Given that it is an election year and polls show people support a greater commitment to education conservative media outlets have devoted more time than usual to discussing how to improve educational achievement.
A good example of this is a recent Detroit News editorial piece that focuses on data from the National Center for Education Statistics. The report indicates that Michigan ranks in the bottom third of all states when it comes to graduation rates. While graduation rates are an easy to understand number it is a very blunt instrument if you are attempting to advocate for significant change. It also offers little in the way of analysis for how prepared these students are to participate in the work force.
Having said that if Detroit News editors believe graduation rates provide an important window into our educational system then it should be noted that the 80% graduation rate the US hit in the 2011-2012 school year was a record number. Never before in the history of this country have we graduated this many students.
The problem is that the editorial never acknowledges this reality. Rather than recognizing that the system as it was constructed over the past few years represents the pinnacle of educational achievement as far as graduation rate is concerned, the piece suggests these consistently improving numbers prove that there should be an "urgency to rapidly reform Michigan’s education system".
The disconnect between reality and this errant conservative talking point that the article attempts to pass off as feasible is astounding. But even that pales in comparison to how the editors choose to end the piece. Having already set up the false meme that Michigan's education is broken and failing despite the fact that their own data suggests otherwise the authors go on to offer a solution to this manufactured crisis.
"Lawmakers are currently weighing a series of reforms aimed at improving school and teacher accountability and quality. Other states that have implemented similar measures, including Florida and Tennessee, are pushing ahead of Michigan in student performance."
Teacher accountability has been a very important buzz word over the past few years even making it into President Obama's "Race to the top" initiative. The data on the success of these measures is spotty at best. But that doesn't stop advocates from pretending they are the panacea of student achievement. While it is true that states like Florida and Tennessee have implemented teacher accountability and have seen some improvement their "pushing ahead of Michigan" is questionable as is the insinuation that of the litany of changes RTTT requires - teacher accountability is responsible for any portion of these minor improvements.
Again, given that graduation rate, according to the authors of this editorial, represents the impetus for "a series of reforms", then it should be noted that Tennessee saw less growth over the past year than Michigan while Florida still lags behind Michigan on overall graduation rate. Also, if anecdotal evidence is all that is required it should be pointed out that Alaska, a state that did not participate in RTTT or implement any teacher accountability measures, increased their graduation rate by more than double that of Florida and nine times as much as Tennessee.
The problem here seems to be that the authors had an opinion and decided to look for data to support their opinion. While that may be great for the editorial pages it is an awful way to make policy. Instead of talking about middling states and their modest gains Michigan would be far better off examining the states that are already successful and model their behavior. To put it another way, NFL teams don't adopt the strategy of the teams that didn't make the playoffs, they mimic the Super Bowl champion. Maybe this will show that the best states incorporate teacher accountability standards or maybe it won't, but believing something works and having data prove that something works are two very different things.
Of course as a conservative news source it is a weird position to argue that what our education system needs is more government rules and regulations. Doesn't this stifle creativity? Do people really think that Lansing politicians have a better understanding of how to educate your children than you and your locally elected school board do?
Beyond that, most teachers spend years learning, being tested and getting on the job training before they ever get a job. They also already get observed, reviewed and participate in continuous learning programs. Their skills have confirmed numerous times. Ironically the teachers who are least likely to go through this rigorous training process, which conservatives seem to believe is paramount to "fixing" education, teach at charter schools.
The controversial EAA, championed by Governor Rick Snyder, relies on Teach for America teachers which according many education professionals and participants leaves educators woefully unprepared. Asking current teachers to meet new ridged standards while simultaneously advocating for educators who have no chance of meeting these standards is astoundingly hypocritical.
Additionally where is the personal responsibility that conservatives often demand? Shouldn't students and parents be held accountable for their actions? Unlike the data on teacher accountability there are reports that show making students responsible for their own progress and increased parent involvement actually impact student achievement.
No one is suggesting that we can't improve educational outcomes but pretending that a severely biased reading of an immaterial report somehow confirms the need for highly suspect partisan solutions could be the best example of where our school systems really do need to improve.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Racism is having a great year
Many had hoped that when the United States elected a black man as president it meant America was becoming a less racist nation. Unfortunately the election of Barack Obama six years ago actually seems to have had the opposite effect. The tables have turned so completely that 49% of Republicans believe that blacks are racist but only 11% feel that whites are racist.
This past year has given the country many opportunities to address this trend.
Around this time last year George Zimmerman was on trial for killing Trayvon Martin. The US justice system has a long a inglorious history of treating black Americans differently than their white counterparts and were it not for the failure of the system in this case most Americans would never have heard the names George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin. Instead the police let a man who admitted to shooting a teenager to death walk free. This failure led to national media attention from various groups looking to shine a light on racial inequality while conservatives took to the airwaves to paint African Americans as inherently criminal, using terms like "black on black crime", despite all of the data to the contrary.
Shortly after the George Zimmerman trial started, Chef Paula Deen testified as part of a racial discrimination lawsuit claiming she made racially charged remarks to her employees.
Fast forward a few months and texts and phone messages from NFL lineman Richie Incognito to a teammate expose the racism that many professional athletes endure on a daily basis.
A few weeks later and we find out that Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson made comments stating that racism didn't exist back when he was younger while suggesting today's African American communities are mainly freeloading entitlement communities.
Then just this past week NBA owner Donald Sterling and conservative hero Cliven Bundy both made remarks that are hard to see as anything other than overtly racist.
