Tis the season for contrived conservative media outrage over the "war on Christmas" while they ironically pretend that Christians are the most derided segment of the U.S. population. Unfortunately this false war obfuscates the real war on conservative values that is currently being waged across the country.
You can see it at your local soup kitchen. It permeates the toy give away down the street. This war even infiltrates the clothes drive being held in your community. On the surface this charitable giving may seem like the right thing to do this holiday season but the reality is this is a nefarious plot being perpetrated by the lame stream media and comrade Obama to turn true patriots into bleeding heart liberals and bring down this once great nation.
This may sound farfetched but consider the important national debates we have had over the past few years.
Back in 2012 Mitt Romney said "I want individuals to have the dignity of work". If you take a close look at these so called charities almost none of them make these men, women and children work for the food, clothing and toys they receive. Everyone knows there is no dignity in receiving something for nothing yet these organizations seem to have succumbed to Obama and his free stuff society mentality.
Of course dignity of work certainly isn't the only area where these organizations have gone horribly off track. Over the past few years there have been numerous discussions and legislative actions aimed at preventing abuse of our treasured systems. These include laws making sure illegal immigrants don't receive benefits as well as voter ID laws. These organizations would be well served to consider implementing similar requirements. Holiday cheer is only meant for those who are here legally and should be limited to one helping per person. Anything less sends the wrong message.
Another area of concern is the personal habits of the people showing up for these handouts. How many of these people are just going to trade in the toys and clothes they receive for drugs? Without a drug testing policy children of poor drug addicts all over the country might end up with a toy or two for Christmas. Worse yet these children could start to think that their parents’ actions have no impact on how the system treats them. If these kids don't take personal responsibility for their parents they really don't deserve these toys do they?
Former presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan stated that "Barack Obama is a drug dealer of welfare;” because Buchanan believes "He (Obama) wants permanent dependency". This is something that many Americans have been concerned about for a long time. We shouldn't have a system that allows people to receive benefits year after year without some sort of work requirement. Yet that is exactly what the charitable organizations do. Shouldn't these people be required to prove they are at least looking for work to participate in these programs that help the less fortunate?
The other question we should be asking is what are the motives of these unconditional handout institutions? Everyone knows that when liberals argue in support of welfare and food stamps they are doing it to keep these poor people poor while simultaneously buying votes. Are these giveaways just a way to proselytize these people in their time of need and tether them to a system of dependence?
If the results of the most recent elections tell us anything it’s that Americans are in full support of the conservative Republican agenda that encourages all of those lazy "takers" to become useful members of society and join the "maker" class. These charities are waging a full frontal assault on traditional American values and need to stop. If they refuse, congress should spend much of the next year symbolically voting to defund these organizations because hypothetically protecting the integrity of this once great nation from the scourge of the down trodden is a 365 day a year job.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Friday, December 12, 2014
Republican road funding plan deals another blow to democracy
For more than a decade now the Michigan legislature has failed to properly fund the Department of Transportation which has resulted in a steady decline in the quality of Michigan's roads. The Michigan Senate agreed on bipartisan legislation to address this issue which Governor Rick Snyder supports however Speaker of the House Jase Bolger is concerned that the Senate plan would increase taxes and increasing taxes is something that the Michigan Republican Party doesn't approve of unless you are a retiree, poor, a homeowner or any of the other 50% of Michiganders who have seen their taxes increase under Bolger's watch.
The real problem with Bolger's plan is the shell game required to "generate" the funds for fixing Michigan's roads. Instead of increasing fuel taxes as the Governor had proposed Bolger wants to raid education funding to the tune of $800 million to pay for roads. A spokesman for Speaker Bolger says there is nothing to worry about because the bill also includes wording that suggests education funding can't be reduced. Given that it has taken over a decade of constant decline to get the legislature to find the funds to repair Michigan's roads, trusting the legislature will magically find additional revenue to plug the gaping hole in education spending that this action creates is suspect at best.
Bolger's office also says that increased revenue will cover any potential losses. The only problem is that when the former director of the Michigan House Fiscal Agency - Mitch Bean - examined the real world results of Bolger's plan he found that the biggest loses occurred in the last few years when Michigan was supposedly making its comeback, while one of the few years in which revenue would have actually increased occurred in the middle of the Great Recession. The data suggests Bolger's plan is more wishful thinking than thoroughly vetted economic strategy.
Of course even if you believe Jase Bolger's understanding of economics is better than that of Mitch Bean, it should be noted that relying on increased revenue can have damaging consequences. For example one of the only reasons that Rick Snyder can claim to have increased education spending over his time in office is because of the money he poured into the teacher pension program. Were it not for pervious administration's errant assumptions that the economy would improve because of their efforts these extra contributions to the system would likely have been unnecessary.
Perhaps the economy will continue to improve or perhaps it won't. Jase Bolger doesn't own a crystal ball and wagering education funding on the promise of Republican governance can't be very reassuring to many Michigan parents.
There are also those who believe the government already has enough money and just needs to shift it around. If that is the case why divert money that is dedicated to education to fund the roads only to have to find another budgetary item to cut to make up for the lost education dollars? If you are going to cut the $2 billion Department of Corrections budget to pay for Michigan schools why not just leave school funding alone and increase road spending at the expense of the DOC. Only a person with ulterior motives would make this funding change so convoluted.
Not surprisingly it appears that eliminating the fuel tax that currently funds education is a workaround to Proposal A - the voter approved constitutional amendment that equalized education funding two decades ago. By changing the fuel charge from a tax on consumers to a fee on suppliers this money will no longer be subject to the rules of Proposal A. This is the same kind of subverting the people's wishes that the Republican pulled when the voters repealed the state Emergency Manger Law only to see the Republican legislature implement a new version a few months later that was no longer subject to a voter referendum. Based on the manipulative past of this legislature you can bet this won't be the last time Bolger and his cohorts redefine a sales tax as a "fee" to avoid properly funding Michigan's public schools.
Having said that the entire basis for Bolger's actions demonstrate just how disconnected he is from the average Michigan voter. Polls show that 62% of voters were willing to pay an additional $10 or more per month to repair and upgrade bridges and roads in Michigan while 71% said they would not vote against an elected official for such a tax increase. Voters just don't have the same doomsday view of tax increases that Republicans pretend they do.
Polls also show that while Michigan voters would really like to see more money go towards roads their top priority is education funding. This makes the Bolger plan that much more perplexing especially given the fact that the real per pupil foundation allowance has fallen by $648 under Republican control. Is taking another $475 per student away from public schools just a ploy to put more districts in financial distress so they can be converted to for profit charter schools that big donors love?
The reality is that Jase Bolger has taken a bipartisan bill to improve Michigan's roads that had the support of voters and turned it into something that cuts education funding, vitiates the will of the people, and Governor Snyder has "serious reservations" about - all under the guise of some rigid ideology that the majority of Michigan residents disagree with. But perhaps most concerning is how this legislature continues to use nefarious tactics to avoid the law of the land and spit in the face of the voting public. No wonder Bolger waited until after the elections to bring such a polemic bill to the floor.
The real problem with Bolger's plan is the shell game required to "generate" the funds for fixing Michigan's roads. Instead of increasing fuel taxes as the Governor had proposed Bolger wants to raid education funding to the tune of $800 million to pay for roads. A spokesman for Speaker Bolger says there is nothing to worry about because the bill also includes wording that suggests education funding can't be reduced. Given that it has taken over a decade of constant decline to get the legislature to find the funds to repair Michigan's roads, trusting the legislature will magically find additional revenue to plug the gaping hole in education spending that this action creates is suspect at best.
Bolger's office also says that increased revenue will cover any potential losses. The only problem is that when the former director of the Michigan House Fiscal Agency - Mitch Bean - examined the real world results of Bolger's plan he found that the biggest loses occurred in the last few years when Michigan was supposedly making its comeback, while one of the few years in which revenue would have actually increased occurred in the middle of the Great Recession. The data suggests Bolger's plan is more wishful thinking than thoroughly vetted economic strategy.
Of course even if you believe Jase Bolger's understanding of economics is better than that of Mitch Bean, it should be noted that relying on increased revenue can have damaging consequences. For example one of the only reasons that Rick Snyder can claim to have increased education spending over his time in office is because of the money he poured into the teacher pension program. Were it not for pervious administration's errant assumptions that the economy would improve because of their efforts these extra contributions to the system would likely have been unnecessary.
Perhaps the economy will continue to improve or perhaps it won't. Jase Bolger doesn't own a crystal ball and wagering education funding on the promise of Republican governance can't be very reassuring to many Michigan parents.
There are also those who believe the government already has enough money and just needs to shift it around. If that is the case why divert money that is dedicated to education to fund the roads only to have to find another budgetary item to cut to make up for the lost education dollars? If you are going to cut the $2 billion Department of Corrections budget to pay for Michigan schools why not just leave school funding alone and increase road spending at the expense of the DOC. Only a person with ulterior motives would make this funding change so convoluted.
Not surprisingly it appears that eliminating the fuel tax that currently funds education is a workaround to Proposal A - the voter approved constitutional amendment that equalized education funding two decades ago. By changing the fuel charge from a tax on consumers to a fee on suppliers this money will no longer be subject to the rules of Proposal A. This is the same kind of subverting the people's wishes that the Republican pulled when the voters repealed the state Emergency Manger Law only to see the Republican legislature implement a new version a few months later that was no longer subject to a voter referendum. Based on the manipulative past of this legislature you can bet this won't be the last time Bolger and his cohorts redefine a sales tax as a "fee" to avoid properly funding Michigan's public schools.
Having said that the entire basis for Bolger's actions demonstrate just how disconnected he is from the average Michigan voter. Polls show that 62% of voters were willing to pay an additional $10 or more per month to repair and upgrade bridges and roads in Michigan while 71% said they would not vote against an elected official for such a tax increase. Voters just don't have the same doomsday view of tax increases that Republicans pretend they do.
Polls also show that while Michigan voters would really like to see more money go towards roads their top priority is education funding. This makes the Bolger plan that much more perplexing especially given the fact that the real per pupil foundation allowance has fallen by $648 under Republican control. Is taking another $475 per student away from public schools just a ploy to put more districts in financial distress so they can be converted to for profit charter schools that big donors love?
The reality is that Jase Bolger has taken a bipartisan bill to improve Michigan's roads that had the support of voters and turned it into something that cuts education funding, vitiates the will of the people, and Governor Snyder has "serious reservations" about - all under the guise of some rigid ideology that the majority of Michigan residents disagree with. But perhaps most concerning is how this legislature continues to use nefarious tactics to avoid the law of the land and spit in the face of the voting public. No wonder Bolger waited until after the elections to bring such a polemic bill to the floor.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
White ignorance at the core of racial tensions
The recent grand jury decision to not indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Michael Brown resulted in protests across the country for those disappointed with the outcome. Of course for those who believe Wilson's actions were justified the response was slightly different. There are those like Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who chose to react with all the class of an Anthony Weiner twitter photo. Some like Sean Hannity took the opportunity to blame President Obama for inciting violence and heightening racial tensions. Others have decided to use their victory lap as a way to "educate" the African American community.
It is this last category of people that are the most frustrating. They avoided the outlandish talking points offered up by the classic attention whores but still managed to prove they were completely out of touch with reality. For example longtime Fox News contributor Cal Thomas opinioned that the "real problem" for the African American community is that they have "an attitude of victimhood".
This has been a popular narrative for conservatives for a long time. Rather than admit that there are systemic inequalities that make being black in this country inherently unlawful, they bury their heads in the sands of the Aryan echo chamber and trivialize this struggle with patronizing rhetoric. Having said that the question for Cal Thomas and others like him who believe liberals play the victim is - have you met the American conservatives?
While protesters try and get people to recognize the racial bias of the U.S. legal system that has resulted in the deaths of numerous black men at the hands of law enforcement the conservative media portrays these men as violent thugs and claim it is the officers who are in fact the victim. There is perhaps no bigger disconnect in the mind of these conservative pundits than suggesting the biggest problem in these cases is a "victim mentality" while simultaneously asserting the murders are the victims.
If you want to see a true victim mentality on the topic of race you need look no further than conservatives. These are the people who whine that they can't say anything about race without being called racist. They also think it is a huge injustice that black people can use the 'N' word but they can't. These poor white folks just can't catch a break.
Of course race is hardly the only topic that conservative play the victim card on.
Despite the fact that nearly every Senate has refused to consider partisan House bills Republican's like Eric Cantor are acting like this is the first time in history such an atrocity has occurred. Why must Republicans be forced to suffer so?
Despite the fact that the only guns laws to be passed recently have actually expanded the rights of gun owners that doesn't stop the NRA and some gun owners from pretending there is an all out assault on the 2nd amendment. Will the persecution ever end for these patriots?
Despite the fact that voter fraud is almost non-existent and has never determined the outcome of an election conservatives insist on changing the rules and making it more difficult for some people to vote. They're just trying to uphold the sanctity of the democratic process and are being attacked for no reason.
Despite the fact that it cost taxpayers more money than it saved Florida governor Rick Scott was forced to test welfare recipients for drug usage before handing out checks because protecting every of penny of taxpayer dollars is of paramount importance. How awful it must be for these people to see any of their money fraudulently used.
Despite the fact that renewable energy costs as much or less than fossil fuels, creates jobs and lowers carbon dioxide emissions - saving lives, conservatives insist that any attempts to address climate change would be a job killing move that Americans can't afford. After all, they just want what's best for the country.
Despite the fact that when union membership is highest the middle class is strongest and income inequality is lowest conservatives can't help but be concerned for the poor corporations and the scads of workers who are being forced to accept higher wages and better working conditions against their will. Set my people (and companies) free!
Despite the fact that bans on gay marriage have been found to be unconstitutional conservatives believe that marriage equality weakens traditional marriage. Don't those people realize how tough it is to be straight in this country?
But perhaps most important this time of year are the poor Christians who are being shamed in to considering other people's religious views. Is there any greater indignity than saying Happy Holidays to a fellow American?
The reality is that African Americans and liberals don't hold a monopoly on victim mentality. The only difference is that to conservatives when a liberal claims something is unfair they are playing the victim while when a conservative claims the same it is a fact that proves liberals are ruining this great country.
The "real problem" with Ferguson, New York, Cleveland or any other city where the police have executed black males is not "an attitude of victimhood". No, the real problem is the group who sit in their ivory tower doling out sage advice to people they clearly don't understand about a situation they have no experience with that does nothing but increase the ever widening gap in race relations. Because pretending to know what it's like to be black in America isn't even remotely close to actually being black in America.
