Republicans are always looking for ways to cut the tax burden because as they say they want "to make sure you keep more of your money". So when presented with the opportunity to save Michigan families an average of $1,000 per year, you would think Michigan Republicans would be falling all over themselves to make this happen. Unfortunately that is not the case.
According to the Michigan Section of the American Society for Civil Engineers, the current condition of Michigan's roads and bridges costs the average family over $1,000 per year. This is a direct result of the damage incurred by residents and companies who use these roads and bridges.
Reports show that the overall condition of Michigan's bridges ranks it as the 13th worst state in the nation with 13.1% of bridges being "structurally deficient" and a full 76 bridges closed due to lack of funds to fix them. Michigan also ranks 29th in urban interstate pavement condition and 43rd in rural pavement condition.
And while the governor has given a lot of lip service to creating an environment where companies can flourish the Republican controlled legislature has balked at any increase in spending to this point. But if these legislators did a little research they would find that good roads and bridges are one the biggest things states can do to attract business. Even the Republican bastion of tax policy, Texas, is considering raising taxes to pay for better roads that the state’s business community is demanding.
Of course the concern from Republicans is that fixing roads costs money. However outside of the $1,000 each Michigan family will save each year investing in infrastructure also creates construction jobs as well as supply chain jobs that Michigan could desperately use.
The reality is that if we expect to move Michigan to the top of the pack for job creation we have to make sure that the roads and bridges are able to move people to and from work, transport products from companies to market, and get consumers to the products and services they need. Insisting that the money isn’t available when the business case shows improving roads and bridges offers a better return on your investment than other government “solutions”, is an embarrassing example of officials cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
Broken education, flawless Health Care: a Republican fallacy
When it comes to education, many Republicans like very little of the current system. They believe the system is broken and are using this belief to implement changes.
The changes most of these people would like to see include more charter schools, a merit pay based system of compensation, remove unions from education, reduce pay and benefits for teachers, change or eliminate tenure, offer vouchers, and set standards for achievement.
Unfortunately data shows that none of these ideas has a proven track record of improving our supposedly broken education system. These ideas do, however, conform to the Republicans free market ideology which says that anything the public sector can do; the private sector can do better.
And while Republicans seem perfectly willing to make drastic changes to education using the power of the government when you have this same sort of debate regarding our supposedly broken health care system - Republicans feel differently.
For example while some 80% of Republicans favor privatization of public education only 39% favor privatizing Medicare.
In response to the Independent Payment Advisory Board portion of the Affordable Care Act that sets standards for "best practices" Republicans like Mitt Romney said "Perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor" while when talking about setting similar standards for education Jeb Bush stated "I can’t accept the dumbed-down standards and expectations that exist in almost all of our schools today".
Our world rankings show that the US is in the middle of the pack when it comes to how students perform on international tests yet our health care outcomes are equally as bad, if not worse.
Many believe our education system fails students yet 25% of hospitalized patients are harmed by medical errors accounting for as many as 225,000 deaths per year. In education Republicans blame "bad teachers" and call for new rules and regulations however in the medical field Republicans call for tort reform to limit a doctor’s liability for being a bad doctor.
When it comes to money Republicans believe teachers are overpaid yet US teachers pay ranks 22nd out of 27 countries while medical professionals not only hold the top 8 positions in Forbes best paid jobs - beating out the number 10 ranked CEO's - but many also rank number one in the world when it comes to salary.
We spend over 50% more on health care than the next country on the list while we spend around 44% less on education than the highest spending country.
While many complain that teachers get too much time off the Wall Street Journal shows that US teachers spend more time instructing students than any other nation and log 1913 hours per year while the average family physician works 43 hours a week with 5 to 7 weeks of paid time off per year for a total of 1926 to 2025 worked per year.
Firing teachers, especially those with tenure, is considered impossible by many yet in states like Texas a tenured teacher is twice as likely to be fired as a physician is to lose his license. And while many complain that it is expensive and time consuming to fire a tenured teacher; according to the American Medical News firing a physician can "take six months and cost about $10,000, while others can take more than a decade and cost $10 million". Additionally the attrition rate for teachers (16.8%) is nearly three times as high as the attrition rate for physicians (6.1%).