The good news for all of these folks is that American's are a very forgiving group. All we need to hear is an apology and that you are seeking help. The only problem is that these people don't think they did anything wrong. Their publicist tells them to issue an apology but they blame the liberal media or political correctness for people being too sensitive. They tend to think that no one was really offended by their words and that this is all manufactured outrage.
To make matters worse the conservative media always finds a way to throw their support behind these racists. Instead of calling a spade a spade and distancing themselves they make excuses. The conservative racist protection program inoculates these individuals from any real consequences and allows them to look into the camera and state lines like "anyone who knows me knows I'm not a racist".
But in the grand scheme of conservative lies the "I'm not a racist" lie might be the most detrimental of all lies. When a celebrity get busted for driving drunk with an ounce of cocaine they at least admit to having a problem and check into a clinic. When a politician gets caught having an affair they at least suggest they have let people down and get counseling. When a professional athlete is arrested for beating his wife he at least cops to having anger issues and seeks help.
But for some reason being racist is the only sin that provides political cover. For some reason being racist is always someone else's problem. For some reason racism is the only abuse the media minimizes with phrases like "playing the race card". For some reason being racist apparently doesn't require professional help.
Instead they cover their racism behind beliefs like having a black friend somehow equates to not being racist. That is a mind numbingly ignorant understanding a racism. If the equation was that simple then couldn’t you also say that having a relationship with God magically prevents you from sinning? If you know a women are somehow immune from sexism? If you have an overweight friend does that mean the fat jokes you make aren’t insulting?
Ironically while these people fail to see how anyone can take offense their to racist comments there is one thing that does get conservatives upset when it comes to racism - when anyone accuses them of being racist.
The fix to this problem is simple and has the added bonus of fitting conservative ideals. Many big businesses ask their employees to train from the ground up because they believe you have to understand how the entire company functions to be a good employee. The same is true of race relations. If you think you aren't racist go live in the inner city for a while and see if you come out with a different view. Take an African American studies class and see if you aren't equal parts frustrated and enlightened. Ask your black friend if they ever experience racism. And recognize that your outrage over being labeled racist is "playing the race card" for whites.
When it comes to racism conservatives are the alcoholic that 15 drinks in still insists he is fine to drive home and conservative media is the enabler that continues to make excuses for this bad behavior. You have to admit you have a problem to fix it.
If you find that analogy offensive - good. You should. Because that's the kind of insulting garbage you have been letting people like Paula Deen, Richie Incognito, Phil Robertson, Donald Sterling, and Cliven Bundy get away with for the past year.
This past year has given the country many opportunities to address this trend.
Around this time last year George Zimmerman was on trial for killing Trayvon Martin. The US justice system has a long a inglorious history of treating black Americans differently than their white counterparts and were it not for the failure of the system in this case most Americans would never have heard the names George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin. Instead the police let a man who admitted to shooting a teenager to death walk free. This failure led to national media attention from various groups looking to shine a light on racial inequality while conservatives took to the airwaves to paint African Americans as inherently criminal, using terms like "black on black crime", despite all of the data to the contrary.
Shortly after the George Zimmerman trial started, Chef Paula Deen testified as part of a racial discrimination lawsuit claiming she made racially charged remarks to her employees.
Fast forward a few months and texts and phone messages from NFL lineman Richie Incognito to a teammate expose the racism that many professional athletes endure on a daily basis.
A few weeks later and we find out that Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson made comments stating that racism didn't exist back when he was younger while suggesting today's African American communities are mainly freeloading entitlement communities.
Then just this past week NBA owner Donald Sterling and conservative hero Cliven Bundy both made remarks that are hard to see as anything other than overtly racist.
The good news for all of these folks is that American's are a very forgiving group. All we need to hear is an apology and that you are seeking help. The only problem is that these people don't think they did anything wrong. Their publicist tells them to issue an apology but they blame the liberal media or political correctness for people being too sensitive. They tend to think that no one was really offended by their words and that this is all manufactured outrage.
To make matters worse the conservative media always finds a way to throw their support behind these racists. Instead of calling a spade a spade and distancing themselves they make excuses. The conservative racist protection program inoculates these individuals from any real consequences and allows them to look into the camera and state lines like "anyone who knows me knows I'm not a racist".
But in the grand scheme of conservative lies the "I'm not a racist" lie might be the most detrimental of all lies. When a celebrity get busted for driving drunk with an ounce of cocaine they at least admit to having a problem and check into a clinic. When a politician gets caught having an affair they at least suggest they have let people down and get counseling. When a professional athlete is arrested for beating his wife he at least cops to having anger issues and seeks help.
But for some reason being racist is the only sin that provides political cover. For some reason being racist is always someone else's problem. For some reason racism is the only abuse the media minimizes with phrases like "playing the race card". For some reason being racist apparently doesn't require professional help.
Instead they cover their racism behind beliefs like having a black friend somehow equates to not being racist. That is a mind numbingly ignorant understanding a racism. If the equation was that simple then couldn’t you also say that having a relationship with God magically prevents you from sinning? If you know a women are somehow immune from sexism? If you have an overweight friend does that mean the fat jokes you make aren’t insulting?
Ironically while these people fail to see how anyone can take offense their to racist comments there is one thing that does get conservatives upset when it comes to racism - when anyone accuses them of being racist.
The fix to this problem is simple and has the added bonus of fitting conservative ideals. Many big businesses ask their employees to train from the ground up because they believe you have to understand how the entire company functions to be a good employee. The same is true of race relations. If you think you aren't racist go live in the inner city for a while and see if you come out with a different view. Take an African American studies class and see if you aren't equal parts frustrated and enlightened. Ask your black friend if they ever experience racism. And recognize that your outrage over being labeled racist is "playing the race card" for whites.