It is this last category of people that are the most frustrating. They avoided the outlandish talking points offered up by the classic attention whores but still managed to prove they were completely out of touch with reality. For example longtime Fox News contributor Cal Thomas opinioned that the "real problem" for the African American community is that they have "an attitude of victimhood".
This has been a popular narrative for conservatives for a long time. Rather than admit that there are systemic inequalities that make being black in this country inherently unlawful, they bury their heads in the sands of the Aryan echo chamber and trivialize this struggle with patronizing rhetoric. Having said that the question for Cal Thomas and others like him who believe liberals play the victim is - have you met the American conservatives?
While protesters try and get people to recognize the racial bias of the U.S. legal system that has resulted in the deaths of numerous black men at the hands of law enforcement the conservative media portrays these men as violent thugs and claim it is the officers who are in fact the victim. There is perhaps no bigger disconnect in the mind of these conservative pundits than suggesting the biggest problem in these cases is a "victim mentality" while simultaneously asserting the murders are the victims.
If you want to see a true victim mentality on the topic of race you need look no further than conservatives. These are the people who whine that they can't say anything about race without being called racist. They also think it is a huge injustice that black people can use the 'N' word but they can't. These poor white folks just can't catch a break.
Of course race is hardly the only topic that conservative play the victim card on.
Despite the fact that nearly every Senate has refused to consider partisan House bills Republican's like Eric Cantor are acting like this is the first time in history such an atrocity has occurred. Why must Republicans be forced to suffer so?
Despite the fact that the only guns laws to be passed recently have actually expanded the rights of gun owners that doesn't stop the NRA and some gun owners from pretending there is an all out assault on the 2nd amendment. Will the persecution ever end for these patriots?
Despite the fact that voter fraud is almost non-existent and has never determined the outcome of an election conservatives insist on changing the rules and making it more difficult for some people to vote. They're just trying to uphold the sanctity of the democratic process and are being attacked for no reason.
Despite the fact that it cost taxpayers more money than it saved Florida governor Rick Scott was forced to test welfare recipients for drug usage before handing out checks because protecting every of penny of taxpayer dollars is of paramount importance. How awful it must be for these people to see any of their money fraudulently used.
Despite the fact that renewable energy costs as much or less than fossil fuels, creates jobs and lowers carbon dioxide emissions - saving lives, conservatives insist that any attempts to address climate change would be a job killing move that Americans can't afford. After all, they just want what's best for the country.
Despite the fact that when union membership is highest the middle class is strongest and income inequality is lowest conservatives can't help but be concerned for the poor corporations and the scads of workers who are being forced to accept higher wages and better working conditions against their will. Set my people (and companies) free!
Despite the fact that bans on gay marriage have been found to be unconstitutional conservatives believe that marriage equality weakens traditional marriage. Don't those people realize how tough it is to be straight in this country?
But perhaps most important this time of year are the poor Christians who are being shamed in to considering other people's religious views. Is there any greater indignity than saying Happy Holidays to a fellow American?
The reality is that African Americans and liberals don't hold a monopoly on victim mentality. The only difference is that to conservatives when a liberal claims something is unfair they are playing the victim while when a conservative claims the same it is a fact that proves liberals are ruining this great country.
The "real problem" with Ferguson, New York, Cleveland or any other city where the police have executed black males is not "an attitude of victimhood". No, the real problem is the group who sit in their ivory tower doling out sage advice to people they clearly don't understand about a situation they have no experience with that does nothing but increase the ever widening gap in race relations. Because pretending to know what it's like to be black in America isn't even remotely close to actually being black in America.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Republican manufactured outrage over immigration executive order is misplaced
Conservatives are really angry about the executive action taken by President Obama last week regarding immigration. The only problem is they are having a lot of trouble deciding exactly what they are angry about.
Some people are suggesting that by taking this action the president is acting like a King or a dictator despite the fact that Obama has actually used executive orders at lower rates than most of his predecessors.
Faced with this reality some Republicans claim that it's not how often Obama uses this power but that his actions are unconstitutional or an unprecedented overreach of his power. The reality is that every president over the last six decades have shielded groups here illegally from deportation. This order may protect more people than usual but according to legal scholars it is not illegal, unconstitutional, or unprecedented.
While some would like to pretend that Obama is the first to create a controversial executive order it should be noted that George W. Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to perform warrantless wire taps which was later determined to be unconstitutional. Were it not for an executive order signed by Ronald Reagan the NSA wouldn't even exist. Given the litany if issues with the NSA; its creation could clearly be considered controversial. George W. Bush also had parts of an executive order on terrorism struck down as unconstitutional.
Some of those who are aware of how really unspectacular Obama's recent executive order actually is have attempted to portray the action as something it is not. Conservative politicians and pundits alike have decided to term this order "Executive Amnesty" in spite of the fact that it isn't amnesty. It doesn't give anyone legal status. It doesn't provide a pathway to citizenship. It doesn't give those here illegally the right to vote. It doesn't give them access to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. And it doesn't give the Social Security benefits. It just gives people the opportunity to apply to work here legally without the threat of deportation.
Another group claims the president himself said he could not act on his own and this proves his order is illegal. The irony of this statement is astonishing. Apparently when the president says something they agree with he has the power to unilaterally create law but when they disagree with his actions he suddenly loses this power. Luckily the decision on whether something is constitutional or not isn't for the president to decide. This also means Obama's previous statements have absolutely no bearing on the actual legality of his order.
Imagine if we lived in a world where presidential statements automatically set legal precedent. George H.W. Bush famously stated "read my lips: no new taxes" only to turn around later and raise taxes. In his inaugural address, Ronald Regan remarked "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government" yet he not only expanded spending to unprecedented levels he also added over a 300,000 employees to the government payroll. On the campaign trail George W. Bush declared "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be." however after a few years in Iraq he changed course when he said "There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. All of these statements would have made the president’s actions that followed illegal.
Of course President Obama claims that when talking about what he can and cannot do with regards to immigration reform he was talking about enacting laws similar to that of the Senate immigration reform bill. The executive order he issued falls well short of the sweeping changes the Senate bill would have enacted. According to Obama this executive order only includes language that is within the president’s purview.
But that didn't stop John Boehner from asserting that Obama's actions "deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms". He says this despite the fact that the Senate already passed bipartisan immigration reform which the House had the votes to pass with bipartisan backing and over 80% the public supports. The reality is that Boehner is not only the one deliberately sabotaging a bipartisan reform but his refusal to bring this bill up for a vote in the House left Obama with little choice used his executive power.
In the end Republicans who are searching for some rational reason to be outraged by this executive order should be more concerned about the failure of Republican leadership to address this issue because not only did John Boehner miss out on an opportunity to mend fences with a growing Hispanic voting bloc but he has now backed himself into a corner with no clear way out.
Unfortunately rather than admit he over played his hand Boehner threatens to tear families apart as he continues to place party needs over the will of the people. It seems John Boehner is just as happy to "undermine the rule of law in our country" as he believes the president is.
Some people are suggesting that by taking this action the president is acting like a King or a dictator despite the fact that Obama has actually used executive orders at lower rates than most of his predecessors.
Faced with this reality some Republicans claim that it's not how often Obama uses this power but that his actions are unconstitutional or an unprecedented overreach of his power. The reality is that every president over the last six decades have shielded groups here illegally from deportation. This order may protect more people than usual but according to legal scholars it is not illegal, unconstitutional, or unprecedented.
While some would like to pretend that Obama is the first to create a controversial executive order it should be noted that George W. Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to perform warrantless wire taps which was later determined to be unconstitutional. Were it not for an executive order signed by Ronald Reagan the NSA wouldn't even exist. Given the litany if issues with the NSA; its creation could clearly be considered controversial. George W. Bush also had parts of an executive order on terrorism struck down as unconstitutional.
Some of those who are aware of how really unspectacular Obama's recent executive order actually is have attempted to portray the action as something it is not. Conservative politicians and pundits alike have decided to term this order "Executive Amnesty" in spite of the fact that it isn't amnesty. It doesn't give anyone legal status. It doesn't provide a pathway to citizenship. It doesn't give those here illegally the right to vote. It doesn't give them access to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. And it doesn't give the Social Security benefits. It just gives people the opportunity to apply to work here legally without the threat of deportation.
Another group claims the president himself said he could not act on his own and this proves his order is illegal. The irony of this statement is astonishing. Apparently when the president says something they agree with he has the power to unilaterally create law but when they disagree with his actions he suddenly loses this power. Luckily the decision on whether something is constitutional or not isn't for the president to decide. This also means Obama's previous statements have absolutely no bearing on the actual legality of his order.
Imagine if we lived in a world where presidential statements automatically set legal precedent. George H.W. Bush famously stated "read my lips: no new taxes" only to turn around later and raise taxes. In his inaugural address, Ronald Regan remarked "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government" yet he not only expanded spending to unprecedented levels he also added over a 300,000 employees to the government payroll. On the campaign trail George W. Bush declared "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be." however after a few years in Iraq he changed course when he said "There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. All of these statements would have made the president’s actions that followed illegal.
Of course President Obama claims that when talking about what he can and cannot do with regards to immigration reform he was talking about enacting laws similar to that of the Senate immigration reform bill. The executive order he issued falls well short of the sweeping changes the Senate bill would have enacted. According to Obama this executive order only includes language that is within the president’s purview.
But that didn't stop John Boehner from asserting that Obama's actions "deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms". He says this despite the fact that the Senate already passed bipartisan immigration reform which the House had the votes to pass with bipartisan backing and over 80% the public supports. The reality is that Boehner is not only the one deliberately sabotaging a bipartisan reform but his refusal to bring this bill up for a vote in the House left Obama with little choice used his executive power.
In the end Republicans who are searching for some rational reason to be outraged by this executive order should be more concerned about the failure of Republican leadership to address this issue because not only did John Boehner miss out on an opportunity to mend fences with a growing Hispanic voting bloc but he has now backed himself into a corner with no clear way out.
Unfortunately rather than admit he over played his hand Boehner threatens to tear families apart as he continues to place party needs over the will of the people. It seems John Boehner is just as happy to "undermine the rule of law in our country" as he believes the president is.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Republican majority destined to fail
This past week President Obama used the power executive authority to prevent the deportation on millions of undocumented immigrants. It should come as no surprise that Republicans do not support this action and have added it to a growing list of complaints about how the president and congressional Democrats do business. Unfortunately for Republicans these complaints represent the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Perhaps executive actions do undermine the "democratic process" as Speaker Boehner suggests, however it should be noted that Barack Obama averages just 32 executive actions per year while Republican presidents have been far more liberal in their use of this power.
George W. Bush - 36 per year
George H.W. Bush - 41 per year
Ronald Reagan - 47 per year
Gerald Ford - 56 per year
Richard Nixon - 57 per year
If this is a problem, it is a problem for all presidents not just the Democratic ones.
Beyond that Boehner feels that "President Obama has turned a deaf ear to the people that he was elected ... to serve". According to a release by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a Fox News poll shows that "By a 78-21 percent margin, voters favor allowing immigrants in the U.S. illegally to become citizens after they meet requirements such as passing a background check."
Given that the Senate already passed a comprehensive immigration reform act with bipartisan support that included a pathway to citizenship, that the vast majority of Americans favor, it appears that by refusing to bring this bill up for a vote in the House it is John Boehner who has turned a deaf ear to the people.
Of course the hypocrisy doesn't end with executive actions and immigration reform. For much of the past year Republicans, lead by Eric Cantor, have been portraying the Democratic controlled Senate as a place where good bills go to die. With over 300 bills passed by the House waiting for approval in the Senate such a claim seems accurate however history shows that every year around 300 House bills fail to get a vote in the Senate. 2014 is just another year in long line of political dysfunction.
Having said that the two worst years on record were 2011 and 2012 when Republican filibusters caused a total of nearly 1,300 House bills to stall in the Senate.
Again, if failing to get a vote on House bills is an issue when Republicans control the House then it should also have been a concern for Republicans when Democrats controlled the House.
Having secured majorities in both the House and the Senate Republicans who operated under the directive that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" are now demanding that the president and congressional Democrats focus on "bipartisan reforms".
Data shows that of the 46 "jobs bills" the House has passed that Boehner considers "bipartisan" half of them received support from less than 10% of House Democrats with 2 bills receiving zero votes and 12 others garnering under 5% support.
By contrast the Senate currently has 76 bills waiting for the House to vote on which all have the support of at least 10% of Senate Republicans. If a wave of bipartisanship is sweeping congress shouldn't that also include Senate bills stuck in the House?
Included in the list of bills being ignored by the House and Speaker Boehner are the following:
- S. 2912: Don’t Tax Our Fallen Public Safety Heroes Act
- S. 2673: United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014
- S. 1691: Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014
- S. 2198: Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014
- S. 1417: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2013
- S. 287: Helping Homeless Veterans Act of 2013
- S. 743: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013
- S. 853: Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013
The reality is that while Republican leadership wants to depict Democrats and the president as uncompromising ideologues, such assertions from a group that have shown to be uncompromising ideologues falls on deaf ears. Americans don't want more political posturing, finger pointing and empty rhetoric. They want a government that spends more time in Washington then raising money. They want a government that acts on the wishes of voters instead of the wishes of the highest bidder. They want a government that finds common ground and rallies public support rather than constantly dividing the nation to win elections.
Unfortunately rather than leading the government in a different direction Republicans seem determined to take it further down the rabbit hole which should be disappointing no matter what your political affiliations are.
Perhaps executive actions do undermine the "democratic process" as Speaker Boehner suggests, however it should be noted that Barack Obama averages just 32 executive actions per year while Republican presidents have been far more liberal in their use of this power.
George W. Bush - 36 per year
George H.W. Bush - 41 per year
Ronald Reagan - 47 per year
Gerald Ford - 56 per year
Richard Nixon - 57 per year
If this is a problem, it is a problem for all presidents not just the Democratic ones.
Beyond that Boehner feels that "President Obama has turned a deaf ear to the people that he was elected ... to serve". According to a release by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a Fox News poll shows that "By a 78-21 percent margin, voters favor allowing immigrants in the U.S. illegally to become citizens after they meet requirements such as passing a background check."
