There's nothing nuclear about the nuclear option

Harry Reid and Senate Democrats made waves last week when they detonated the "nuclear option". Thanks to this change in Senate rules, ending debate on judicial nominees will only require 51 votes instead of the previous 60 vote requirement.

It should be noted this change does not affect the typical Senate filibuster we have all come to know and love. So Mitch McConnell and company are free to continue to block every piece of legislation brought before the chamber and will likely use the threat of filibuster on legislation as a proxy filibuster for judicial nominees.

Not too long ago this was called the "Constitutional Option" by Rush Limbaugh and the "path to a military state" by the Daily Kos. Unfortunately Congress has become just another step in getting re-elected so voting or not voting now has more to do with establishing a Congressman's partisan cred than actually accomplishing any legislative priorities.

As an example in the debate before the nuclear option was passed Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said "You'll regret this and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think,” but if this change was so immoral and unconscionable wouldn't Republicans just take the high ground and stand on the side of righteousness by changing the rules back the first chance they get? You don't get to complain about something being borderline illegal or unconstitutional, pretend to be the party of adults, and then threaten retaliation because hey, "they did it first".

The reality is that if Democrats had blocked this many of President Romney's judicial nominees, Republicans would have changed the rules as well.

But this is certainly not the only affront to democracy that this country has experienced recently.

In Michigan the Governor has the power to essentially invalidate local elections by appointing and Emergency Manager. While the electorate voted down this power, the Republican legislature devised a new EM bill and made it impossible for voters to repeal.

Across the country Republican legislatures are making it more difficult to vote by changing polling locations, shortening the voting period and requiring additional documentation. For some the goal is to disenfranchise voters and stack the deck in their favor.

In many southern states the laws for women considering an abortion are slowly eroding women's rights with many states attempting to force women to endure invasive and unnecessary procedures.

29 states amended their constitution to deny same sex couples the right to marriage.

In New York Hispanic and African American individuals have been subjected to unconstitutionally discriminatory searches of their person.

If concerns over the democratic process or the rights of citizens are the basis for complaints about this parliamentary procedure then there is no shortage of actions Republicans could rhetorically point to as "nuclear options". But if congress ever wonders why it's ratings are so low all they have to do is look at the "sky is falling" hyperbole they use to describe something as mundane as changing the debate rules on judicial nominees from super majority to a simple majority and they will quickly see why few take Congressman seriously anymore.

Illiteracy rate: A serious problem for many - political hackery for others

My Colleague Gary Wolfram asked an important question recently - "Why are 47 percent of the adult population of Detroit functionally illiterate?” While it should be noted that this statistic is essentially fabricated out of thin air from a report that is now 20 years old the question of literacy is certainly worthy of further discussion.

Many like Gary simply use statistics like this to push a common conservative platitude that we need free market more involved in education even thought data shows that 75% of Charter schools produce no better or worse results than their local public school counterpart.

The reality is that this problem is not a public versus private question. A study by the University of Texas found that the answer to the long standing question of why more girls aren't becoming scientists is simply community make up. In communities where a high percentage of women were in science, math, technology and engineering jobs there was a corresponding increase in girls who studied those topics in school. Essentially it was a question of role models.

Similarly in the case of illiteracy data shows that children who are raised in a home with at least one illiterate parent are twice as likely to be illiterate. Additionally the US department of Education found that the most important determiner of early success for children is an introduction to books at home while the National Adult Literacy Survey found that children who enter school without basic literacy skills are three to four times more likely to drop out of school. So while blaming schools or teachers for illiteracy may be good for asserting more banal politically motivated change the data shows this to be an ironically uneducated position.

Regardless of the education system, there is little a school can do to change the circumstances of their students and provide the types of at home role models or resources that children need to alter their path to end the vicious cycle of illiteracy.

Reports show that "adult illiteracy costs society an estimated $240 billion each year in lost industrial productivity, unrealized tax revenues, welfare, crime, poverty, and related social ills". This occurs because 20% of adults in the US are functionally illiterate.