When it comes to racism conservatives are the alcoholic that 15 drinks in still insists he is fine to drive home and conservative media is the enabler that continues to make excuses for this bad behavior. You have to admit you have a problem to fix it.
If you find that analogy offensive - good. You should. Because that's the kind of insulting garbage you have been letting people like Paula Deen, Richie Incognito, Phil Robertson, Donald Sterling, and Cliven Bundy get away with for the past year.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Rick Snyder: One misleading flip flopper
Four years ago Rick Snyder talked a lot about how things would run if elected governor. Unfortunately for his re-election campaign in most cases the governor failed to keep his word.
For example during the gubernatorial debates when asked about taxing pensions and Rick Snyder's response was "That's not how you address tax reform" yet that is precisely what he did to pay for his 83% tax cut for Michigan businesses.
On the campaign trail when asked about government incentives for business the governor stated “As a practical matter, my view is government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers because those incentives aren’t free”. “Basically, they come on the backs of other people having to make up those tax differentials" yet in one of his many press releases touting his work he mentions 14 different companies he awarded taxpayer funded incentives to, also known as hand picked winners.
In a later portion of the debate the governor spoke about his opinion on increasing the tax on gas. His answer to the question was "I don't support an increase in the gas tax" yet that is exactly what he proposed to improve Michigan roads.
When discussing education Rick Snyder said "It's too much about spending money when you go to Lansing. All they talk about in Lansing is this funding level or that funding level" yet now that he is back on the campaign trail he stated "I'm proud to say, in the last three years we've increased educational spending at the state level for K-12 each and every year to the point where we've invested $660 more per student than there was previously before I took office." Of course even his gasconade turned out to be more political deception.
While trying to convince Michigan residents that his controversial flip flop on right to work legislation was good Rick Snyder said people should have the "freedom to choose" yet when voters repealed the Emergency Manger law he worked with the legislature to circumnavigate the peoples choice.
The governor has shown over and over again that his word is worth very little so it comes as no surprise that when it comes to job creation, the one thing Rick Snyder hung his hat on four years ago and is making a core aspect of his re-election campaign, the numbers show his results don't match his rhetoric.
Before the 2010 elections the Snyder campaign stated that "He's the only businessman running so he's the only one that even knows what he's doing." To temper any expectations Rick Snyder also made a point to say "Government doesn't create jobs. Government creates an environment where jobs can flourish." but the question is what is the result of the environment that the governor created.
There are more jobs now in Michigan then when Rick Snyder took office however there are more jobs everywhere. All Michigan has done is kept pace with the rest of the nation. After all of his work Forbes still ranks Michigan as the 47th best state to do business. One doubts that Rick Snyder's definition of success for Michigan was being below average.
Even though data shows a questionable impact the Governor stated that his tax cuts would create jobs. How many jobs? "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it's going to happen."
Well when you actually do quantify the numbers their faith in tax cuts seems to be misplaced. Before he was elected the Michigan was in the top 3 states for job growth. Nearly three years later and Michigan has slipped to 15th in job growth.
Of course most of the jobs that have been created in Michigan over the past few years are a result of increased automotive sales. These jobs have little to nothing to do with Rick Snyder's environment. As a matter of fact when Ford executive Bill Ford Jr. was asked about his companies resurgence he credited labor unions for saving the company but gave no mention of Rick Snyder.
And while the Republicans and Rick Snyder made unions out to be the reason for poor jobs numbers other reports show seven of the nine states with zero or negative growth rates are right-to-work states, while three of the top five highest growth states are pro-union states.
The governor also stated "Michigan cannot be a great state until Detroit is on the path to being a great city" yet of the 10 major cities that were worst hit by the recession the recovery of Detroit under Rick Snyder's watch has only outpaced that of two other cities. If Detroit is supposed to be the corner stone if Michigan's resurgence the fact that so few jobs have been created has to be considered a failure of the Snyder administration.
Data also shows former governor Jim Blanchard oversaw a quicker recovery from a worse recession than Rick Snyder yet that hasn't stopped the governor from boastfully calling himself the "comeback kid".
So far in this election cycle Rick Snyder and his team of experts have proven to be very good at creating catchy nicknames and misrepresenting data to make it appear the governor has had a positive impact. His own words also show that the governor is very accomplished at completely contradicting himself. Unfortunately for Michigan residents the real data shows that the position Rick Snyder eventually settles on has routinely been the wrong one.
For example during the gubernatorial debates when asked about taxing pensions and Rick Snyder's response was "That's not how you address tax reform" yet that is precisely what he did to pay for his 83% tax cut for Michigan businesses.
On the campaign trail when asked about government incentives for business the governor stated “As a practical matter, my view is government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers because those incentives aren’t free”. “Basically, they come on the backs of other people having to make up those tax differentials" yet in one of his many press releases touting his work he mentions 14 different companies he awarded taxpayer funded incentives to, also known as hand picked winners.
In a later portion of the debate the governor spoke about his opinion on increasing the tax on gas. His answer to the question was "I don't support an increase in the gas tax" yet that is exactly what he proposed to improve Michigan roads.
When discussing education Rick Snyder said "It's too much about spending money when you go to Lansing. All they talk about in Lansing is this funding level or that funding level" yet now that he is back on the campaign trail he stated "I'm proud to say, in the last three years we've increased educational spending at the state level for K-12 each and every year to the point where we've invested $660 more per student than there was previously before I took office." Of course even his gasconade turned out to be more political deception.