Given that the Senate already passed a comprehensive immigration reform act with bipartisan support that included a pathway to citizenship, that the vast majority of Americans favor, it appears that by refusing to bring this bill up for a vote in the House it is John Boehner who has turned a deaf ear to the people.
Of course the hypocrisy doesn't end with executive actions and immigration reform. For much of the past year Republicans, lead by Eric Cantor, have been portraying the Democratic controlled Senate as a place where good bills go to die. With over 300 bills passed by the House waiting for approval in the Senate such a claim seems accurate however history shows that every year around 300 House bills fail to get a vote in the Senate. 2014 is just another year in long line of political dysfunction.
Having said that the two worst years on record were 2011 and 2012 when Republican filibusters caused a total of nearly 1,300 House bills to stall in the Senate.
Again, if failing to get a vote on House bills is an issue when Republicans control the House then it should also have been a concern for Republicans when Democrats controlled the House.
Having secured majorities in both the House and the Senate Republicans who operated under the directive that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" are now demanding that the president and congressional Democrats focus on "bipartisan reforms".
Data shows that of the 46 "jobs bills" the House has passed that Boehner considers "bipartisan" half of them received support from less than 10% of House Democrats with 2 bills receiving zero votes and 12 others garnering under 5% support.
By contrast the Senate currently has 76 bills waiting for the House to vote on which all have the support of at least 10% of Senate Republicans. If a wave of bipartisanship is sweeping congress shouldn't that also include Senate bills stuck in the House?
Included in the list of bills being ignored by the House and Speaker Boehner are the following:
- S. 2912: Don’t Tax Our Fallen Public Safety Heroes Act
- S. 2673: United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014
- S. 1691: Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014
- S. 2198: Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014
- S. 1417: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2013
- S. 287: Helping Homeless Veterans Act of 2013
- S. 743: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013
- S. 853: Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013
The reality is that while Republican leadership wants to depict Democrats and the president as uncompromising ideologues, such assertions from a group that have shown to be uncompromising ideologues falls on deaf ears. Americans don't want more political posturing, finger pointing and empty rhetoric. They want a government that spends more time in Washington then raising money. They want a government that acts on the wishes of voters instead of the wishes of the highest bidder. They want a government that finds common ground and rallies public support rather than constantly dividing the nation to win elections.
Unfortunately rather than leading the government in a different direction Republicans seem determined to take it further down the rabbit hole which should be disappointing no matter what your political affiliations are.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Americans don't support the Republican agenda
Since the elections last week a number of conservative politicians and political pundits have suggested that the Republican wins were a mandate. The question is; a mandate for what?
Republican's didn't have a national issue that they rode to victory. Some Republican ran on the belief that the economy was broken and need to be fixed while others suggested the economy was flourishing under their tutelage. Many Republicans resorted to fear mongering over the faint threats of ISIS and Ebola. Essentially the only issue that Republican candidates agreed on was making this election about President Obama. While effective, this is hardly and endorsement of standard Republican policy.
The reality is that the congressional Republican agenda stands in stark contrast to the interests of the general public. For example while Republican legislators have voted over 50 times on some form of repeal of the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) only 39% of Americans support a repeal. Instead 57% want to keep the law in place.
Of course Republican legislators’ views on the ACA are just one of many topics where their opinion diverges from voters.
For years Republican politicians have been looking for ways to eliminate a women's right to choose however only 22% of the public agrees with this stance. Even in deeply red states so called "personhood" measures have been soundly defeated.
Many Republican lawmakers have fought tooth and nail to keep same sex couples from enjoying the benefits of marriage in spite of the fact that such bigotry has been deemed unconstitutional by a number of courts. All told just 42% of Americans currently agree with the Republican position. But perhaps worst yet for these Republicans is the data that shows nearly 8 out of 10 adults between the age of 18 and 29 support marriage equality.
President Obama made income inequality a top concern for his administration however Republican legislators have so far stood in the way of any meaningful legislation to address what many economists see as a serious concern for economic growth. This despite the reality that 67% of Americans are dissatisfied with the current wealth distribution. In fact a minimum wage increase which is thought to be a solution to the income inequality issue not only is their strong support for an increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 but four red states voted in favor of raising their states minimum wage.
The power of the NRA to manipulate politician's, especially Republican politician's, resulted in the death of a bill that would have approved universal background checks despite the fact that 92% of voters and 92% of gun owners support such a measure.
When discussing climate change many Republican have resorted to the party approved talking point of "I'm not a scientist". Apparently they believe their lack of knowledge is a valid excuse to act in opposition to what 84% of those who are scientist agree upon. Of course being completely devoid of qualifications doesn't seem to matter to these same Republican politicians on issues like abortion, the economy or poverty. Having said that, regardless of whether people believe in the science behind climate change 74% of Americans support regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A full 81% of Americans believe we should have net neutrality instead of offering the Republican backed position of "fast lanes".
More than 8 in 10 Americans supported a Senate bill that would have given illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship. Unfortunately this bill was shelved by the Republican controlled House.
Republican politicians stand in opposition to legalizing pot despite the increasing number of states that have voted in favor of decriminalization.
Public education and teachers in particular have come under attacks by Republican politicians across the country even though 75% of parents are satisfied with their child's education. So while Republican continue to sell the idea of a crisis in education that can only be fixed by eliminating teachers unions, paying teacher less, and corporatizing students Americans believe that lack of funding is the biggest problem currently facing education. Additionally two thirds of American's say they would pay more taxes to help struggling cash strapped urban schools.
Americans also disagree with Republican politicians on the use of vouchers in public education with 56% of responding against using public funds for private schools.
This is also true of vouchers for Medicare where only 34% of Americans support such a change.
Of course these only represent a small portion of the divide that exists between Republican politicians and the general public. 80% of Americans are against the Citizen's United ruling, only 28% of Americans agree with the Republican assertion that we spend too little on the military, 83% of Americans are against an increase in student loan rates, 55% of Americans believe Capital Gains should be taxed at the same rate as other income not at a lower rate or at zero like many Republican legislators believe, just 40% of Americans support the Republican position of cutting food stamps, and 60% of Americans favor raising taxes on the rich.
In the end the best thing Republicans had going for them in this election was the fact that they weren't in the same party as President Obama. It would be a huge mistake for them to act as though this was an endorsement of their policies - a mistake they seem likely to make. A mistake that seems destined to be part of the 2016 Republican autopsy.
Republican's didn't have a national issue that they rode to victory. Some Republican ran on the belief that the economy was broken and need to be fixed while others suggested the economy was flourishing under their tutelage. Many Republicans resorted to fear mongering over the faint threats of ISIS and Ebola. Essentially the only issue that Republican candidates agreed on was making this election about President Obama. While effective, this is hardly and endorsement of standard Republican policy.
The reality is that the congressional Republican agenda stands in stark contrast to the interests of the general public. For example while Republican legislators have voted over 50 times on some form of repeal of the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) only 39% of Americans support a repeal. Instead 57% want to keep the law in place.
Of course Republican legislators’ views on the ACA are just one of many topics where their opinion diverges from voters.
For years Republican politicians have been looking for ways to eliminate a women's right to choose however only 22% of the public agrees with this stance. Even in deeply red states so called "personhood" measures have been soundly defeated.
Many Republican lawmakers have fought tooth and nail to keep same sex couples from enjoying the benefits of marriage in spite of the fact that such bigotry has been deemed unconstitutional by a number of courts. All told just 42% of Americans currently agree with the Republican position. But perhaps worst yet for these Republicans is the data that shows nearly 8 out of 10 adults between the age of 18 and 29 support marriage equality.
President Obama made income inequality a top concern for his administration however Republican legislators have so far stood in the way of any meaningful legislation to address what many economists see as a serious concern for economic growth. This despite the reality that 67% of Americans are dissatisfied with the current wealth distribution. In fact a minimum wage increase which is thought to be a solution to the income inequality issue not only is their strong support for an increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 but four red states voted in favor of raising their states minimum wage.
The power of the NRA to manipulate politician's, especially Republican politician's, resulted in the death of a bill that would have approved universal background checks despite the fact that 92% of voters and 92% of gun owners support such a measure.
When discussing climate change many Republican have resorted to the party approved talking point of "I'm not a scientist". Apparently they believe their lack of knowledge is a valid excuse to act in opposition to what 84% of those who are scientist agree upon. Of course being completely devoid of qualifications doesn't seem to matter to these same Republican politicians on issues like abortion, the economy or poverty. Having said that, regardless of whether people believe in the science behind climate change 74% of Americans support regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A full 81% of Americans believe we should have net neutrality instead of offering the Republican backed position of "fast lanes".
More than 8 in 10 Americans supported a Senate bill that would have given illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship. Unfortunately this bill was shelved by the Republican controlled House.
Republican politicians stand in opposition to legalizing pot despite the increasing number of states that have voted in favor of decriminalization.
Public education and teachers in particular have come under attacks by Republican politicians across the country even though 75% of parents are satisfied with their child's education. So while Republican continue to sell the idea of a crisis in education that can only be fixed by eliminating teachers unions, paying teacher less, and corporatizing students Americans believe that lack of funding is the biggest problem currently facing education. Additionally two thirds of American's say they would pay more taxes to help struggling cash strapped urban schools.
Americans also disagree with Republican politicians on the use of vouchers in public education with 56% of responding against using public funds for private schools.
This is also true of vouchers for Medicare where only 34% of Americans support such a change.
Of course these only represent a small portion of the divide that exists between Republican politicians and the general public. 80% of Americans are against the Citizen's United ruling, only 28% of Americans agree with the Republican assertion that we spend too little on the military, 83% of Americans are against an increase in student loan rates, 55% of Americans believe Capital Gains should be taxed at the same rate as other income not at a lower rate or at zero like many Republican legislators believe, just 40% of Americans support the Republican position of cutting food stamps, and 60% of Americans favor raising taxes on the rich.
In the end the best thing Republicans had going for them in this election was the fact that they weren't in the same party as President Obama. It would be a huge mistake for them to act as though this was an endorsement of their policies - a mistake they seem likely to make. A mistake that seems destined to be part of the 2016 Republican autopsy.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Rick Snyder is not a good political leader
If you have watched any of Rick Snyder's election ads you will see that the governor fancies himself a leader, however, since being a leader isn't a title one can just bestow upon one's self the question should be what does the governor's record tell us about his leadership skills.
The governor has been blessed with a Republican controlled House and Senate yet he has routinely taken a back seat on important issues and struggles to rally support for the few ideas he supports.
The governor believes a second international crossing in Detroit is a key economic component to alleviating Michigan's slow recovery, however this idea was roundly rejected by Michigan Republicans. After stating "right to work" wasn't on his agenda the governor quickly changed his position using petulant "they started it" logic unbefitting of a top state official. Rick Snyder vetoed a voter ID law despite the broad support the bill had among his Republicans colleagues and constituents. The governor also rejected a flawed abortion restriction bill only to see the legislature cut him out of the process and pass it in spite of his objections.
Beyond that even those that support the governor still question his abilities as a leader. For example the Lansing State Journal editorial endorsing Rick Snyder said he "needs to show more direct leadership on a road funding plan", and "Michiganders need to see Snyder leading the Legislature to do the right thing, not hanging on the sidelines."
Some conservatives call President Obama the "dictator in chief" because they believe has ignored the constitution while also undermining the democratic process. Obviously few Americans view dictator and leader as being synonymous. With this in mind it should be noted Rick Snyder's actions could similarly be considered un-American. Appointing a Emergency Manager to take over Detroit from democratically elected officials is hardly upholding the ideals of democracy. Replacing an Emergency Manager law that the voters repealed just months prior certainly doesn't suggest the governor is up for sharing power. Making many laws referendum proof, eliminating the voter's best method of directly impacting bad laws, is the exact opposite of giving citizens a voice in their government. Establishing a furtive slush fund, financed by anonymous donors, that was used to pay for an "independent board" that influences public policy while being accountable to no one, is not a democratic principle.
Of course the democratic process isn't the only thing Rick Snyder has trampled. A Michigan judge said the governor's initial bankruptcy filing was unconstitutional. While other Rick Snyder supported ideas deemed unconstitutional include a "law requiring state employees to pay 4% of their income in order to remain in the state’s defined benefit pension plan", the state ban on same sex marriages, and a law banning PLA's.
Additionally the Snyder administration held secret talks, comprised of mainly far right corporate donors and education advocates, looking for ways to bypass the voter approved constitutional ban on school vouchers. The governor claimed he was unaware of the meetings however he defended the gathering by saying "I don't want people to discourage people from being innovative and creative,". The question then becomes is it more disturbing that the governor was unaware of the potentially illegal actions of his staff or that he terms these attempts at breaking the law as innovation?
He has also stumbled in his leadership on other education reform ideas where the early results suggest the governor is finding it difficult to garner support for his policies. For example the governor believes the state should adopt Common Core Standards however the legislature rebuffed the governor and have cut all funding for implementing these new standards. This means over a three year span students will be taking three different standardized tests - tests that the governor believes should be used to determine the quality of teachers. The continued rejections from Republican elected officials makes this goal nearly impossible.
Rick Snyder has been an advocate for expanding charter schools in Michigan even though the data shows they don't outperform their public school counterparts. A recent exposé revealing a litany of issues with Michigan's Charter schools, including the misuse of public funds, forced the governor to propose greater transparency. Given that Michigan has more for profit charter schools than any other state in the nation the lack of oversight from the governor's office starts to looks like a tail wagging the dog situation. If not, it demonstrates a troubling level of naivete regarding the goals of for profit entities in the public education realm. Is Rick Snyder leading the charter school movement or is the charter school movement leading Rick Snyder?
The reality is the only efforts Rick Snyder has been able to successfully lead on were ones where the Republican legislature was already on board. The question for voter on Tuesday is do they want a governor who is just a lap dog for the Republican legislators and corporate interests because at this point Michigan Republicans clearly don't respect Rick Snyder's authority and if Democrats swing just five seats in the House the next governor will need to be more than just a figurehead.
The governor has been blessed with a Republican controlled House and Senate yet he has routinely taken a back seat on important issues and struggles to rally support for the few ideas he supports.
The governor believes a second international crossing in Detroit is a key economic component to alleviating Michigan's slow recovery, however this idea was roundly rejected by Michigan Republicans. After stating "right to work" wasn't on his agenda the governor quickly changed his position using petulant "they started it" logic unbefitting of a top state official. Rick Snyder vetoed a voter ID law despite the broad support the bill had among his Republicans colleagues and constituents. The governor also rejected a flawed abortion restriction bill only to see the legislature cut him out of the process and pass it in spite of his objections.