The reality is that if we truly care about addressing illiteracy, using politically motivated rhetoric is the absolute worst course of action. Children obviously need a robust education system to foster their reading skills however the vast majority of schools both public and private already provide this. The real answer to improving the literacy rate in the US requires a focus on adults. While seeking help can be a difficult and embarrassing situation for illiterate individuals the joy of learning to read and the opportunities that such learning creates are nearly immeasurable.

The good news is that there are plenty of organizations available to help. They are always looking for volunteers, additional funding and other support. But most of all they are looking for brave adults who want to provide a better life for themselves and their families. To find out how you can help or help someone you know that struggles with reading, search for a literacy program in your area or click any of the links below.

Washtenaw Literacy

Capital Area Literacy Coalition

Detroit Reads

Proliteracy Detroit

Or any of the county run programs listed on the Michigan.gov website

How to solve the problem of “black on black crime”

After the George Zimmerman verdict was announced earlier this year the main stream media suddenly became very interested in "black on black crime". If you believe some of the talking heads that made this a staple of their programs for a few week period, they were genuinely concerned about the number of African American men that were murdered on a daily - weekly - yearly basis. Oddly however that concern seems exclusively tied to the defense of George Zimmerman since the fair and balanced news sources have ironically gone dark on this topic for the past few months.

The reality is that most of the people discussing this issue did so to portray African American men as inherently violent and dangerous since the data shows that "white on white crime" occurs at nearly the same rate as "black on black crime" and that crime is much more associated with socioeconomic status than skin color or heritage.

Regardless of this reality, many media personalities insist we pay attention since statistics show that nearly 50% of all murders were committed by African Americans. Given that blacks make up a much smaller portion of the population these statistics point to an epidemic that must be addressed.

Of course if a small segment of the population being involved in a an inordinate portion of the murders is cause for action it should be noted that only around 30% of Americans own a gun yet guns account for around 67% of murders each year. A far greater percentage of the population has access to knives yet such instruments only represent 12% of the murders per year.

If statistics surrounding “black on black crime” indicates an endemic problem then statistics on gun violence should have a similarly damning affect.

And while many in the main stream media have supported the NRA’s proposed solutions for the disproportionately high number of gun deaths - more guns - their only interest when it comes to "black on black crime" seems to be pointing out as many different statistics as possible to prove murders are really a black problem.

For some reason these ivory tower pundits have never proposed the obvious common sense answer to this dilemma - more guns for black men. After all if black men are more likely to be murdered by a gun and the paragon of safety from gun violence is more guns then the obvious solution to solve the problem of “black on black crime” is to make sure that all black men own guns and are trained to use them properly.

Problem solved!

Republicans have health insurance amnesia

The main stream media has been very focused recently on various aspects of the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare). While the problems are legitimate the sudden concern from the right over the cost of premiums and paying for more than you need seem disingenuous.

Thanks to the ACA millions more Americans will have health insurance. For some that means an increase in their premium for others it means a reduction. But our system before the ACA wasn't any better. From 1999 to 2009 the cost of health insurance premiums rose 131%. And while a rise in premiums under the ACA helped to cover an additional 20 million Americans the prior 131% increase left around 7 million more American uninsured than before.

If large increases in cost are a big concern we should also expect some congressional action on the cost of gas which rose around 140% from 1999 to 2008, over the past 35 years CEO pay has risen by 725%, and the cost of a private college education has increased by 128% over the past 30 years which is a heavy lift for many, considering that over the past 40 years the number of jobs requiring a college degree went from 26% to a whopping 60%.

Much has also been made of the president’s statement that if you like your policy you can keep it. Certainly insurance companies have decided to drop plans and increase their profit but it should be noted that only 17% of Americans in the individual market maintain their policy for more than 2 years. While the media has made it sound unprecedented and catastrophic the reality is that very few people would retain their current policy for more than a couple years anyway. Of course the previous system wasn’t necessarily any better. Insurance companies were found to drop policies of sick individuals to boost profits. At least under the ACA these people cannot be denied insurance as they were under the old system.

