lower that number by eliminating spousal abuse, helping some before they have an affair, counseling those with addiction, warning people of the pitfalls of working too much or increasing everyone's educational achievement - all of which will lower divorce rates and secure the sanctity of marriage.
But if you think that 1 in 25 people that you see on the street who were born gay are somehow inhuman deviants who deserve to have their rights restricted - I will pray for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