Teachers unions are considered a major problem for improving education yet little is made of the fact that "15% of all hospital workers belong to a union" and union membership is increasing in the healthcare industry.
And even with all this information available that shows just how similar the two systems may be the vast majority of Republicans believe that our education system is broken while 68% of them believe that our healthcare system is the "best in the world". Ironically these two beliefs exist because of a lack of education.
The changes most of these people would like to see include more charter schools, a merit pay based system of compensation, remove unions from education, reduce pay and benefits for teachers, change or eliminate tenure, offer vouchers, and set standards for achievement.
Unfortunately data shows that none of these ideas has a proven track record of improving our supposedly broken education system. These ideas do, however, conform to the Republicans free market ideology which says that anything the public sector can do; the private sector can do better.
And while Republicans seem perfectly willing to make drastic changes to education using the power of the government when you have this same sort of debate regarding our supposedly broken health care system - Republicans feel differently.
For example while some 80% of Republicans favor privatization of public education only 39% favor privatizing Medicare.
In response to the Independent Payment Advisory Board portion of the Affordable Care Act that sets standards for "best practices" Republicans like Mitt Romney said "Perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor" while when talking about setting similar standards for education Jeb Bush stated "I can’t accept the dumbed-down standards and expectations that exist in almost all of our schools today".
Our world rankings show that the US is in the middle of the pack when it comes to how students perform on international tests yet our health care outcomes are equally as bad, if not worse.
Many believe our education system fails students yet 25% of hospitalized patients are harmed by medical errors accounting for as many as 225,000 deaths per year. In education Republicans blame "bad teachers" and call for new rules and regulations however in the medical field Republicans call for tort reform to limit a doctor’s liability for being a bad doctor.
When it comes to money Republicans believe teachers are overpaid yet US teachers pay ranks 22nd out of 27 countries while medical professionals not only hold the top 8 positions in Forbes best paid jobs - beating out the number 10 ranked CEO's - but many also rank number one in the world when it comes to salary.
We spend over 50% more on health care than the next country on the list while we spend around 44% less on education than the highest spending country.
While many complain that teachers get too much time off the Wall Street Journal shows that US teachers spend more time instructing students than any other nation and log 1913 hours per year while the average family physician works 43 hours a week with 5 to 7 weeks of paid time off per year for a total of 1926 to 2025 worked per year.
Firing teachers, especially those with tenure, is considered impossible by many yet in states like Texas a tenured teacher is twice as likely to be fired as a physician is to lose his license. And while many complain that it is expensive and time consuming to fire a tenured teacher; according to the American Medical News firing a physician can "take six months and cost about $10,000, while others can take more than a decade and cost $10 million". Additionally the attrition rate for teachers (16.8%) is nearly three times as high as the attrition rate for physicians (6.1%).
Teachers unions are considered a major problem for improving education yet little is made of the fact that "15% of all hospital workers belong to a union" and union membership is increasing in the healthcare industry.
And even with all this information available that shows just how similar the two systems may be the vast majority of Republicans believe that our education system is broken while 68% of them believe that our healthcare system is the "best in the world". Ironically these two beliefs exist because of a lack of education.
Friday, August 9, 2013
US dominance - the true renewable energy incentive
Polls show that if you don't believe in global warming, odds are you are a Republican. So it comes as no surprise that discussions about reducing Carbon Dioxide pollution, that may cause as many as 2 million deaths per year, and mitigate its impact, often rub conservatives the wrong way.
In isolation their resistance makes some sense. It checks off many of their talking points - Big government overreach, Job killing regulations, and Free market superiority. But in the big picture, selecting recent CO2 regulations on the coal industry or incentives for products like the Chevy Volt, for extra scrutiny seems disingenuous.