Yet another complaint is that people are paying for services they will not use or do not want. But this has been happening in the free market for years. Your cable provider doesn't let you pick and choose which channels you want. They offer a package and you end up paying for a bunch of channels you do not want and never use. When you purchase a car there is a list of "included features". Whether you want them or not they are included and you pay for them. If you purchase a computer, it comes installed with programs you may not want. It doesn't matter if you use them or not the cost of these programs are still included in your purchase.

Of course these complaints all rest on the case that the government is forcing you to buy something you do not want however Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation found that there is no real enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate. If you don't want to pay the penalty, it turns out there isn't very much the IRS can do to force you to do so.

The one thing you certainly won't hear the main stream media talking about is the Republican solutions to fix these problems. Their only real offer so far is a complete repeal but is anyone happy with the fact that as a nation we spend twice as much as on health care as every other country in the world and get worse results? Are we really OK with having millions of people without insurance because they have a preexisting condition? Do we really want the most important statistic about our insurance industry to be the earnings per share? Does anyone actually believe the old system was the best we can do?

For as much as Republicans dislike the ACA it should be noted that this was not the system Democrats supported either. Democrats favored a single payer plan. The ACA was a compromise that many on the left were willing to stomach due the myriad of problems with the private based system. So if Republicans want a full repeal, many Democrats would be happy to oblige. All they would ask in return is a few Republican votes in the House and the Senate to put all of the problems with the ACA behind us and join the rest of the world by insuring all citizens.

Republicans wouldn't like a government run like a business

A common talking point in today's political discussions is the belief that the government should be run like a business. While this is a really awful idea, there are certainly those who believe in this nostrum.

So how exactly would a company run the government? Well the Chamber of Commerce whose tag line is "Standing Up for American Enterprise" has a few items on their wish list and who better to tell us how a business would run the government than a group described as an "organization of businesses whose goal is to further the interests of businesses".

On that list would be an increase in the Federal fuel tax. Yes, a tax at the federal level which would affect hundreds of millions of Americans is deemed important and necessary by the Chamber of Commerce. Such a tax would not be popular with the vast majority of tax payers however what business takes a poll of likely buyers to determine if they are going to increase the cost of their products?

Also on that list is immigration reform. They believe that the idea that immigrants are stealing our jobs is a myth. They also feel that immigrants are important for job creation. Perhaps they didn't get the memo about how damaging immigrants are to the economy because of all their freeloading.

Additionally the Chamber of Commerce supports common core for education, has "advocated vociferously for increased use of renewable energy and renewable energy technologies", was against the government shutdown and would like to change policy to make sure it doesn't happen again, and has championed various increases in sales tax across the country.

But perhaps most interesting is how the largest organization of businesses would proceed when it comes to health care reform. The rhetoric from many who claim to support running the country like a business suggests that the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) is incompatible with their beliefs and thus should be discarded completely.

However it should be noted that the Chamber of Commerce does not argue for repealing the ACA. Instead they are for "promoting strategies and solutions to encourage health care reform that lowers cost, improves quality, expands access to health care, and protects American jobs". Essentially the chamber would like to use the ACA as a starting point and enact changes to improve it.

Those changes would include attacking "Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse" which happens to already be part of the ACA. Improve health and productivity with wellness programs which is also already part of the ACA. "Foster the use of health care IT to improve efficiency, lower costs, and reduce medical errors" which is of course already part of the ACA. "Pool risk and purchase coverage at an affordable price" which everyone knows is already part of the ACA. "Reward providers for quality" which, you guessed it, is part of the ACA.

In essence if we ran the country like a business the ACA would be the type of health care reform we could expect.

The problem is that many believe this logic to be apodictic and never consider the yin and yang relationship between the public and private sector that propelled the US to prominence in the first place. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the government to cut wasteful spending or exhibit fiscal prudence but the reality is that the purpose of government is antithetical to that of a business and wanting government to run like a business is just a poorly constructed analogy fraught with unsagacious thinking.