While trying to convince Michigan residents that his controversial flip flop on right to work legislation was good Rick Snyder said people should have the "freedom to choose" yet when voters repealed the Emergency Manger law he worked with the legislature to circumnavigate the peoples choice.
The governor has shown over and over again that his word is worth very little so it comes as no surprise that when it comes to job creation, the one thing Rick Snyder hung his hat on four years ago and is making a core aspect of his re-election campaign, the numbers show his results don't match his rhetoric.
Before the 2010 elections the Snyder campaign stated that "He's the only businessman running so he's the only one that even knows what he's doing." To temper any expectations Rick Snyder also made a point to say "Government doesn't create jobs. Government creates an environment where jobs can flourish." but the question is what is the result of the environment that the governor created.
There are more jobs now in Michigan then when Rick Snyder took office however there are more jobs everywhere. All Michigan has done is kept pace with the rest of the nation. After all of his work Forbes still ranks Michigan as the 47th best state to do business. One doubts that Rick Snyder's definition of success for Michigan was being below average.
Even though data shows a questionable impact the Governor stated that his tax cuts would create jobs. How many jobs? "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it's going to happen."
Well when you actually do quantify the numbers their faith in tax cuts seems to be misplaced. Before he was elected the Michigan was in the top 3 states for job growth. Nearly three years later and Michigan has slipped to 15th in job growth.
Of course most of the jobs that have been created in Michigan over the past few years are a result of increased automotive sales. These jobs have little to nothing to do with Rick Snyder's environment. As a matter of fact when Ford executive Bill Ford Jr. was asked about his companies resurgence he credited labor unions for saving the company but gave no mention of Rick Snyder.
And while the Republicans and Rick Snyder made unions out to be the reason for poor jobs numbers other reports show seven of the nine states with zero or negative growth rates are right-to-work states, while three of the top five highest growth states are pro-union states.
The governor also stated "Michigan cannot be a great state until Detroit is on the path to being a great city" yet of the 10 major cities that were worst hit by the recession the recovery of Detroit under Rick Snyder's watch has only outpaced that of two other cities. If Detroit is supposed to be the corner stone if Michigan's resurgence the fact that so few jobs have been created has to be considered a failure of the Snyder administration.
Data also shows former governor Jim Blanchard oversaw a quicker recovery from a worse recession than Rick Snyder yet that hasn't stopped the governor from boastfully calling himself the "comeback kid".
So far in this election cycle Rick Snyder and his team of experts have proven to be very good at creating catchy nicknames and misrepresenting data to make it appear the governor has had a positive impact. His own words also show that the governor is very accomplished at completely contradicting himself. Unfortunately for Michigan residents the real data shows that the position Rick Snyder eventually settles on has routinely been the wrong one.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Easter: Another chance to screw up religious freedom
It's Easter weekend which in political terms means there is going to be some government body that attempts to put up religious symbols on public property and some outside group that says those symbols are unconstitutional. This year those roles will be played by Stratton, Ohio Mayor John Abdalla and Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The US has a long and glorious legal history when it comes to religious displays on public property. Regardless of the argument, it has been determined that such displays are unconstitutional and this is likely the outcome in the Stratton, Ohio case as well. This happens because no matter what you believe the founding fathers wanted everyone to have the right to practice whatever religion they want without being influenced by the state. When the government uses a symbol from one faction without corresponding symbols from other religions, it has the look of the state choosing one religion over the others.
Regardless of this reality many Christians still believe that this somehow infringes upon their religion freedom.
If an atheist politician hung a "There's probably no God" sign in the capitol building would Christian groups be OK with such a display? Probably not. If a local government spent money supporting abortion would anti-abortion groups sit idly by and let it happen? Probably not. If a state placed rainbow stickers on all state vehicles would the family values crowd not fight tooth and nail to have them removed? Probably not. If the President used the public school system to push the Affordable Care Act would Republicans not scream foul? Probably not.
When it comes to religion there have been plenty of debate already. Warren Michigan Christian Mayor, Jim Fouts, refused to allow an atheist group to set up a "Reason Station" in an area typically reserved for nativity scenes and other religious symbols. A Satanist group designed a Satanic statue that they have requested be placed outside of the Oklahoma capitol building. Connecticut politician and Protestant, Lee Whitnum, sued to stop a Bar Mitzvah from taking place at a local town hall. The Florida capitol building has among other religious symbols, a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" on display.
The problem is that either you demand that religious symbols are allowed on public property and accept that all religious groups no matter how far fetched or obscure be allowed space to exhibit their symbols or you accept that the state and religion should not be mixed.
Of course since this topic was decided constitutionally long ago the question becomes why do people continue forcing religion and religious symbols on the general public. What purpose does this serve? You are free to dress yourself from head to toe in religious paraphernalia. Is that not enough religious freedom? You can talk in public to anyone you want about your beliefs. Is that not enough free speech? You can design every structure on your property with a religious motif. Do you really need to usurp public buildings too?
Property owners are free to express nearly any opinion on their land. In the case of public property it is not that no one owns these entities but rather that everyone owns these entities. So either everyone is free to plaster government buildings with their symbols or no one is. Anything less would be a slap in the face to the fundamental ideas that this country was founded on.
The US has a long and glorious legal history when it comes to religious displays on public property. Regardless of the argument, it has been determined that such displays are unconstitutional and this is likely the outcome in the Stratton, Ohio case as well. This happens because no matter what you believe the founding fathers wanted everyone to have the right to practice whatever religion they want without being influenced by the state. When the government uses a symbol from one faction without corresponding symbols from other religions, it has the look of the state choosing one religion over the others.