The reality is the US has a long and glorious history of using tax dollars to promote changes under the guise of "public good". In the mid to early part of the 20th century the US spent around $157 billion to win the space race because it was "seen as necessary for national security and symbolic of technological and ideological superiority". The fact that it was the government, using tax dollars, that delivered this win didn't matter.
Without government involvement the cost to research and develop the technology necessary for the moon landing was out of reach for even the largest private sector companies. The same has been true for nearly a century in the energy sector. When oil was first being developed as an energy source for widespread use in America, the government provided subsidies to help ameliorate the exorbitant costs. As a matter of fact in the first fifteen years of oil production in the US the average government subsidy was $4.86 billion in 2009 dollars or over thirteen times more than the $0.37 billion of support provided to renewable energy in its first fifteen years. This is also the case with Nuclear energy and biofuels that received an average of $3.5 and $1.08 billion respectively.
We also have a history in the US of regulating industry either as a way to reduce energy use or to improve the environment.
- Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to regulate contamination in the food supply.
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 to regulate the use of pesticides.
- Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to regulate the use of Nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste.
- Clean Air Act of 1970 to regulate air quality and control air pollution.
- Clean Water Act of 1972 to set standards for water quality and purity.
- Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 to regulate our drinking water.
- Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to regulate the coal mining industry and prevent damage to the public and the environment.
- Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 to require companies to disclose information regarding chemical they release.
- National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 that set standards for energy efficiency of household appliances.
- Montreal Protocol of 1989 to regulate the use of ozone depleting chemicals.
Unlike today, concern for public safety and the environment held no political affiliation. This list contains legislation signed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. And while many companies and industries were adversely affected, protecting the public and the environment were given a higher priority than corporate profits.
Additionally, while regulations have been one form of government involvement in shaping individual and corporate actions, incentives offer another shining example. The home mortgage deduction, the capital gains tax rate, tax deferred retirement savings, and charitable deductions all serve to increase a certain behavior by rewarding it monetarily, with a nice tax deduction. Even the bastion of conservative policy, Texas, makes extensive use of government incentives - giving out nearly 25% of all government incentives offered by states and as much as the next four states combined.
The truth is that many of America's greatest inventions and products exist because of the unique symbiotic relationship the public and private sector have. Personal opinions on global warming and climate change have no bearing on the value of energy independence and the economic potential that renewable energy offers. Developing new products that help the US maintain technological superiority and protecting American citizens are part of the American fabric. Pretending that support for renewable energy is somehow unpatriotic ignores history and threatens a system that spawned a super power.
In isolation their resistance makes some sense. It checks off many of their talking points - Big government overreach, Job killing regulations, and Free market superiority. But in the big picture, selecting recent CO2 regulations on the coal industry or incentives for products like the Chevy Volt, for extra scrutiny seems disingenuous.
The reality is the US has a long and glorious history of using tax dollars to promote changes under the guise of "public good". In the mid to early part of the 20th century the US spent around $157 billion to win the space race because it was "seen as necessary for national security and symbolic of technological and ideological superiority". The fact that it was the government, using tax dollars, that delivered this win didn't matter.
Without government involvement the cost to research and develop the technology necessary for the moon landing was out of reach for even the largest private sector companies. The same has been true for nearly a century in the energy sector. When oil was first being developed as an energy source for widespread use in America, the government provided subsidies to help ameliorate the exorbitant costs. As a matter of fact in the first fifteen years of oil production in the US the average government subsidy was $4.86 billion in 2009 dollars or over thirteen times more than the $0.37 billion of support provided to renewable energy in its first fifteen years. This is also the case with Nuclear energy and biofuels that received an average of $3.5 and $1.08 billion respectively.
We also have a history in the US of regulating industry either as a way to reduce energy use or to improve the environment.
- Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to regulate contamination in the food supply.
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 to regulate the use of pesticides.
- Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to regulate the use of Nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste.
- Clean Air Act of 1970 to regulate air quality and control air pollution.
- Clean Water Act of 1972 to set standards for water quality and purity.
- Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 to regulate our drinking water.
- Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to regulate the coal mining industry and prevent damage to the public and the environment.
- Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 to require companies to disclose information regarding chemical they release.
- National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 that set standards for energy efficiency of household appliances.
- Montreal Protocol of 1989 to regulate the use of ozone depleting chemicals.
Unlike today, concern for public safety and the environment held no political affiliation. This list contains legislation signed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. And while many companies and industries were adversely affected, protecting the public and the environment were given a higher priority than corporate profits.
Additionally, while regulations have been one form of government involvement in shaping individual and corporate actions, incentives offer another shining example. The home mortgage deduction, the capital gains tax rate, tax deferred retirement savings, and charitable deductions all serve to increase a certain behavior by rewarding it monetarily, with a nice tax deduction. Even the bastion of conservative policy, Texas, makes extensive use of government incentives - giving out nearly 25% of all government incentives offered by states and as much as the next four states combined.
The truth is that many of America's greatest inventions and products exist because of the unique symbiotic relationship the public and private sector have. Personal opinions on global warming and climate change have no bearing on the value of energy independence and the economic potential that renewable energy offers. Developing new products that help the US maintain technological superiority and protecting American citizens are part of the American fabric. Pretending that support for renewable energy is somehow unpatriotic ignores history and threatens a system that spawned a super power.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Ignorance and pride - the tenets of racism
Since the George Zimmerman acquittal there has been a lot of discussion on this blog an elsewhere on the topic of race. Given the tragic nature of this event these discussions about race and racism in the US offer a silver lining to a particularly stormy cloud.
Unfortunately rather than having a dialogue that leads to greater understanding many double down on their previously held bias. For example even though Republicans are two and a half times more likely to exhibit explicit racism such as portraying blacks as being more criminal with stats like 50% of all murders are committed by African Americans. While this statistic is true its use is inherently racist since multiple studies have shown that the disproportionality in murder rates are "entirely accounted for by differences in socioeconomic status" - meaning the color of one's skin has a correlation but not causation.
The problem is that most people don't recognize their own racism so while a majority of Americans harbor some racist views only one in eight is willing to admit they are racist. Of course it should come as no surprise that rather than accepting and addressing their own failures people are much more likely deflect and blame others. A recent example of this can be found in the comments made by Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn. Mr. Arnn believes the Michigan Department of Education sent representatives to his campus to count the number of black students. The MDE says such claims are untrue. Regardless in a hearing in Lansing Larry Arnn used the term "dark ones" to describe African Americans.
Even though he later apologized he used the term multiple times which suggests he is unaware of how anyone might take offense to such a term. Additionally the apology issued on Larry Arnn's behalf suggests that the school - termed the "citadel of American conservatism" by the National Review - has fully embraced the belief that racism is a liberal media fallacy by stating "No offense was intended by the use of that term except to the offending bureaucrats. Dr. Arnn is sorry if such offense was honestly taken."
So Larry Arnn assumed he was being targeted for racism and then made insensitive comments to defend against these perceived claims of racism and topped it off by having the school issue his apology just in case anyone was possibly "honestly" offended by being referred to as "dark ones".
Fortunately very few people are willing to defend racist terms like the one Dr. Arnn used however they are more than happy to deflect attention by suggesting the only people who really care about racism are those who profit from perpetuating it. In conservative circles this means Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal media. Of course if these people were being truly honest in their criticism they would point out the Fox News and other conservative media outlets benefit from race pimping just as often. Cases like that of George Zimmerman, Shirley Sherrod, ACORN, the Black Panthers, and Reverend Wright were staples of the conservative media over the past few years. These examples are offered to enrage not engage by supplying examples of supposedly racist blacks all for the sake of ratings.
Another example of this pseudo concern is the "N" word. Some people whine that it is unfair that blacks can use this term while whites cannot. The reality is that there is no law against the "N" word. Feel free to use it as often as you like. But be prepared for the consequences because regardless of your skin color there are a number of people who will be offended when you use the "N" word in most settings. Does anyone seriously think the President could step to the podium and drop a few "N" bombs without any repercussions? The truth is that contrary to the popular narrative very few people - black or white - make the "N" word a common part of their vernacular. Of course it should be noted that people of all colors and creeds refer to their friends using words and phrases that they would consider offensive coming from strangers or in a professional setting.