Beyond that even those that support the governor still question his abilities as a leader. For example the Lansing State Journal editorial endorsing Rick Snyder said he "needs to show more direct leadership on a road funding plan", and "Michiganders need to see Snyder leading the Legislature to do the right thing, not hanging on the sidelines."
Some conservatives call President Obama the "dictator in chief" because they believe has ignored the constitution while also undermining the democratic process. Obviously few Americans view dictator and leader as being synonymous. With this in mind it should be noted Rick Snyder's actions could similarly be considered un-American. Appointing a Emergency Manager to take over Detroit from democratically elected officials is hardly upholding the ideals of democracy. Replacing an Emergency Manager law that the voters repealed just months prior certainly doesn't suggest the governor is up for sharing power. Making many laws referendum proof, eliminating the voter's best method of directly impacting bad laws, is the exact opposite of giving citizens a voice in their government. Establishing a furtive slush fund, financed by anonymous donors, that was used to pay for an "independent board" that influences public policy while being accountable to no one, is not a democratic principle.
Of course the democratic process isn't the only thing Rick Snyder has trampled. A Michigan judge said the governor's initial bankruptcy filing was unconstitutional. While other Rick Snyder supported ideas deemed unconstitutional include a "law requiring state employees to pay 4% of their income in order to remain in the state’s defined benefit pension plan", the state ban on same sex marriages, and a law banning PLA's.
Additionally the Snyder administration held secret talks, comprised of mainly far right corporate donors and education advocates, looking for ways to bypass the voter approved constitutional ban on school vouchers. The governor claimed he was unaware of the meetings however he defended the gathering by saying "I don't want people to discourage people from being innovative and creative,". The question then becomes is it more disturbing that the governor was unaware of the potentially illegal actions of his staff or that he terms these attempts at breaking the law as innovation?
He has also stumbled in his leadership on other education reform ideas where the early results suggest the governor is finding it difficult to garner support for his policies. For example the governor believes the state should adopt Common Core Standards however the legislature rebuffed the governor and have cut all funding for implementing these new standards. This means over a three year span students will be taking three different standardized tests - tests that the governor believes should be used to determine the quality of teachers. The continued rejections from Republican elected officials makes this goal nearly impossible.
Rick Snyder has been an advocate for expanding charter schools in Michigan even though the data shows they don't outperform their public school counterparts. A recent exposé revealing a litany of issues with Michigan's Charter schools, including the misuse of public funds, forced the governor to propose greater transparency. Given that Michigan has more for profit charter schools than any other state in the nation the lack of oversight from the governor's office starts to looks like a tail wagging the dog situation. If not, it demonstrates a troubling level of naivete regarding the goals of for profit entities in the public education realm. Is Rick Snyder leading the charter school movement or is the charter school movement leading Rick Snyder?
The reality is the only efforts Rick Snyder has been able to successfully lead on were ones where the Republican legislature was already on board. The question for voter on Tuesday is do they want a governor who is just a lap dog for the Republican legislators and corporate interests because at this point Michigan Republicans clearly don't respect Rick Snyder's authority and if Democrats swing just five seats in the House the next governor will need to be more than just a figurehead.
Is Rick Snyder a liar or just untruthful?
With less than a week remaining before the 2014 elections the airwaves have been inundated with political advertisements. For Michigan residents this has meant a heavy does of ads for the debating the qualifications of Rick Snyder and Mark Schauer.
Unfortunately these ads are often full of manipulated information that, at best, offer a clear distortion of the facts. A good example of this is the recent ad by the "Rick for Michigan" campaign titled 'Everyone'.
The ad starts by stating "Governor Rick Snyder has reversed Michigan's decline". With the general economic improvement that the US has experienced that past few years taking credit for Michigan's economic gains seems questionable.
University of Michigan economist Don Grimes says that of the 300,000 or so jobs the governor attributes to his leadership only around 15,000 of these jobs are not explained by the resurgence of the auto industry and the national economic recovery. It's possible Rick Snyder's policies contributed to these 15,000 jobs but the governor has presented no data to connect his actions to these jobs.
Given his business background, the fact that Rick Snyder hasn't presented a correlation between Michigan's job growth and his job creation strategies suggests the governor is well aware of the infinitesimal impact he has actually had because no titan of industry offers up a $1.8 billion loss of revenue without a definitive cause and effect on any potential return on investment.
The ad then continues "the press reports are remarkable" followed by a number of quotes from various new sources which include the following:
"deliver what he promised" - Lansing State Journal - 10/17/14
"gutsy, pragmatic leader" - Crain's Detroit Business - 10/5/14
"Michigan is better off today" - Detroit News - 10/16/14
"K-12 spending has increased" - Lansing State Journal - 10/17/14
Then the ad finishes by stating "Mark Schauer's claim the governor cut education has been repeatedly..."
"Discredited" - Off the Record - 6/20/14
"False" - Detroit News - 10/16/14
"Big and persistent lie" - Lansing State Journal - 9/30/14
While this may appear to be an impressive collection of support for the governor there is more than meets the eye with these quotes. First it should be noted that many of these citation are editorials from conservative sources. Crain's for example is one of the few major publications to endorse Terri Lynn Land, while the Lansing State Journal supports Republicans for all three of the top state positions. The Detroit News - long considered the most conservative newspaper in Michigan - recently stated that their instinct is to "side always with the conservative candidate". The only surprise here would be if these sources didn't find nice things to say about Rick Snyder.
Having said that some of these quotes are taken out of context to seem more effusive than they really are. The article that the "deliver what he promised" quote was pulled from also contains the quotes "Snyder's overhaul has not yet prompted as much job growth", "Snyder needs to show more direct leadership", "his tax overhaul being hard on working families and seniors", and "Snyder disappointed some voters".
The Crain's quote while powerful is specifically referring to Rick Snyder "orchestrating Detroit's bankruptcy" instead of his entire leadership. Leaving this information out helps Snyder because many do not think this was a gutsy or pragmatic move. In fact in a Reuter's article from 2/21/13 experts warned that "bankruptcy could taint other struggling municipalities, worsening the problem." and "Chapter 9 is time-consuming, uncertain, expensive and unpredictable."
But perhaps the worst part of this television spot is the defense of Rick Snyder's education spending. First it should be noted that three of the four quotes all come from one writer. It can hardly be said that Mark Schauer's claims have been "repeatedly" anything when you use the same person for 75% of your quotes.
Second the Lansing State Journal article referenced for the "Big and persistent lie" quote was amended shortly after publication to "Big and persistent untruth" because there is a set of data from the non partisan Senate Financial Agency that does in fact show the $1 billion cut. The Snyder campaign asked local television stations to remove these ads because of this supposed lie yet all stations refused because of the reality that there is data that proves this correct. The claim may be disingenuous but it is absolutely not a lie.
Ironically by insisting on using language that the newspaper itself refuses to stand by it could be said that Rick Snyder is lying. It's also important to remember that back when Rick Snyder said he would be "happy to go fishing, go teach or do something else." and leave the 2015 governor seat to "better, smarter people" he also admitted that "we cut K through 12" spending.
This is a reality that a number of fact checkers agree with. Mlive determined that the governor's claim that he increased per pupil funding by $660 is an inaccurate portrayal of the data. Michigan Radio reports that the governor cut between $235 million and $393 million from the education budget his first year. Bridge Magazine the per pupil foundation allowance has fallen by $661 under the governors watch. Representative Jeff Irwin has presented data showing that schools are missing out on as much as $1 billion of funding because of Rick Snyder.
While most of the statements in this ad are insincere distortions, the most important question Michigan voters should be asking is not what about Rick Snyder did but what Rick Snyder is going to do. The governor has spent an awful lot of money on "victory lap" ads that purport a remarkable level of success but what you haven't heard is what Rick Snyder plans to do with the next four years.
In 2011 Rick Snyder said if he accomplished what he set out to accomplish he wouldn't run for a second term. Given that he is obviously running for re-election it would seem that the governor agrees that his first term was a failure because if it was a successful as his commercials suggest, he should be out fishing right now. Of course it's also possible that the Rick Snyder did in fact accomplish all of his goals and that his previous statement was a lie, or rather, an untruth. Either way Michigan residents shouldn't be surprise since a 4/23/14 Detroit News article said "the governor failed to keep his word" - which is likely something that 'Everyone' already knows.
Unfortunately these ads are often full of manipulated information that, at best, offer a clear distortion of the facts. A good example of this is the recent ad by the "Rick for Michigan" campaign titled 'Everyone'.
The ad starts by stating "Governor Rick Snyder has reversed Michigan's decline". With the general economic improvement that the US has experienced that past few years taking credit for Michigan's economic gains seems questionable.
University of Michigan economist Don Grimes says that of the 300,000 or so jobs the governor attributes to his leadership only around 15,000 of these jobs are not explained by the resurgence of the auto industry and the national economic recovery. It's possible Rick Snyder's policies contributed to these 15,000 jobs but the governor has presented no data to connect his actions to these jobs.
Given his business background, the fact that Rick Snyder hasn't presented a correlation between Michigan's job growth and his job creation strategies suggests the governor is well aware of the infinitesimal impact he has actually had because no titan of industry offers up a $1.8 billion loss of revenue without a definitive cause and effect on any potential return on investment.
The ad then continues "the press reports are remarkable" followed by a number of quotes from various new sources which include the following:
"deliver what he promised" - Lansing State Journal - 10/17/14
"gutsy, pragmatic leader" - Crain's Detroit Business - 10/5/14
"Michigan is better off today" - Detroit News - 10/16/14
"K-12 spending has increased" - Lansing State Journal - 10/17/14
Then the ad finishes by stating "Mark Schauer's claim the governor cut education has been repeatedly..."
"Discredited" - Off the Record - 6/20/14
"False" - Detroit News - 10/16/14
"Big and persistent lie" - Lansing State Journal - 9/30/14
While this may appear to be an impressive collection of support for the governor there is more than meets the eye with these quotes. First it should be noted that many of these citation are editorials from conservative sources. Crain's for example is one of the few major publications to endorse Terri Lynn Land, while the Lansing State Journal supports Republicans for all three of the top state positions. The Detroit News - long considered the most conservative newspaper in Michigan - recently stated that their instinct is to "side always with the conservative candidate". The only surprise here would be if these sources didn't find nice things to say about Rick Snyder.
Having said that some of these quotes are taken out of context to seem more effusive than they really are. The article that the "deliver what he promised" quote was pulled from also contains the quotes "Snyder's overhaul has not yet prompted as much job growth", "Snyder needs to show more direct leadership", "his tax overhaul being hard on working families and seniors", and "Snyder disappointed some voters".
The Crain's quote while powerful is specifically referring to Rick Snyder "orchestrating Detroit's bankruptcy" instead of his entire leadership. Leaving this information out helps Snyder because many do not think this was a gutsy or pragmatic move. In fact in a Reuter's article from 2/21/13 experts warned that "bankruptcy could taint other struggling municipalities, worsening the problem." and "Chapter 9 is time-consuming, uncertain, expensive and unpredictable."
But perhaps the worst part of this television spot is the defense of Rick Snyder's education spending. First it should be noted that three of the four quotes all come from one writer. It can hardly be said that Mark Schauer's claims have been "repeatedly" anything when you use the same person for 75% of your quotes.
Second the Lansing State Journal article referenced for the "Big and persistent lie" quote was amended shortly after publication to "Big and persistent untruth" because there is a set of data from the non partisan Senate Financial Agency that does in fact show the $1 billion cut. The Snyder campaign asked local television stations to remove these ads because of this supposed lie yet all stations refused because of the reality that there is data that proves this correct. The claim may be disingenuous but it is absolutely not a lie.
Ironically by insisting on using language that the newspaper itself refuses to stand by it could be said that Rick Snyder is lying. It's also important to remember that back when Rick Snyder said he would be "happy to go fishing, go teach or do something else." and leave the 2015 governor seat to "better, smarter people" he also admitted that "we cut K through 12" spending.
This is a reality that a number of fact checkers agree with. Mlive determined that the governor's claim that he increased per pupil funding by $660 is an inaccurate portrayal of the data. Michigan Radio reports that the governor cut between $235 million and $393 million from the education budget his first year. Bridge Magazine the per pupil foundation allowance has fallen by $661 under the governors watch. Representative Jeff Irwin has presented data showing that schools are missing out on as much as $1 billion of funding because of Rick Snyder.
While most of the statements in this ad are insincere distortions, the most important question Michigan voters should be asking is not what about Rick Snyder did but what Rick Snyder is going to do. The governor has spent an awful lot of money on "victory lap" ads that purport a remarkable level of success but what you haven't heard is what Rick Snyder plans to do with the next four years.
In 2011 Rick Snyder said if he accomplished what he set out to accomplish he wouldn't run for a second term. Given that he is obviously running for re-election it would seem that the governor agrees that his first term was a failure because if it was a successful as his commercials suggest, he should be out fishing right now. Of course it's also possible that the Rick Snyder did in fact accomplish all of his goals and that his previous statement was a lie, or rather, an untruth. Either way Michigan residents shouldn't be surprise since a 4/23/14 Detroit News article said "the governor failed to keep his word" - which is likely something that 'Everyone' already knows.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Rick Snyder's record on education is dismal
Perhaps the hottest debated topic in the Michigan Governor's race is school funding. The Schauer campaign claims Rick Snyder has cut $1 billion from education since he chose to give a $1.8 billion tax cut to business while also deciding to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars for a rainy day fund instead of replacing stimulus funding resulting in a $235 million drop in funding from the final Granholm budget to Rick Snyder's first budget.
The Snyder campaign claims they increased funding by $660 over his four years in office and has put out two separate ads asserting this position. Unfortunately for Michigan voters the two teachers involved in these commercials both retired before Rick Snyder took office which suggests their understanding of the current situation is questionable at best. It should also be noted that one of these teachers happens to be Rick Snyder's neighbor while the other is the vice chair of the Oakland County Republican Party. These former educators are hardly impartial.