Regardless of this reality many Christians still believe that this somehow infringes upon their religion freedom.
If an atheist politician hung a "There's probably no God" sign in the capitol building would Christian groups be OK with such a display? Probably not. If a local government spent money supporting abortion would anti-abortion groups sit idly by and let it happen? Probably not. If a state placed rainbow stickers on all state vehicles would the family values crowd not fight tooth and nail to have them removed? Probably not. If the President used the public school system to push the Affordable Care Act would Republicans not scream foul? Probably not.
When it comes to religion there have been plenty of debate already. Warren Michigan Christian Mayor, Jim Fouts, refused to allow an atheist group to set up a "Reason Station" in an area typically reserved for nativity scenes and other religious symbols. A Satanist group designed a Satanic statue that they have requested be placed outside of the Oklahoma capitol building. Connecticut politician and Protestant, Lee Whitnum, sued to stop a Bar Mitzvah from taking place at a local town hall. The Florida capitol building has among other religious symbols, a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" on display.
The problem is that either you demand that religious symbols are allowed on public property and accept that all religious groups no matter how far fetched or obscure be allowed space to exhibit their symbols or you accept that the state and religion should not be mixed.
Of course since this topic was decided constitutionally long ago the question becomes why do people continue forcing religion and religious symbols on the general public. What purpose does this serve? You are free to dress yourself from head to toe in religious paraphernalia. Is that not enough religious freedom? You can talk in public to anyone you want about your beliefs. Is that not enough free speech? You can design every structure on your property with a religious motif. Do you really need to usurp public buildings too?
Property owners are free to express nearly any opinion on their land. In the case of public property it is not that no one owns these entities but rather that everyone owns these entities. So either everyone is free to plaster government buildings with their symbols or no one is. Anything less would be a slap in the face to the fundamental ideas that this country was founded on.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Republicans struggling in fight against Obamacare
Conservative organizations and Republican candidates are convinced that attacking Democrats for their support of the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) is the ticket to winning this fall.
The Senate race in Michigan for example has a group called American's for Prosperity dropping millions of dollars on Ads attacking Democratic candidate Gary Peters for his support of the ACA. So far this has been done using two anecdotal cases to suggest that the ACA is not affordable. In one case the family in question, who not coincidentally were once delegates for the Republican Party, could have saved money using the ACA but instead chose to pay more. The second case of a Dexter, Michigan woman has been widely debated for its accuracy as well.
The question that voters should be asking is if the ACA is so awful and unaffordable then why is a conservative organization, that spent over $36 million in the 2012 election cycle, having so much trouble finding one person in the state of Michigan that, without question, has been negatively impacted by the ACA?
Perhaps the problem is that the ACA just isn't as bad as these groups made it out to be. After all these are the same people who said the ACA would never enroll 7 million people by the deadline. The same people that claimed the ACA contained death panels. The same people who said "I don’t think it’s ever going to work" due to the initial website issues. The same people that predicted a massive shift to part time employment as companies attempted to avoid the impact of the ACA. The same people that forecast a big win for Republicans in 2012 based on belief that people hate the ACA. And the same people who are now claiming the worst is yet to come despite news to the contrary.
When it comes to the ACA, these groups have been very good at fear mongering but very bad at accurately projecting the results.
Of course that isn't the only thing they have been very bad at when it comes to the ACA.
While many of these organizations and candidates have spent a lot of time on errant prognostications and spreading the sky is falling rhetoric they have spent almost no time coming up with a solution. Sure you can find a two page outline here or there from a couple a Republicans but you aren't going to replace 2,700 pages of legislation with a two page outline.
The problem is this legislation already contains a lot of Republican ideas. Market competition, the individual mandate, a payment advisory board, and Medicare cuts were all Republican ideas that eventually ended up in the ACA. Then there are the things that Republicans act like the ACA doesn't include but it actually does like fraud reduction, wellness programs, IT solutions to help eliminate errors, pooling risk, and rewarding quality.
Of course there are also a bunch of things in the ACA that people really like that Republicans would need to include in any alternative plan such as tax credits for small business, preventing people from losing insurance from pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents insurance till age 26, closing the donut hole, the expansion of Medicaid, and health care exchanges.
Most of these groups and candidates are well aware of how little ammo they really have against the ACA and they are trying to obfuscate this reality from voters. This means they are stuck discussing fringe rhetoric and pretending a couple handpicked individuals, represent millions of Americans.
While this tactic works well for television commercials, at some point these candidates are going to have to debate their opponent. These debates will expose the void of ideas Republican candidates have to offer so top Republicans have decided to coalesce around some very basic ideas that boil down to trusting the private sector instead of the public sector.
Republicans had four years to craft an answer to the "worst thing since slavery" and the best they could come up with is "private sector good - public sector bad"? That meme has been the Republican calling card for decades. If "privatize it" represents "new ideas" it’s no wonder Republicans have been forced to resort to half truths to fight this legislation.
Unfortunately even this idea has been proven to be more wishful thinking than fact. Outside of the colossal failures of privatized prisons, and school services a study by the Project on Government Oversight found that in 33 of 35 occupations tax payers spend more, not less to use private companies.
In the end voters should demand that we do better when it comes to providing all Americans with high quality, affordable health care but at this point only one party seems concerned with this objective. Ironically it’s not the party that has made the ACA the basis of their campaigns.