Having said that, I imagine nearly every African American person in the US would happily trade in the use of the "N" word for equal treatment in every other area of society.
But that's where the problem comes from. We have a conservative media that asks "why does everything always have to be about race" and then they hypocritically devote their entire program to discussing race. The people on the right doing the race pimping don't get that they are race pimping. They truly believe that they are just defending themselves.
In the end if legitimate concerns are always dismissed as race baiting and the echo chamber justifies your racism instead of questioning how these words could be perceived as offensive we will be doomed to repeat this divisive pattern for years to come.
Unfortunately rather than having a dialogue that leads to greater understanding many double down on their previously held bias. For example even though Republicans are two and a half times more likely to exhibit explicit racism such as portraying blacks as being more criminal with stats like 50% of all murders are committed by African Americans. While this statistic is true its use is inherently racist since multiple studies have shown that the disproportionality in murder rates are "entirely accounted for by differences in socioeconomic status" - meaning the color of one's skin has a correlation but not causation.
The problem is that most people don't recognize their own racism so while a majority of Americans harbor some racist views only one in eight is willing to admit they are racist. Of course it should come as no surprise that rather than accepting and addressing their own failures people are much more likely deflect and blame others. A recent example of this can be found in the comments made by Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn. Mr. Arnn believes the Michigan Department of Education sent representatives to his campus to count the number of black students. The MDE says such claims are untrue. Regardless in a hearing in Lansing Larry Arnn used the term "dark ones" to describe African Americans.
Even though he later apologized he used the term multiple times which suggests he is unaware of how anyone might take offense to such a term. Additionally the apology issued on Larry Arnn's behalf suggests that the school - termed the "citadel of American conservatism" by the National Review - has fully embraced the belief that racism is a liberal media fallacy by stating "No offense was intended by the use of that term except to the offending bureaucrats. Dr. Arnn is sorry if such offense was honestly taken."
So Larry Arnn assumed he was being targeted for racism and then made insensitive comments to defend against these perceived claims of racism and topped it off by having the school issue his apology just in case anyone was possibly "honestly" offended by being referred to as "dark ones".
Fortunately very few people are willing to defend racist terms like the one Dr. Arnn used however they are more than happy to deflect attention by suggesting the only people who really care about racism are those who profit from perpetuating it. In conservative circles this means Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal media. Of course if these people were being truly honest in their criticism they would point out the Fox News and other conservative media outlets benefit from race pimping just as often. Cases like that of George Zimmerman, Shirley Sherrod, ACORN, the Black Panthers, and Reverend Wright were staples of the conservative media over the past few years. These examples are offered to enrage not engage by supplying examples of supposedly racist blacks all for the sake of ratings.
Another example of this pseudo concern is the "N" word. Some people whine that it is unfair that blacks can use this term while whites cannot. The reality is that there is no law against the "N" word. Feel free to use it as often as you like. But be prepared for the consequences because regardless of your skin color there are a number of people who will be offended when you use the "N" word in most settings. Does anyone seriously think the President could step to the podium and drop a few "N" bombs without any repercussions? The truth is that contrary to the popular narrative very few people - black or white - make the "N" word a common part of their vernacular. Of course it should be noted that people of all colors and creeds refer to their friends using words and phrases that they would consider offensive coming from strangers or in a professional setting.
Having said that, I imagine nearly every African American person in the US would happily trade in the use of the "N" word for equal treatment in every other area of society.
But that's where the problem comes from. We have a conservative media that asks "why does everything always have to be about race" and then they hypocritically devote their entire program to discussing race. The people on the right doing the race pimping don't get that they are race pimping. They truly believe that they are just defending themselves.
In the end if legitimate concerns are always dismissed as race baiting and the echo chamber justifies your racism instead of questioning how these words could be perceived as offensive we will be doomed to repeat this divisive pattern for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