Of course the purported increase doesn't actually mean more money for the classroom. A large portion of the additional funding is going directly to cover teacher pensions (MPSERS). While this may be a necessity it is also a bit of a self inflicted wound. Since being elected, the governor has supported a number of policies that actually exacerbated the pension problems. The initial funding cut saw many school systems reduce staff which means fewer members contributing. The governor also oversaw an early retirement buyout program that not only removed contributors but also increased those drawing from the system. Additionally, by creating more charter schools, which are not required to participate in the MPSERS program, the governor again took away contributing members.
Essentially the governor created a problem that he was forced to solve and is pretending that his solution somehow shows an increased commitment to education. But even that claim is sketchy since a portion of the funds that the governor is taking credit for actual come from educators since those still working have been forced to increase their per check contributions.
It's also important to remember that the average school district has seen less funds ending up in the classroom. The average per-pupil foundation allowance dropped from $7,146 in the 2010/2011 school year to $7,126 in the 2014/2015 school year. When adjusted for inflation schools have lost over $648 per pupil worth of buying power under Rick Snyder. The National Center for Education Statistics shows Michigan has seen a real drop of 9.0 % since 2008. Only 15 states have cut more out of the education budget over that time.
But regardless of whether you believe Rick Snyder increased or decreased spending, the measure that most Michigan parents really care about when it comes to education is outcomes. The fact that all of Rick Snyder’s re-election ads focus on the money tells you all you need to know about how well his policies are working for Michigan's kids.
If the change the governor had championed resulted in better test scores the cuts to education would be something to promote not refute. Unfortunately for students, Rick Snyder and the Republican controlled legislature have little to show for all of the changes they have enacted of the past few years that were supposed to turn Michigan into a leader in education.
Edweek’s annual Quality Counts report shows Michigan falling compared to other states under the governors watch on measures like Chance of Success, School Finance, and Standards, Assessments, and Accountability while only marginally improving from 43 in the nation to 42 in the nation on K-12 Achievement.
ACT test scores show little to no change under the governor’s watch as Michigan students have the 10th worst aggregate scores compared to the other states and the District of Columbia. Michigan children have also seen a slight loss or no gain in the majority of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores.
Additionally the Educational Achievement Authority, which was one of Rick Snyder’s avant garde education reform ideas, is on seriously shaky ground. The EAA claims they are seeing extraordinary results yet data shows that only 4 of the schools saw an improvement in their state rankings while 5 actually saw their rankings fall. Reports also show a decline in performance for 36.1% of EAA students in math and 35.6% of EAA students in reading.
But perhaps worst of all is the fact that the EAA experienced a 25% drop in enrollment. Given Rick Snyder's insistence on corporatizing Michigan's children seeing a quarter of the students who experienced an EAA school chose to go elsewhere the following year represents the pinnacle of failure. Free market principles dictate that if the EAA were providing a better experience more not less students would chose to attend. In this case the mass exodus speaks volumes about one of the governor’s signature reform ideas.
At this point Rick Snyder would rather discuss education funding because those numbers can be manipulated in a way that makes him appear devoted to education. The reality is that the governor has wasted an awful lot of tax payer money and legislative time focusing on changes that appease conservative ideologues and corporate donors but don't get results.
Michigan children deserve to be more than just a tag line in empty campaign rhetoric because the value of a good education is something you can't put a price on.
The Snyder campaign claims they increased funding by $660 over his four years in office and has put out two separate ads asserting this position. Unfortunately for Michigan voters the two teachers involved in these commercials both retired before Rick Snyder took office which suggests their understanding of the current situation is questionable at best. It should also be noted that one of these teachers happens to be Rick Snyder's neighbor while the other is the vice chair of the Oakland County Republican Party. These former educators are hardly impartial.
Of course the purported increase doesn't actually mean more money for the classroom. A large portion of the additional funding is going directly to cover teacher pensions (MPSERS). While this may be a necessity it is also a bit of a self inflicted wound. Since being elected, the governor has supported a number of policies that actually exacerbated the pension problems. The initial funding cut saw many school systems reduce staff which means fewer members contributing. The governor also oversaw an early retirement buyout program that not only removed contributors but also increased those drawing from the system. Additionally, by creating more charter schools, which are not required to participate in the MPSERS program, the governor again took away contributing members.
Essentially the governor created a problem that he was forced to solve and is pretending that his solution somehow shows an increased commitment to education. But even that claim is sketchy since a portion of the funds that the governor is taking credit for actual come from educators since those still working have been forced to increase their per check contributions.
It's also important to remember that the average school district has seen less funds ending up in the classroom. The average per-pupil foundation allowance dropped from $7,146 in the 2010/2011 school year to $7,126 in the 2014/2015 school year. When adjusted for inflation schools have lost over $648 per pupil worth of buying power under Rick Snyder. The National Center for Education Statistics shows Michigan has seen a real drop of 9.0 % since 2008. Only 15 states have cut more out of the education budget over that time.
But regardless of whether you believe Rick Snyder increased or decreased spending, the measure that most Michigan parents really care about when it comes to education is outcomes. The fact that all of Rick Snyder’s re-election ads focus on the money tells you all you need to know about how well his policies are working for Michigan's kids.
If the change the governor had championed resulted in better test scores the cuts to education would be something to promote not refute. Unfortunately for students, Rick Snyder and the Republican controlled legislature have little to show for all of the changes they have enacted of the past few years that were supposed to turn Michigan into a leader in education.
Edweek’s annual Quality Counts report shows Michigan falling compared to other states under the governors watch on measures like Chance of Success, School Finance, and Standards, Assessments, and Accountability while only marginally improving from 43 in the nation to 42 in the nation on K-12 Achievement.
ACT test scores show little to no change under the governor’s watch as Michigan students have the 10th worst aggregate scores compared to the other states and the District of Columbia. Michigan children have also seen a slight loss or no gain in the majority of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores.
Additionally the Educational Achievement Authority, which was one of Rick Snyder’s avant garde education reform ideas, is on seriously shaky ground. The EAA claims they are seeing extraordinary results yet data shows that only 4 of the schools saw an improvement in their state rankings while 5 actually saw their rankings fall. Reports also show a decline in performance for 36.1% of EAA students in math and 35.6% of EAA students in reading.
But perhaps worst of all is the fact that the EAA experienced a 25% drop in enrollment. Given Rick Snyder's insistence on corporatizing Michigan's children seeing a quarter of the students who experienced an EAA school chose to go elsewhere the following year represents the pinnacle of failure. Free market principles dictate that if the EAA were providing a better experience more not less students would chose to attend. In this case the mass exodus speaks volumes about one of the governor’s signature reform ideas.
At this point Rick Snyder would rather discuss education funding because those numbers can be manipulated in a way that makes him appear devoted to education. The reality is that the governor has wasted an awful lot of tax payer money and legislative time focusing on changes that appease conservative ideologues and corporate donors but don't get results.
Michigan children deserve to be more than just a tag line in empty campaign rhetoric because the value of a good education is something you can't put a price on.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Death with dignity is a matter of personal freedom
If you have visited a news oriented website recently you have likely heard the story of 29 year old Brittany Maynard who has an inoperable brain tumor. Rather than let the tumor dictate the terms of her death she proactively sought an option that would allow her to end her life in a dignified and humane fashion. Unfortunately this meant uprooting her life and spending part of her limited time left on earth moving to Oregon where the Death with Dignity Act that residents passed in 1994 made receiving a physician's aid to achieve a civilized passing legal.
Her story and her efforts have brought a lot of attention to a very contentious but important debate. Given that 46 states consider physician involvement in when and how a person chooses to move on illegal, the position of those running for office this November on this topic make this election cycle a crucial tipping point in the fight over individual rights versus over reaching government regulations.
The recent court decisions regarding marriage equality suggest that antiquated religious based moral platitudes are not protected by the constitution. This means that those that argue against one's personal freedom under the guise of their ecclesiastical beliefs of what is right and wrong will quickly find themselves on the wrong side of history. Just as the government has no right to force religious entities to act against their beliefs, the government also has no right to use one person's religious doctrine as justification for violating another person religious freedom.
Of course if a religious book is the pretext for these laws it should be noted that the Bible and other theological text are full of archaic ideas that we readily ignore.
Given the precarious nature of such religious rationale the standard talking point, used by those opposed to US citizens exercising their freedom of choice, suggests that the system is imperfect and some people who do not wish to die are being euthanized. While this is obviously a problem in need of a solution it is hardly a valid reason to deny countless others, who do want a dignified end of life, this option.
If every system needs to be infallible then perhaps we should end a capital punishment system where as many as 4% of death row inmates are innocent. We also may want to reconsider the second amendment that results in over 600 accidental deaths per years while also ironically being responsible for 51% of suicides.
If unintended consequences are an issue then we should enact laws that prevent carbon dioxide emissions since 700 to 800 people each year die from this pollution. We could also push for a universal health care system that would cover all Americans because our system of partial coverage leads to as many as 45,000 deaths per year.
Insisting that terminally ill Americans be required to suffer though the final and most painful days of their life because we haven't perfected the system for a humane death in the short time that the few laws on the books have been in place is an extraordinarily selfish act.
Brittany Maynard chose to share her story because she feels everyone should have the choice to a dignified death. The question is, do you believe that individuals or elected officials should have a greater say in this deeply personal decision because thanks to Brittany the fight over physician aided end of life care is likely to be a hot topic over the next few years and the state representatives, governors, and secretaries of state that win office this November will play a very large role which states pick liberty and which pick government sponsored oppression.
Her story and her efforts have brought a lot of attention to a very contentious but important debate. Given that 46 states consider physician involvement in when and how a person chooses to move on illegal, the position of those running for office this November on this topic make this election cycle a crucial tipping point in the fight over individual rights versus over reaching government regulations.
The recent court decisions regarding marriage equality suggest that antiquated religious based moral platitudes are not protected by the constitution. This means that those that argue against one's personal freedom under the guise of their ecclesiastical beliefs of what is right and wrong will quickly find themselves on the wrong side of history. Just as the government has no right to force religious entities to act against their beliefs, the government also has no right to use one person's religious doctrine as justification for violating another person religious freedom.
Of course if a religious book is the pretext for these laws it should be noted that the Bible and other theological text are full of archaic ideas that we readily ignore.
Given the precarious nature of such religious rationale the standard talking point, used by those opposed to US citizens exercising their freedom of choice, suggests that the system is imperfect and some people who do not wish to die are being euthanized. While this is obviously a problem in need of a solution it is hardly a valid reason to deny countless others, who do want a dignified end of life, this option.
If every system needs to be infallible then perhaps we should end a capital punishment system where as many as 4% of death row inmates are innocent. We also may want to reconsider the second amendment that results in over 600 accidental deaths per years while also ironically being responsible for 51% of suicides.
If unintended consequences are an issue then we should enact laws that prevent carbon dioxide emissions since 700 to 800 people each year die from this pollution. We could also push for a universal health care system that would cover all Americans because our system of partial coverage leads to as many as 45,000 deaths per year.
Insisting that terminally ill Americans be required to suffer though the final and most painful days of their life because we haven't perfected the system for a humane death in the short time that the few laws on the books have been in place is an extraordinarily selfish act.
Brittany Maynard chose to share her story because she feels everyone should have the choice to a dignified death. The question is, do you believe that individuals or elected officials should have a greater say in this deeply personal decision because thanks to Brittany the fight over physician aided end of life care is likely to be a hot topic over the next few years and the state representatives, governors, and secretaries of state that win office this November will play a very large role which states pick liberty and which pick government sponsored oppression.
Turning out the vote should be the focus of Ferguson October
For eight weeks there have been protests in Ferguson, Missouri related to the shooting death of Michael Brown by the Ferguson police department. This weekend these protesters have organized a series of marches they are calling "Weekend of Resistance" where they are asking for, among other things, the resignation of St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch.
While much of the media attention has faded the continued efforts of these citizens attempting to shine a light on the racial injustice present in their community is still a very important endeavor. The reality is that there are countless government policies that either unfairly target or negatively impact the ability of the African American community to achieve the American Dream.
Regardless of how successful protests like the one in Ferguson are at changing public opinion the best way to combat the systemic inequality that plagues all levels of government to vote.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said during the civil rights movement "So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others."
If the residents of Ferguson want to end the abuse by the police department that results in black residents comprising 93% of arrests they need to turn out for local elections at higher rates than their conservative counterparts. This disparity has left a community that is 67% black with a white mayor, an all white school board, 5 white council members out of 6 and only 3 black police officers in a force of 53.
Of course Ferguson is hardly the only place in the US with discriminatory government policies.
In Ohio, Republican Governor John Kasich, the Republican Secretary of State, and a Republican controlled legislature passed numerous voting restrictions that have been shown to negatively affect minorities’ ability to vote.
In New York, despite the fact that whites make up over 57% of the population they only account for around 10% of those stopped and frisked.
In Michigan, Republican Governor Rick Snyder and the Republican controlled legislature handed corporations a large tax even though the business savvy governor couldn't prove it would add jobs. To pay for this tax cut Republicans increased taxes on almost 50% of Michigan residents including cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit that even Republican economists say is an efficient way to reduce poverty.
The US is one of the only countries in the world that spends less on schools serving poor students than on those serving well off students.
In Florida, Republican Governor Rick Scott started treating welfare recipients like criminals by forcing them to take a drug test to receive benefits. A policy that seems hypocritical for a man who oversaw one of the largest Medicare frauds in US history.
Across the country, white youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.
In Pennsylvania, Republican Governor Tom Corbett cut education funding while making a voucher system and an expansion of charter schools core aspects of his education policy in spite of the fact that neither has been shown to improve educational outcomes. They do however benefit rich corporate donors who back Corbett.
In L.A, when stopped on the street or ordered out of their car blacks were arrested 166 percent more than whites.
In Texas, Republican Governor Rick Perry refused the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicare even though the state already ranks number one in the country with the most uninsured residents.
Unfortunately this information only represents a small fraction of the inequality of our political system. Speaking out about bad policies and demanding change is only effective if you show up to the polls and hold politicians responsible for their actions. With the 2014 elections less than a month away it is time for those who routinely get the short end of the stick to come out in force and add some diversity to every level of government.
While much of the media attention has faded the continued efforts of these citizens attempting to shine a light on the racial injustice present in their community is still a very important endeavor. The reality is that there are countless government policies that either unfairly target or negatively impact the ability of the African American community to achieve the American Dream.
Regardless of how successful protests like the one in Ferguson are at changing public opinion the best way to combat the systemic inequality that plagues all levels of government to vote.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said during the civil rights movement "So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others."