The Senate race in Michigan for example has a group called American's for Prosperity dropping millions of dollars on Ads attacking Democratic candidate Gary Peters for his support of the ACA. So far this has been done using two anecdotal cases to suggest that the ACA is not affordable. In one case the family in question, who not coincidentally were once delegates for the Republican Party, could have saved money using the ACA but instead chose to pay more. The second case of a Dexter, Michigan woman has been widely debated for its accuracy as well.
The question that voters should be asking is if the ACA is so awful and unaffordable then why is a conservative organization, that spent over $36 million in the 2012 election cycle, having so much trouble finding one person in the state of Michigan that, without question, has been negatively impacted by the ACA?
Perhaps the problem is that the ACA just isn't as bad as these groups made it out to be. After all these are the same people who said the ACA would never enroll 7 million people by the deadline. The same people that claimed the ACA contained death panels. The same people who said "I don’t think it’s ever going to work" due to the initial website issues. The same people that predicted a massive shift to part time employment as companies attempted to avoid the impact of the ACA. The same people that forecast a big win for Republicans in 2012 based on belief that people hate the ACA. And the same people who are now claiming the worst is yet to come despite news to the contrary.
When it comes to the ACA, these groups have been very good at fear mongering but very bad at accurately projecting the results.
Of course that isn't the only thing they have been very bad at when it comes to the ACA.
While many of these organizations and candidates have spent a lot of time on errant prognostications and spreading the sky is falling rhetoric they have spent almost no time coming up with a solution. Sure you can find a two page outline here or there from a couple a Republicans but you aren't going to replace 2,700 pages of legislation with a two page outline.
The problem is this legislation already contains a lot of Republican ideas. Market competition, the individual mandate, a payment advisory board, and Medicare cuts were all Republican ideas that eventually ended up in the ACA. Then there are the things that Republicans act like the ACA doesn't include but it actually does like fraud reduction, wellness programs, IT solutions to help eliminate errors, pooling risk, and rewarding quality.
Of course there are also a bunch of things in the ACA that people really like that Republicans would need to include in any alternative plan such as tax credits for small business, preventing people from losing insurance from pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents insurance till age 26, closing the donut hole, the expansion of Medicaid, and health care exchanges.
Most of these groups and candidates are well aware of how little ammo they really have against the ACA and they are trying to obfuscate this reality from voters. This means they are stuck discussing fringe rhetoric and pretending a couple handpicked individuals, represent millions of Americans.
While this tactic works well for television commercials, at some point these candidates are going to have to debate their opponent. These debates will expose the void of ideas Republican candidates have to offer so top Republicans have decided to coalesce around some very basic ideas that boil down to trusting the private sector instead of the public sector.
Republicans had four years to craft an answer to the "worst thing since slavery" and the best they could come up with is "private sector good - public sector bad"? That meme has been the Republican calling card for decades. If "privatize it" represents "new ideas" it’s no wonder Republicans have been forced to resort to half truths to fight this legislation.
Unfortunately even this idea has been proven to be more wishful thinking than fact. Outside of the colossal failures of privatized prisons, and school services a study by the Project on Government Oversight found that in 33 of 35 occupations tax payers spend more, not less to use private companies.
In the end voters should demand that we do better when it comes to providing all Americans with high quality, affordable health care but at this point only one party seems concerned with this objective. Ironically it’s not the party that has made the ACA the basis of their campaigns.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Terri Lynn Land campaign is a "silly sideshow"
Earlier this month my colleague Josh Pugh wrote a piece which talked about a questionable political Ad aimed at Democratic Senate hopeful Gary Peters. Josh believes that Gary Peters' opponent Terri Lynn Land should denounce the Ad given that it included an attack on Peters' daughters.
Anytime the media is going to give a politician a platform you can expect to see some poll tested talking points. For Terri Lynn Land that meant suggesting "This campaign is going to be about the issues that matter most in Michigan - creating jobs, providing workers and struggling students with a fair shot, and making sure that our elected officials don’t make promises that they can’t keep, such as ‘if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’"
Yes, number three on the list of most important things that Terri Lynn Land wants to accomplish if elected to the most powerful legislative body in the United States of America is to make sure elected officials don't make promises they can't keep.
You have to wonder if Terri gets irony of this statement. If you follow Terri on Facebook or Twitter you would see that repealing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) has been a goal for hers for many years. It turns out this has also been a goal of many other Republicans as well. They have tried and failed numerous times to repeal this legislation. No political promise has been broken more often than this one yet it appears to be the basis for her campaign.
If elected Terri Lynn Land would end up reneging on this promise because unlike the House, the Senate is more than a dog and pony show so a vote like this requires way more thought then 'giving new members a chance to put their vote on record'. While repeal may be an easy applause line among low information voters, the ACA contains a lot of good things that people like. This means Terri needs more than just a talking point to address the problems with the ACA and unfortunately, four years in, Republicans have put far less time into fixing the law then they have in opposing it.
Having said that if the Terri Lynn Land for Senate campaign believes that a line like "if you like your doctor" represents "issues that matter" then they should be prepared to explain why Terri supported shutting down the government as a way to address government spending. A move that cost tax payers $24 billion.
It would also be interesting to find out why Michigan was one of the easiest places to get a fraudulent ID under Terri Lynn Land.
Perhaps they would rather talk about how their candidate went from wanting a full repeal of the ACA to later stating "we're past that". Seems like that could be seen as someone making a promise they realize they can't keep.
Maybe the campaign would like to discuss their literature and others suggesting Terri is a small businesswoman. Clearly they believe this plays well with their base but if you read Terri's own words you will see that the business was a family thing and that her passion was for public service. She even touts that "she was one of the youngest attendees at the Republican State Convention in Michigan." She began running for office just after college at age 23, choosing to focus on education instead of business. In fact her business roots are apparently so important to her that they don't even appear on her LinkedIn page.