If the residents of Ferguson want to end the abuse by the police department that results in black residents comprising 93% of arrests they need to turn out for local elections at higher rates than their conservative counterparts. This disparity has left a community that is 67% black with a white mayor, an all white school board, 5 white council members out of 6 and only 3 black police officers in a force of 53.
Of course Ferguson is hardly the only place in the US with discriminatory government policies.
In Ohio, Republican Governor John Kasich, the Republican Secretary of State, and a Republican controlled legislature passed numerous voting restrictions that have been shown to negatively affect minorities’ ability to vote.
In New York, despite the fact that whites make up over 57% of the population they only account for around 10% of those stopped and frisked.
In Michigan, Republican Governor Rick Snyder and the Republican controlled legislature handed corporations a large tax even though the business savvy governor couldn't prove it would add jobs. To pay for this tax cut Republicans increased taxes on almost 50% of Michigan residents including cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit that even Republican economists say is an efficient way to reduce poverty.
The US is one of the only countries in the world that spends less on schools serving poor students than on those serving well off students.
In Florida, Republican Governor Rick Scott started treating welfare recipients like criminals by forcing them to take a drug test to receive benefits. A policy that seems hypocritical for a man who oversaw one of the largest Medicare frauds in US history.
Across the country, white youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.
In Pennsylvania, Republican Governor Tom Corbett cut education funding while making a voucher system and an expansion of charter schools core aspects of his education policy in spite of the fact that neither has been shown to improve educational outcomes. They do however benefit rich corporate donors who back Corbett.
In L.A, when stopped on the street or ordered out of their car blacks were arrested 166 percent more than whites.
In Texas, Republican Governor Rick Perry refused the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicare even though the state already ranks number one in the country with the most uninsured residents.
Unfortunately this information only represents a small fraction of the inequality of our political system. Speaking out about bad policies and demanding change is only effective if you show up to the polls and hold politicians responsible for their actions. With the 2014 elections less than a month away it is time for those who routinely get the short end of the stick to come out in force and add some diversity to every level of government.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Bill Maher is unusually conservative on Islam
For all of the great work Bill Maher does by adding an unapologetically liberal voice to sensitive topics his recent heated debate with actor Ben Affleck and author Sam Harris has put Bill at odds with many liberals. The discussion, which can be seen here, covers how censorious liberals should be of the Muslim faith.
As a vocal critic of religion it comes as no surprise that Bill finds fault with Islam. Yet to many, Bill's vociferous support of Sam Harris statement that "Islam is the mother lode of all bad ideas" is deeply troubling.
Few would argue that the number of people committing acts of violence in the name of Islam is comparable with that of extremists in other religions, but the insistence that the faith not the people are to blame for this is where the divide really begins.
Bill for example has stated on multiple occasions that Muslims believe anyone who leaves the religion should be killed however that view is only really prevalent in a small number of countries. This perspective is almost non-existent in countries like Kazakhstan, Albania, Kosovo, Turkey and Bosnia. They also only represent a minor fraction of the views of Muslims in countries like Indonesia, Lebanon, and Tunisia. Ironically some countries like Pakistan can actually trace their severe religious laws back to British Christianity while six US states still have blasphemy laws on the books.
Of course it should be noted that even if a large portion of the believers of Islam support death for those who denounce their religion that doesn't prove that Islam as a religion is the mother lode of bad ideas. It simply means that a certain group of followers takes the Quran far too literally.
This was also the case for Christianity at one point in time. Deuteronomy 13:6-9 states " “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife [a]you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’... you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
To some extent the US still operate under this Christian doctrine. We pretend any acceptance of Islam will result in Sharia law taking over the country and attempt to limit the rights and reach of Muslims in America to stop this "threat". We are also still waging what amount to holy wars under the guise of spreading democracy, defending freedom, or fighting terrorism.
We use all of these politically acceptable terms to illegally fly drones over sovereign airspace. These drones indiscriminately murder Muslims who may or may not be enemy combatants. And we do this all while claiming to be a Christian nation. Maybe we don't call it a religious war but we are no doubt creating an air of terror almost exclusively in Muslim countries. Is killing in the name of democracy somehow more acceptable than killing in the name of Allah?
But the biggest problem with Bill's stance is that he seems content to shout into the wind. On issues like gun rights, climate change, and marriage equality Bill advocates for change and represents a position that can achieve this goal. His opposition to Islam has no direction. He just wants it known that of all the religions he feels Islam is the worst, even though few are arguing against that belief.
The reality is that if the US focused all of the money and energy we currently direct at fighting and controlling Muslims and used it to promote education and a more inclusive view of women, extremist Muslim interpretations of their holy book would soon be replaced with a far less strident reading - similar to the transformation Christianity has experienced over the years.
In his Real Time broadcast on February 8th of 2013 Bill made a small step in this direction by recognizing the work of Muslim teenager Malala Yousafzai who has championed education for girls because she recognized that knowledge is power and the power created from an educated female Muslim population can be harnessed to ostracize the fundamentalist fringe into irrelevance. By continuing to put Islam on trial Bill is missing out on the opportunity to help Islam in the Middle East evolve like it has in many countries across the world.
In the end as long as we continue to use bombs in place of humanitarian efforts we will continue to create an environment where radical Islam is a logical response to unfounded aggression from "Christian nations".
As a vocal critic of religion it comes as no surprise that Bill finds fault with Islam. Yet to many, Bill's vociferous support of Sam Harris statement that "Islam is the mother lode of all bad ideas" is deeply troubling.
Few would argue that the number of people committing acts of violence in the name of Islam is comparable with that of extremists in other religions, but the insistence that the faith not the people are to blame for this is where the divide really begins.
Bill for example has stated on multiple occasions that Muslims believe anyone who leaves the religion should be killed however that view is only really prevalent in a small number of countries. This perspective is almost non-existent in countries like Kazakhstan, Albania, Kosovo, Turkey and Bosnia. They also only represent a minor fraction of the views of Muslims in countries like Indonesia, Lebanon, and Tunisia. Ironically some countries like Pakistan can actually trace their severe religious laws back to British Christianity while six US states still have blasphemy laws on the books.
Of course it should be noted that even if a large portion of the believers of Islam support death for those who denounce their religion that doesn't prove that Islam as a religion is the mother lode of bad ideas. It simply means that a certain group of followers takes the Quran far too literally.
This was also the case for Christianity at one point in time. Deuteronomy 13:6-9 states " “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife [a]you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’... you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
To some extent the US still operate under this Christian doctrine. We pretend any acceptance of Islam will result in Sharia law taking over the country and attempt to limit the rights and reach of Muslims in America to stop this "threat". We are also still waging what amount to holy wars under the guise of spreading democracy, defending freedom, or fighting terrorism.
We use all of these politically acceptable terms to illegally fly drones over sovereign airspace. These drones indiscriminately murder Muslims who may or may not be enemy combatants. And we do this all while claiming to be a Christian nation. Maybe we don't call it a religious war but we are no doubt creating an air of terror almost exclusively in Muslim countries. Is killing in the name of democracy somehow more acceptable than killing in the name of Allah?
But the biggest problem with Bill's stance is that he seems content to shout into the wind. On issues like gun rights, climate change, and marriage equality Bill advocates for change and represents a position that can achieve this goal. His opposition to Islam has no direction. He just wants it known that of all the religions he feels Islam is the worst, even though few are arguing against that belief.
The reality is that if the US focused all of the money and energy we currently direct at fighting and controlling Muslims and used it to promote education and a more inclusive view of women, extremist Muslim interpretations of their holy book would soon be replaced with a far less strident reading - similar to the transformation Christianity has experienced over the years.
In his Real Time broadcast on February 8th of 2013 Bill made a small step in this direction by recognizing the work of Muslim teenager Malala Yousafzai who has championed education for girls because she recognized that knowledge is power and the power created from an educated female Muslim population can be harnessed to ostracize the fundamentalist fringe into irrelevance. By continuing to put Islam on trial Bill is missing out on the opportunity to help Islam in the Middle East evolve like it has in many countries across the world.
In the end as long as we continue to use bombs in place of humanitarian efforts we will continue to create an environment where radical Islam is a logical response to unfounded aggression from "Christian nations".
Friday, October 3, 2014
Atlanta cheating scandal and the failure of standardized testing
This week saw the start of a trial for a number of teachers and administrators in the Atlanta area who are accused of altering student tests to improve scores. While this is clearly a disturbing accusation the most troubling aspect of this case is the government regulations that precipitated the cheating.
Given the importance of a good education it comes as no surprise that there is always of push for improving the nation’s educational system. Unfortunately all too often the politicians in charge of these improvements have championed ideas that may meet the needs of the free market ideology but do nothing to actually improve education. This can be seen in the results of the charter school movement. It can be seen in the many attempts to remove tenure protections. And it can be seen in the efforts to make vouchers a key tenant of reform.
But perhaps the single biggest failure of the education reform movement is the obsession with high stakes testing that determines how much money a school gets, which teachers get to keep their increasingly vitiated jobs, and what colleges children can attend.
This infatuation with boiling years worth of an education down to one winner take all test costs schools $1.7 billion per year or as much as $1,000 per pupil in the test heavy grades. These same students also lose 20 to 40 minutes of instruction time per day practicing and taking standardized tests. In addition to the in school testing parents also spend over $2.5 billion per year attempting to improve their children's ACT and SAT scores.
Given all of the time and money being poured into testing it should come as no surprise that new NEA president, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, has made standardized testing a core part of her agenda.
The problem is that for many educators this over emphasis on testing has a number of unintended consequences above and beyond the ever increasing costs and intrusion on instruction time. For example some teachers find that teaching to the test stifles the creativity that many feel is important to improving the education process. Instead of using tests to measure what students understand and what they need further work on to increase outcomes for all students, top politicians pushing these test-centric reform efforts like George W. Bush and Barack Obama have turned them into tools to determine school funding and teacher effectiveness.
While many corporations in the US are looking for ways to expand creativity and give their employees greater flexibility to excel at their jobs, politicians have taken the opposite approach and micromanaged educators jobs to the point of becoming automatons. This neutering has lead to a 20 year low in morale and a record high in the attrition rate. Obviously neither of these is good for educational outcomes.
Beyond that the tests themselves have been found to be discriminatory, they haven't been shown to improve student achievement, and they aren't a part of Finland's education system that routinely ranks as one of the world’s best.
It should also be noted that a student’s GPA is a better predictor of college success than SAT scores. This suggests that when some of the government regulations and corporate intrusions are removed, teachers are more than capable of providing an education that prepares students for the next step. Perhaps being able to tailor the learning process to fit a select group of students is a better method than the top down, one size fits all testing oligarchy.
Given the obvious deficiencies in the current system and the magnitude of the outcomes is anyone surprised that teachers across the country have turned to nefarious methods to improve the test scores for their district? Good teachers have been shown to be an important cog in the education process however more important is a child's socio-economic status. For many educators, the proposition of their school closing because the students they teach have an inherent disadvantage is a dire situation. Cheating, however undesirable, becomes a rational solution to an imperfect system.
Of course public school teachers are hardly the only ones to resort to such tactics. Charter schools have seen their fair share of cheating scandals as well. Professional athletes across a multitude of sports have cheated to improve their chances of success. Politicians have certainly operated outside of the law with a number of quid pro quo agreements. Corporate heads have cooked the books to artificially increase profits. Bankers helped cause the great recession by essentially cheating the system to enrich themselves.
The reality is the higher the stakes the more likely humans are to look for ways to enhance their odds of success. While assessing students acuity in math, reading, writing, and science has value, turning this teaching tool into a free market competition among the adults clearly isn't achieving the desired results. What should be abundantly clear at this point is when put to the test high stakes standardized testing has failed.
Given the importance of a good education it comes as no surprise that there is always of push for improving the nation’s educational system. Unfortunately all too often the politicians in charge of these improvements have championed ideas that may meet the needs of the free market ideology but do nothing to actually improve education. This can be seen in the results of the charter school movement. It can be seen in the many attempts to remove tenure protections. And it can be seen in the efforts to make vouchers a key tenant of reform.
But perhaps the single biggest failure of the education reform movement is the obsession with high stakes testing that determines how much money a school gets, which teachers get to keep their increasingly vitiated jobs, and what colleges children can attend.
This infatuation with boiling years worth of an education down to one winner take all test costs schools $1.7 billion per year or as much as $1,000 per pupil in the test heavy grades. These same students also lose 20 to 40 minutes of instruction time per day practicing and taking standardized tests. In addition to the in school testing parents also spend over $2.5 billion per year attempting to improve their children's ACT and SAT scores.
Given all of the time and money being poured into testing it should come as no surprise that new NEA president, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, has made standardized testing a core part of her agenda.
The problem is that for many educators this over emphasis on testing has a number of unintended consequences above and beyond the ever increasing costs and intrusion on instruction time. For example some teachers find that teaching to the test stifles the creativity that many feel is important to improving the education process. Instead of using tests to measure what students understand and what they need further work on to increase outcomes for all students, top politicians pushing these test-centric reform efforts like George W. Bush and Barack Obama have turned them into tools to determine school funding and teacher effectiveness.
While many corporations in the US are looking for ways to expand creativity and give their employees greater flexibility to excel at their jobs, politicians have taken the opposite approach and micromanaged educators jobs to the point of becoming automatons. This neutering has lead to a 20 year low in morale and a record high in the attrition rate. Obviously neither of these is good for educational outcomes.
Beyond that the tests themselves have been found to be discriminatory, they haven't been shown to improve student achievement, and they aren't a part of Finland's education system that routinely ranks as one of the world’s best.
It should also be noted that a student’s GPA is a better predictor of college success than SAT scores. This suggests that when some of the government regulations and corporate intrusions are removed, teachers are more than capable of providing an education that prepares students for the next step. Perhaps being able to tailor the learning process to fit a select group of students is a better method than the top down, one size fits all testing oligarchy.
Given the obvious deficiencies in the current system and the magnitude of the outcomes is anyone surprised that teachers across the country have turned to nefarious methods to improve the test scores for their district? Good teachers have been shown to be an important cog in the education process however more important is a child's socio-economic status. For many educators, the proposition of their school closing because the students they teach have an inherent disadvantage is a dire situation. Cheating, however undesirable, becomes a rational solution to an imperfect system.
Of course public school teachers are hardly the only ones to resort to such tactics. Charter schools have seen their fair share of cheating scandals as well. Professional athletes across a multitude of sports have cheated to improve their chances of success. Politicians have certainly operated outside of the law with a number of quid pro quo agreements. Corporate heads have cooked the books to artificially increase profits. Bankers helped cause the great recession by essentially cheating the system to enrich themselves.
The reality is the higher the stakes the more likely humans are to look for ways to enhance their odds of success. While assessing students acuity in math, reading, writing, and science has value, turning this teaching tool into a free market competition among the adults clearly isn't achieving the desired results. What should be abundantly clear at this point is when put to the test high stakes standardized testing has failed.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Colorado conservative sanitizing history in the name of patriotism
Conservative politicians across the country have spent much of the past few years attempting to remake public education in their image. It can be seen in policies that turn teachers into free market independent contractors competing with their colleagues and counterparts at other schools because conservatives believe competition is better than collaboration in every situation. It can be seen in the multitude of efforts to integrate creationism in science classes even though this theological doctrine has zero scientific content. But most recently it can be seen in the work of Jefferson Country Colorado school board member Julie Williams.
Williams has offered a proposal that aims to sanitize the districts US History materials to "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage."
This idea of presenting the US as infallible has long been a conservative talking point but the reality is that patriotism is just conservative code for political correctness.
For instance, if you look at Julie Williams Facebook page you will see that she is an aggressive opponent of Colorado using the Common Core Standards. Given that these standards have been approved of at the state level, her resistance and subsequent social media activism could certainly been seen as a general disregard for the law. Her Facebook posts also reveal that she believes vaccines are responsible for some cases of autism despite the CDC reports indicating the multiple studies find no such link. Is sharing this misinformation not a form of social strife?
Our history is also full of events that are held up as glorious victories for the country even though they would clearly be classified as civil disorder. The Boston Tea party, the Revolutionary War, ending Women's Suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement are all events that a revered even though they also represent a citizenry struggling against government.
What Williams is really advocating for here is the power to manipulate public education to fit her naive idealized vision of America. There is no question that American's have accomplished many great things and those achievements should certainly be part of every students education however as the iconic saying goes "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Slavery is a shameful part of American history but glossing over slavery means ignoring the core cause of the Civil War. It means skipping over the Civil Rights movement. And it insults the memory of all the men and women that were abducted from their homes and sold like animals.
Removing Japanese American's from the homes and holding them in internment camps during WWII and the actions of Joe McCarthy during the Second Red Scare were both disgraceful actions by our government but understanding how fear can lead to terrible decisions is clearly a topic worth discussing as we face new enemies like the Islamic State and the Ebola virus.
The Great Depression is obviously a time in our history that many would prefer to forget but the massive wealth gap coupled with a severe lack of government regulations that precipitated this sudden economic crisis are lessons that if learned may have prevented the Great Recession of 2008.
The irony is that while many events in US history represent a less than perfect country taking personal responsibility is a conservative meme. Brushing all of our undesirable actions under the rug represents to polar opposite of this moral imperative.
Beyond this the idea that US History is some sort of marketable product to be promoted really misses the point of education. This is the type of narrow minded tripe commonly associated with Communist, Theocratic, and Dictatorial governments. Using the education system to indoctrinate the public with propaganda is far from our Democratic ideals.
Countless American success stories prove that the knowledge gained from failing is often paramount in achieving success. Instead of seeing every poor decision as a black eye we should view them as an opportunity to learn and grow because if education is supposed to prepare children for the real world seeing history through rose colored glasses does these kids a great disservice.
In the end the question that Julie Williams and her supporters need to ask themselves is would they still advocate for a special committee to review and sensor US history materials if that committee was appointed by liberals? If the answer to that question is no then it tells you all you need to know about the goals of this proposal.
Williams has offered a proposal that aims to sanitize the districts US History materials to "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage."
This idea of presenting the US as infallible has long been a conservative talking point but the reality is that patriotism is just conservative code for political correctness.
For instance, if you look at Julie Williams Facebook page you will see that she is an aggressive opponent of Colorado using the Common Core Standards. Given that these standards have been approved of at the state level, her resistance and subsequent social media activism could certainly been seen as a general disregard for the law. Her Facebook posts also reveal that she believes vaccines are responsible for some cases of autism despite the CDC reports indicating the multiple studies find no such link. Is sharing this misinformation not a form of social strife?
Our history is also full of events that are held up as glorious victories for the country even though they would clearly be classified as civil disorder. The Boston Tea party, the Revolutionary War, ending Women's Suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement are all events that a revered even though they also represent a citizenry struggling against government.
What Williams is really advocating for here is the power to manipulate public education to fit her naive idealized vision of America. There is no question that American's have accomplished many great things and those achievements should certainly be part of every students education however as the iconic saying goes "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Slavery is a shameful part of American history but glossing over slavery means ignoring the core cause of the Civil War. It means skipping over the Civil Rights movement. And it insults the memory of all the men and women that were abducted from their homes and sold like animals.
Removing Japanese American's from the homes and holding them in internment camps during WWII and the actions of Joe McCarthy during the Second Red Scare were both disgraceful actions by our government but understanding how fear can lead to terrible decisions is clearly a topic worth discussing as we face new enemies like the Islamic State and the Ebola virus.
The Great Depression is obviously a time in our history that many would prefer to forget but the massive wealth gap coupled with a severe lack of government regulations that precipitated this sudden economic crisis are lessons that if learned may have prevented the Great Recession of 2008.
The irony is that while many events in US history represent a less than perfect country taking personal responsibility is a conservative meme. Brushing all of our undesirable actions under the rug represents to polar opposite of this moral imperative.
Beyond this the idea that US History is some sort of marketable product to be promoted really misses the point of education. This is the type of narrow minded tripe commonly associated with Communist, Theocratic, and Dictatorial governments. Using the education system to indoctrinate the public with propaganda is far from our Democratic ideals.
Countless American success stories prove that the knowledge gained from failing is often paramount in achieving success. Instead of seeing every poor decision as a black eye we should view them as an opportunity to learn and grow because if education is supposed to prepare children for the real world seeing history through rose colored glasses does these kids a great disservice.
In the end the question that Julie Williams and her supporters need to ask themselves is would they still advocate for a special committee to review and sensor US history materials if that committee was appointed by liberals? If the answer to that question is no then it tells you all you need to know about the goals of this proposal.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Why are fast food workers being vilified?
The efforts of fast food workers around the country to bring attention to their low wages earlier this month have generated a lot of media attention. While having a conversation about getting a greater share of profits distributed to the average employee is a good thing there have also been quite a few arguments against this idea.
For example conservative writer Deborah Simmons puts voice to a common complaint among advocates of keeping wages low in her article titled "Fast-food jobs a good start, not a career". It should be noted that a few years ago, due to an exceedingly high turnover rate, McDonald's started a campaign trying to convince employees to turn their job into a career. Obviously not every employee can become a manager, but McDonald's certainly wouldn't be the first company to dangle the carrot of promotion to retain good staff at lower rates. Additionally, the fact that only 30% of McDonald's staff are teenagers suggests there is a need for fast food companies to have a certain percentage of their staff that makes "flipping burgers" at the very least a short term career, because as a pure cost consideration hiring teenagers who can work for as little as $4.25 makes far more sense.
The next question that Simmons asks is do these employees deserve $15 per hour for "slinging burgers or plopping a basket of fries into a deep fryer"? Unfortunately this flippant question completely misses the value of the average McDonald's employee. Imagine if someone did the same analysis of Mrs. Simmons job. She gets paid to have an opinion and write about it. Anyone can do that, so does she really "deserve" the wages she makes? The question isn't how many people can do the job but rather how many people can do the job well.
Yes, most anyone can take an order but how many people can take your order quickly, correctly, and provide a positive customer interaction? Do you have to have a degree from an Ivy League college to work the front of a McDonald's? Nope. But you can bet that nearly everyone currently working a McDonald's cash register can do it better than Deborah Simmons, despite her obvious educational advantage.
Having said that, neither what a McDonald's job is meant to be or how much someone deserves to sling burgers is the reason these employees are asking for a raise. They want a raise because they have helped McDonald's achieve staggering profits and they would like their fair share.
Another common concern regarding an increase in wages for fast food employees is that it would increase prices and put stores out of business. While this is certainly possible, McDonald's currently operates with a 20% profit margin. Perhaps rather than raise the cost of the Big Mac they can just cut into the nearly $1 per unit profit they make and share that with employees. It is also true that even with higher wages and only small price increases McDonald's manages to make more profit at their European locations.
Still others complain that increasing wages will result in fewer employees because these companies will automate. The reality is that companies are looking for ways to cut costs and almost none of them get panned by supporters of free market capitalism. Their sudden concern for the employment levels of low wage workers seems completely disingenuous. Farmers have eliminated vast numbers of jobs over the years due to advancements in equipment. Are there people clamoring for a return to using an ox to till the fields because it would create jobs? Think of all of increase in employment we could create if we just paid people to move products from the manufacturer to the seller using bicycles instead of those job killing semi-trucks. But even when automation does occur it doesn't necessarily lead to massive layoffs. For instance data shows the invention of ATM has not lead to the demise of bank tellers.
Rather than feigning concern about the number of people employed in the fast food industry, we should be outraged that these low wages cost taxpayers some $7 billion per year since 52% of families of fast food workers get at least one form of government assistance. The fight for $15 isn't about retaining a certain number of jobs. It is about providing a wage that a person can live on. If your starter job barely covers your basic needs how are you supposed to get that elusive college degree that proves you want to do something better with your life? If you have to work two jobs just to make ends meet when are you supposed to spend time with your family and make sure your kids have a better life? If you get low pay and little to no benefits how are you supposed to prevent an injury or illness from bankrupting you?
But perhaps the favorite talking point for those in support of low wages is the idea that raising wages would hurt the franchisees (small business owners) not the corporation. Apparently the corporation can't spare a dime of its $8.5 billion in profit to assist each store with possible wage hikes. Apparently increasing dividend payments for shareholders to $3.5 billion is better for business than rewarding employees with increased pay. Apparently McDonald's executive team feels no responsibility for a five year downward sales trend as they still managed to take home as much as $67 million in compensation.
Of course the irony is that employees aren't the only ones at McDonald's that feel they deserve a greater share of the profits. The very franchisees that talking heads claim to be so concerned about are upset with corporate for cutting into their margins with recent increases in franchise fees. Fees that are aimed at making McDonald's bottom line look better to investors at the expense of employees and franchisees. And while employees organizing to negotiate a better deal represents the worst of capitalism to some, it should be noted that franchisees are attempting to do the very same thing. Don't these franchise owners know that in the free market it is each man for himself? Don't they know that by getting together and demanding more money it will ultimately destroy McDonald's? Don't they get that McDonald's needs $8.5 billion in profit to survive? How can these small business owners be so naïve, and selfish?
In the end McDonald's, their franchisees, and their employees all want the same thing - more money. The problem is that unless they all work together to find a way to increase earnings the current model only provides so much profit and for one party to make more it means another party has to accept less. History shows that Henry Ford doubled wages and still managed to increase profits. Are we really supposed to believe McDonald's can't spend a single penny more on workers without going bankrupt or ruining the US economy?
For example conservative writer Deborah Simmons puts voice to a common complaint among advocates of keeping wages low in her article titled "Fast-food jobs a good start, not a career". It should be noted that a few years ago, due to an exceedingly high turnover rate, McDonald's started a campaign trying to convince employees to turn their job into a career. Obviously not every employee can become a manager, but McDonald's certainly wouldn't be the first company to dangle the carrot of promotion to retain good staff at lower rates. Additionally, the fact that only 30% of McDonald's staff are teenagers suggests there is a need for fast food companies to have a certain percentage of their staff that makes "flipping burgers" at the very least a short term career, because as a pure cost consideration hiring teenagers who can work for as little as $4.25 makes far more sense.
The next question that Simmons asks is do these employees deserve $15 per hour for "slinging burgers or plopping a basket of fries into a deep fryer"? Unfortunately this flippant question completely misses the value of the average McDonald's employee. Imagine if someone did the same analysis of Mrs. Simmons job. She gets paid to have an opinion and write about it. Anyone can do that, so does she really "deserve" the wages she makes? The question isn't how many people can do the job but rather how many people can do the job well.
Yes, most anyone can take an order but how many people can take your order quickly, correctly, and provide a positive customer interaction? Do you have to have a degree from an Ivy League college to work the front of a McDonald's? Nope. But you can bet that nearly everyone currently working a McDonald's cash register can do it better than Deborah Simmons, despite her obvious educational advantage.
Having said that, neither what a McDonald's job is meant to be or how much someone deserves to sling burgers is the reason these employees are asking for a raise. They want a raise because they have helped McDonald's achieve staggering profits and they would like their fair share.
Another common concern regarding an increase in wages for fast food employees is that it would increase prices and put stores out of business. While this is certainly possible, McDonald's currently operates with a 20% profit margin. Perhaps rather than raise the cost of the Big Mac they can just cut into the nearly $1 per unit profit they make and share that with employees. It is also true that even with higher wages and only small price increases McDonald's manages to make more profit at their European locations.
Still others complain that increasing wages will result in fewer employees because these companies will automate. The reality is that companies are looking for ways to cut costs and almost none of them get panned by supporters of free market capitalism. Their sudden concern for the employment levels of low wage workers seems completely disingenuous. Farmers have eliminated vast numbers of jobs over the years due to advancements in equipment. Are there people clamoring for a return to using an ox to till the fields because it would create jobs? Think of all of increase in employment we could create if we just paid people to move products from the manufacturer to the seller using bicycles instead of those job killing semi-trucks. But even when automation does occur it doesn't necessarily lead to massive layoffs. For instance data shows the invention of ATM has not lead to the demise of bank tellers.
Rather than feigning concern about the number of people employed in the fast food industry, we should be outraged that these low wages cost taxpayers some $7 billion per year since 52% of families of fast food workers get at least one form of government assistance. The fight for $15 isn't about retaining a certain number of jobs. It is about providing a wage that a person can live on. If your starter job barely covers your basic needs how are you supposed to get that elusive college degree that proves you want to do something better with your life? If you have to work two jobs just to make ends meet when are you supposed to spend time with your family and make sure your kids have a better life? If you get low pay and little to no benefits how are you supposed to prevent an injury or illness from bankrupting you?