And what would her campaign think if the opposition made an Ad using Terri's words from 2005 when discussing a possible run for Senate or Governor saying at the time "I have to do what's best for the party". Does Terri actually believe that the desires of her party are more important than the wishes of her constituents? If not shouldn't the statement be "I have to do what's best for the people of Michigan"?
Of course, Gary Peters never said you could keep your doctor. He voted for the law but those are not his words. So if Terri Lynn Land is being honest when she says "Michigan families deserve a spirited campaign focused on the issues....not these silly sideshows" then what is her plan to address the problem of people losing their doctor? Does she have a plan to help the 5 million Americans that have no health insurance because Republican governors refuse to expand Medicare? Do the people who lost their health insurance at the whim of the insurance companies under the old system matter less than the people who are left to find new insurance now? Does she have a plan that cuts into the 131 percent increase in the cost of health care that we experienced the decade before the ACA?
If Terri Lynn Land wants to rise above the "silly sideshows" she can start by eliminating "if you like your doctor", "we have to pass the bill", and "the bill is 2,700 pages" from all future arguments because as a legislator she's going to have to do a lot more than just complain about what doesn't work and fringe rhetoric. She'll have to work with individuals who have different opinions to create policies.
Josh Pugh asked Terri Lynn Land if she would disavow any peripheral hyperbole and focus on what makes her the best candidate for the job. Her response suggests the answer is no.
Anytime the media is going to give a politician a platform you can expect to see some poll tested talking points. For Terri Lynn Land that meant suggesting "This campaign is going to be about the issues that matter most in Michigan - creating jobs, providing workers and struggling students with a fair shot, and making sure that our elected officials don’t make promises that they can’t keep, such as ‘if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’"
Yes, number three on the list of most important things that Terri Lynn Land wants to accomplish if elected to the most powerful legislative body in the United States of America is to make sure elected officials don't make promises they can't keep.
You have to wonder if Terri gets irony of this statement. If you follow Terri on Facebook or Twitter you would see that repealing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) has been a goal for hers for many years. It turns out this has also been a goal of many other Republicans as well. They have tried and failed numerous times to repeal this legislation. No political promise has been broken more often than this one yet it appears to be the basis for her campaign.
If elected Terri Lynn Land would end up reneging on this promise because unlike the House, the Senate is more than a dog and pony show so a vote like this requires way more thought then 'giving new members a chance to put their vote on record'. While repeal may be an easy applause line among low information voters, the ACA contains a lot of good things that people like. This means Terri needs more than just a talking point to address the problems with the ACA and unfortunately, four years in, Republicans have put far less time into fixing the law then they have in opposing it.
Having said that if the Terri Lynn Land for Senate campaign believes that a line like "if you like your doctor" represents "issues that matter" then they should be prepared to explain why Terri supported shutting down the government as a way to address government spending. A move that cost tax payers $24 billion.
It would also be interesting to find out why Michigan was one of the easiest places to get a fraudulent ID under Terri Lynn Land.
Perhaps they would rather talk about how their candidate went from wanting a full repeal of the ACA to later stating "we're past that". Seems like that could be seen as someone making a promise they realize they can't keep.
Maybe the campaign would like to discuss their literature and others suggesting Terri is a small businesswoman. Clearly they believe this plays well with their base but if you read Terri's own words you will see that the business was a family thing and that her passion was for public service. She even touts that "she was one of the youngest attendees at the Republican State Convention in Michigan." She began running for office just after college at age 23, choosing to focus on education instead of business. In fact her business roots are apparently so important to her that they don't even appear on her LinkedIn page.
And what would her campaign think if the opposition made an Ad using Terri's words from 2005 when discussing a possible run for Senate or Governor saying at the time "I have to do what's best for the party". Does Terri actually believe that the desires of her party are more important than the wishes of her constituents? If not shouldn't the statement be "I have to do what's best for the people of Michigan"?
Of course, Gary Peters never said you could keep your doctor. He voted for the law but those are not his words. So if Terri Lynn Land is being honest when she says "Michigan families deserve a spirited campaign focused on the issues....not these silly sideshows" then what is her plan to address the problem of people losing their doctor? Does she have a plan to help the 5 million Americans that have no health insurance because Republican governors refuse to expand Medicare? Do the people who lost their health insurance at the whim of the insurance companies under the old system matter less than the people who are left to find new insurance now? Does she have a plan that cuts into the 131 percent increase in the cost of health care that we experienced the decade before the ACA?
If Terri Lynn Land wants to rise above the "silly sideshows" she can start by eliminating "if you like your doctor", "we have to pass the bill", and "the bill is 2,700 pages" from all future arguments because as a legislator she's going to have to do a lot more than just complain about what doesn't work and fringe rhetoric. She'll have to work with individuals who have different opinions to create policies.
Josh Pugh asked Terri Lynn Land if she would disavow any peripheral hyperbole and focus on what makes her the best candidate for the job. Her response suggests the answer is no.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Education reform is dumb
Over the past few years government officials from the President down to local school boards have been discussing ways to improve education. The focus of these discussions typically starts with the belief that American schools are failing. Reformers use this belief to argue for any number of changes.
Even though unions represent only 38% of America's teachers many say unions are ruining education. Even though they are not necessarily cheaper to run and don't have better outcomes some argue for more charter schools. Even though there is no data to suggest the Common Core standards are better than the current standards most states are making the change.