But perhaps the favorite talking point for those in support of low wages is the idea that raising wages would hurt the franchisees (small business owners) not the corporation. Apparently the corporation can't spare a dime of its $8.5 billion in profit to assist each store with possible wage hikes. Apparently increasing dividend payments for shareholders to $3.5 billion is better for business than rewarding employees with increased pay. Apparently McDonald's executive team feels no responsibility for a five year downward sales trend as they still managed to take home as much as $67 million in compensation.
Of course the irony is that employees aren't the only ones at McDonald's that feel they deserve a greater share of the profits. The very franchisees that talking heads claim to be so concerned about are upset with corporate for cutting into their margins with recent increases in franchise fees. Fees that are aimed at making McDonald's bottom line look better to investors at the expense of employees and franchisees. And while employees organizing to negotiate a better deal represents the worst of capitalism to some, it should be noted that franchisees are attempting to do the very same thing. Don't these franchise owners know that in the free market it is each man for himself? Don't they know that by getting together and demanding more money it will ultimately destroy McDonald's? Don't they get that McDonald's needs $8.5 billion in profit to survive? How can these small business owners be so naïve, and selfish?
In the end McDonald's, their franchisees, and their employees all want the same thing - more money. The problem is that unless they all work together to find a way to increase earnings the current model only provides so much profit and for one party to make more it means another party has to accept less. History shows that Henry Ford doubled wages and still managed to increase profits. Are we really supposed to believe McDonald's can't spend a single penny more on workers without going bankrupt or ruining the US economy?
Monday, September 15, 2014
What's wrong with fast food workers earning a living wage?
Last week fast food employees across the nation took to the streets to protest low wages. As one of the largest fast food chains in the world McDonalds is often the target of these protests. Of course given that the average McDonald's employee receives some of the lowest wages in the industry at around $7.73 per hour it should as no surprise that McDonalds often takes center stage in the “fight for 15” campaign.
As with any good protest the idea is to bring attention to issue and sway public opinion. If the protesters can generate enough bad press and consumer pressure the corporations may be compelled to change their habits.
The goal of $15 per hour is likely a pipedream but with around $8.5 billion in income, $3.5 billion in dividend payments, and another $67 million in executive compensation it seems McDonald’s can afford to increase wages some. Asking for more than you expect to receive is standard practice in any sort of negotiations so starting at $15 per hour makes sense as an initial offer.
The problem for workers is that unless management at McDonalds decides to raise wages or improve benefits they will need their own team of negotiators to represent them. They will also need a structure to approve any agreement. Without this, each employee will be left to fend for themselves – a situation that clearly has and will continue to favor the multi-billion dollar corporation.
Unfortunately as soon as employees retain the services of an organization that can help them negotiate better compensation they will also make enemies of those who believe such organizations are "evil".
My colleague Kathryn Hoekstra offers a couple examples of this mentality. Kathy sees the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) working with fast food employees and thinks their motives are anything but altruistic. To her they are nothing but a greedy, self-serving, power hungry organization.
But how is that different than McDonalds? If spending money trying to gain more members makes the SEIU power hungry then the $1 billion in advertising McDonalds spends each year should be a concern as well. If the SEIU executive compensation of around $3 per member shows how greedy unions bosses are then the $77 per employee being paid to McDonalds executives should be much more troubling. If the 6% profit margin average for the fast food industry is meant to illustrate that these companies commitment to their employees what does that say for the SEIU's 5.9% profit margin? More over what does that say about McDonald's with its 19.8% margin?
The reality is both of McDonald's and the SEIU are free market, capitalist entities. Their goals of increasing income and users of their product are the same. Suggesting that the one that benefits the average worker is nefarious and immoral while the one that benefits shareholders and the wealthy is the epitome of American ideals and should be revered is an odd double standard.
Another peculiar argument is that raising employee wages will mean a more expensive Big Mac. Given the current problem with obesity in this country making a Big Mac less affordable certainly doesn't seems like a national catastrophe but it should be noted that taxpayers already contribute around $1.2 billion each year in public assistance to McDonald's employees. It certainly doesn't seem very moral to ask taxpayers to subsidize McDonald's workforce while they shell out billions to shareholders and keep billions more in profit.
Of course even the scariest of predictions leaves McDonalds with around $400 million in profit without touching a single dime of shareholders earnings or raising the price of a single menu item. Clearly that would fall short of McDonald's typical earnings but how many billions of dollars does a company really need to be comfortable?
In the end the data shows that fast food workers would see a significant increase in wages and benefits with union membership and regardless of the doomsday rhetoric plenty of other countries do just as well if not better than the US with considerably higher unionization rate.
So while capitalist zealots will belittle fast food workers by pretending their low wages accurately reflect their "value" the reality is that if the SEIU gets involved these employees are likely to see a sudden and dramatic increase in their "value". This reality seems to be very troubling for some people but the question is why? When did the public become more protective of corporate profits than the general welfare of working Americans?
As with any good protest the idea is to bring attention to issue and sway public opinion. If the protesters can generate enough bad press and consumer pressure the corporations may be compelled to change their habits.
The goal of $15 per hour is likely a pipedream but with around $8.5 billion in income, $3.5 billion in dividend payments, and another $67 million in executive compensation it seems McDonald’s can afford to increase wages some. Asking for more than you expect to receive is standard practice in any sort of negotiations so starting at $15 per hour makes sense as an initial offer.
The problem for workers is that unless management at McDonalds decides to raise wages or improve benefits they will need their own team of negotiators to represent them. They will also need a structure to approve any agreement. Without this, each employee will be left to fend for themselves – a situation that clearly has and will continue to favor the multi-billion dollar corporation.
Unfortunately as soon as employees retain the services of an organization that can help them negotiate better compensation they will also make enemies of those who believe such organizations are "evil".
My colleague Kathryn Hoekstra offers a couple examples of this mentality. Kathy sees the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) working with fast food employees and thinks their motives are anything but altruistic. To her they are nothing but a greedy, self-serving, power hungry organization.
But how is that different than McDonalds? If spending money trying to gain more members makes the SEIU power hungry then the $1 billion in advertising McDonalds spends each year should be a concern as well. If the SEIU executive compensation of around $3 per member shows how greedy unions bosses are then the $77 per employee being paid to McDonalds executives should be much more troubling. If the 6% profit margin average for the fast food industry is meant to illustrate that these companies commitment to their employees what does that say for the SEIU's 5.9% profit margin? More over what does that say about McDonald's with its 19.8% margin?
The reality is both of McDonald's and the SEIU are free market, capitalist entities. Their goals of increasing income and users of their product are the same. Suggesting that the one that benefits the average worker is nefarious and immoral while the one that benefits shareholders and the wealthy is the epitome of American ideals and should be revered is an odd double standard.
Another peculiar argument is that raising employee wages will mean a more expensive Big Mac. Given the current problem with obesity in this country making a Big Mac less affordable certainly doesn't seems like a national catastrophe but it should be noted that taxpayers already contribute around $1.2 billion each year in public assistance to McDonald's employees. It certainly doesn't seem very moral to ask taxpayers to subsidize McDonald's workforce while they shell out billions to shareholders and keep billions more in profit.
Of course even the scariest of predictions leaves McDonalds with around $400 million in profit without touching a single dime of shareholders earnings or raising the price of a single menu item. Clearly that would fall short of McDonald's typical earnings but how many billions of dollars does a company really need to be comfortable?
In the end the data shows that fast food workers would see a significant increase in wages and benefits with union membership and regardless of the doomsday rhetoric plenty of other countries do just as well if not better than the US with considerably higher unionization rate.
So while capitalist zealots will belittle fast food workers by pretending their low wages accurately reflect their "value" the reality is that if the SEIU gets involved these employees are likely to see a sudden and dramatic increase in their "value". This reality seems to be very troubling for some people but the question is why? When did the public become more protective of corporate profits than the general welfare of working Americans?
Friday, September 5, 2014
Blacks and Whites aren't having the same conversation on race
In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting and the subsequent protests, there has been a lot of talk on the airwaves about keeping the conversation going because whether you believe the incident was racially motivated it is clear that a frank discussion about race in America is needed.
Of course since the racial tension makes for good television the issue here isn't keeping the conversation going - it's getting the two sides of this coin to have the same conversation.
On one side of this discussion are those who are holding up the shooting of Michael Brown as an example of the racial inequality in this country and in the justice system in particular. To them the death of Michael Brown is just another instance of cops treating African Americans differently than their white counterparts.
They are protesting a system that saw blacks make up 92.7% of the 521 arrests in Ferguson, MO last year while whites comprise only 6.9%. Additionally 92% of the vehicle searches were that of black individuals while the few whites who were stopped and searched actually had higher rates contraband possession.
They are protesting a system where white youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.
They are protesting a system in which Black youth were twice as likely to be arrested on weapons charges and three times as likely to be arrested for assault despite reporting similar rates of fights and weapon possession as their white counterparts.
They are protesting a system where at the peak of New York city's stop and frisk program saw blacks make up 54% of those stopped while whites accounted for only 9%.
They are protesting a system that results in blacks representing 37% of the drug arrests while only 14% of African American's were drug users.
They are protesting a system in which blacks convicted of a crime receive sentences that are 10% longer than their white counterparts. Those longer sentences and higher arrest rates lead to blacks accounting for 56% of those in prison for drug offenses.
On the other side of this discussion are those who see racism as a hoax to be disproved. To them the protests and media attention prove that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a racist race baiter, who attempts to make everything about race in order to profit from the fallacy of racism.
They comment that instead of showing up to Ferguson Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be in Chicago fixing the real problem of "black on black crime". Even though both men and the president are already addressing the situation in Chicago. Even though black on black crime occurs at nearly the same rate as white on white crime. Even though data shows that socioeconomic status not skin color is the most prominent factor in crime and murder rates.
They comment, like Bill O'Reilly did, we should be waiting for all the facts to come out because the reporting on Michael Brown's shooting have been awful as the "liberal" media looks for ways to portray the white guy as a murder. Even though in the same breath Bill O'Reilly managed to report complete speculation that "We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blow out fracture of his eye socket" which turns out to be false. Even though Bill tried to set a Fox News friendly narrative that cops killing citizens is rare while ignoring that blacks comprised an inordinately high 32% of those shot and killed. Even though Bill's employer made a video of a person who may or may not have been a witness to the shooting a core part of their coverage.
But perhaps the best example of how far apart the two sides are on this topic is when they comment that the killing of a white kid (Dillon Taylor) by a black cop deserves the same response and coverage. If those protesting in Ferguson were simply protesting the death of an unarmed teen by a cop to show that cops are too quick to shoot and kill then this would be a reasonable talking point. But the reality is that Michael Brown's death represents the systemic racism present in the US judicial system while Dillon Taylor is just a prop for people who have convinced themselves their fake "white oppression" meme is the biggest problem this country faces.
If people like Bill O'Reilly are furious about the coverage of Michael Brown's death and the protests that followed one can only imagine they would be absolutely beside themselves they would be if they were forced to endure the litany of inequality, injustice, and indignity the African American community deals with on a daily basis.
In the end if these people want to put an end to this perceived reporting double standard they can easily fix the issue. All they have to do is acknowledge that the deck is in fact stack against blacks in the US and quit enabling the deniers of this reality. As soon as that happens the conversation can be about how to rectify this issue instead of how these events are covered.
Of course since the racial tension makes for good television the issue here isn't keeping the conversation going - it's getting the two sides of this coin to have the same conversation.
On one side of this discussion are those who are holding up the shooting of Michael Brown as an example of the racial inequality in this country and in the justice system in particular. To them the death of Michael Brown is just another instance of cops treating African Americans differently than their white counterparts.
They are protesting a system that saw blacks make up 92.7% of the 521 arrests in Ferguson, MO last year while whites comprise only 6.9%. Additionally 92% of the vehicle searches were that of black individuals while the few whites who were stopped and searched actually had higher rates contraband possession.
They are protesting a system where white youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.
They are protesting a system in which Black youth were twice as likely to be arrested on weapons charges and three times as likely to be arrested for assault despite reporting similar rates of fights and weapon possession as their white counterparts.
They are protesting a system where at the peak of New York city's stop and frisk program saw blacks make up 54% of those stopped while whites accounted for only 9%.
They are protesting a system that results in blacks representing 37% of the drug arrests while only 14% of African American's were drug users.
They are protesting a system in which blacks convicted of a crime receive sentences that are 10% longer than their white counterparts. Those longer sentences and higher arrest rates lead to blacks accounting for 56% of those in prison for drug offenses.
On the other side of this discussion are those who see racism as a hoax to be disproved. To them the protests and media attention prove that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a racist race baiter, who attempts to make everything about race in order to profit from the fallacy of racism.
They comment that instead of showing up to Ferguson Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be in Chicago fixing the real problem of "black on black crime". Even though both men and the president are already addressing the situation in Chicago. Even though black on black crime occurs at nearly the same rate as white on white crime. Even though data shows that socioeconomic status not skin color is the most prominent factor in crime and murder rates.
They comment, like Bill O'Reilly did, we should be waiting for all the facts to come out because the reporting on Michael Brown's shooting have been awful as the "liberal" media looks for ways to portray the white guy as a murder. Even though in the same breath Bill O'Reilly managed to report complete speculation that "We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blow out fracture of his eye socket" which turns out to be false. Even though Bill tried to set a Fox News friendly narrative that cops killing citizens is rare while ignoring that blacks comprised an inordinately high 32% of those shot and killed. Even though Bill's employer made a video of a person who may or may not have been a witness to the shooting a core part of their coverage.
But perhaps the best example of how far apart the two sides are on this topic is when they comment that the killing of a white kid (Dillon Taylor) by a black cop deserves the same response and coverage. If those protesting in Ferguson were simply protesting the death of an unarmed teen by a cop to show that cops are too quick to shoot and kill then this would be a reasonable talking point. But the reality is that Michael Brown's death represents the systemic racism present in the US judicial system while Dillon Taylor is just a prop for people who have convinced themselves their fake "white oppression" meme is the biggest problem this country faces.
If people like Bill O'Reilly are furious about the coverage of Michael Brown's death and the protests that followed one can only imagine they would be absolutely beside themselves they would be if they were forced to endure the litany of inequality, injustice, and indignity the African American community deals with on a daily basis.
In the end if these people want to put an end to this perceived reporting double standard they can easily fix the issue. All they have to do is acknowledge that the deck is in fact stack against blacks in the US and quit enabling the deniers of this reality. As soon as that happens the conversation can be about how to rectify this issue instead of how these events are covered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