But perhaps the most peculiar talking point that reformers discuss is money in education. You would be hard pressed to find data that shows less money in education leads to better results but you can easily find people who complain that we spend too much on education. Of course if you believe we spend too much on education then you are either willing to accept worse outcomes to fix our financial issues or you believe that spending less can somehow have a positive result.
Typically this argument manifests itself with something like "Detroit spends more per pupil yet gets some of the worst results". While both of these things may be true this is a complete perversion of what people are discussing when they talk about money for education. For example if we really spent too much on education then why would any charter school ever spend more than a public school?
Also does anyone believe that the amount of money a school spends on administrators has greater correlation to student achievement than the amount spent on teachers? Because by comparison charter schools spend more on administrative staff and less on educators than public schools.
Of course beyond this if the education spending by cities like Detroit was meant as a serious discussion piece in determining the value of money in education it would require way more in depth analysis than simply "spending high + outcomes bad = more money doesn't work". If these armchair experts looked at where the money goes they would see that while Detroit Public Schools have 32nd highest per pupil rate in Michigan they are at the bottom of the list when it comes to "Average Teacher Salary" and spending on "Basic Programs". Unfortunately DPS spends around $4,500 per student or nearly 1/3 of their budget on "Added Needs" and another $2,100 on "Adult Education".
Given that a good teacher can have a lifelong impact on a student and that data shows higher teacher salaries correlate to better educational outcomes the fact that DPS teacher salaries rank at the bottom of all Michigan schools probably explains why the student achievement level is lower than other school districts. The reality is that per pupil spending represents hundreds of different smaller budgetary decisions for each school district so suggesting this data alone represents anything more than a surface level talking point is a massively uninformed position.
While cherry picking a few schools across the nation and ignoring the budgetary details is one popular method people offer as proof that more money doesn't lead to better outcomes another tactic often used is to suggest that we spend more on education now than ever before. The data shows that this trend has reversed itself recently but overall it is certainly true that the amount spent on education has been steadily increasing. The question then becomes what is too much?
The data shows that over the past 20 years spending on education has risen by 25% over inflation.
Defense spending over that same time frame increased by 83% over inflation.
The price of gasoline has risen by around 105% over inflation the past two decades.
Health Care costs have jumped by 79% over inflation during this 20 year period.
The cost of a college education has gone up by around 66% over inflation over the past 20 years.
CEO pay has increased by as much as 725% over inflation the last 30 years by some estimates.
To some extent those who argue for cuts to education have largely ignored or argued against cuts to these ever increasing numbers. Why then is education spending so different, especially since it has increased at a much lower rate than these other entities.
Unfortunately to the diehard reformer none of this makes any difference. They believe in their hearts that education is broken and needs to be fixed. The good news for these people is that data shows there is a simple solution that has the potential to make the US number 1 in the world in education. All the government needs to do is reduce the poverty rate in America because if you equalize results based on poverty rates the US is already the world leader in education.
Ironically the fact that so many people insist on improving education using methods that don't actually improve education suggests there is a problem. It's just not with the public school system.
Even though unions represent only 38% of America's teachers many say unions are ruining education. Even though they are not necessarily cheaper to run and don't have better outcomes some argue for more charter schools. Even though there is no data to suggest the Common Core standards are better than the current standards most states are making the change.
But perhaps the most peculiar talking point that reformers discuss is money in education. You would be hard pressed to find data that shows less money in education leads to better results but you can easily find people who complain that we spend too much on education. Of course if you believe we spend too much on education then you are either willing to accept worse outcomes to fix our financial issues or you believe that spending less can somehow have a positive result.
Typically this argument manifests itself with something like "Detroit spends more per pupil yet gets some of the worst results". While both of these things may be true this is a complete perversion of what people are discussing when they talk about money for education. For example if we really spent too much on education then why would any charter school ever spend more than a public school?
Also does anyone believe that the amount of money a school spends on administrators has greater correlation to student achievement than the amount spent on teachers? Because by comparison charter schools spend more on administrative staff and less on educators than public schools.
Of course beyond this if the education spending by cities like Detroit was meant as a serious discussion piece in determining the value of money in education it would require way more in depth analysis than simply "spending high + outcomes bad = more money doesn't work". If these armchair experts looked at where the money goes they would see that while Detroit Public Schools have 32nd highest per pupil rate in Michigan they are at the bottom of the list when it comes to "Average Teacher Salary" and spending on "Basic Programs". Unfortunately DPS spends around $4,500 per student or nearly 1/3 of their budget on "Added Needs" and another $2,100 on "Adult Education".
Given that a good teacher can have a lifelong impact on a student and that data shows higher teacher salaries correlate to better educational outcomes the fact that DPS teacher salaries rank at the bottom of all Michigan schools probably explains why the student achievement level is lower than other school districts. The reality is that per pupil spending represents hundreds of different smaller budgetary decisions for each school district so suggesting this data alone represents anything more than a surface level talking point is a massively uninformed position.
While cherry picking a few schools across the nation and ignoring the budgetary details is one popular method people offer as proof that more money doesn't lead to better outcomes another tactic often used is to suggest that we spend more on education now than ever before. The data shows that this trend has reversed itself recently but overall it is certainly true that the amount spent on education has been steadily increasing. The question then becomes what is too much?
The data shows that over the past 20 years spending on education has risen by 25% over inflation.
Defense spending over that same time frame increased by 83% over inflation.
The price of gasoline has risen by around 105% over inflation the past two decades.
Health Care costs have jumped by 79% over inflation during this 20 year period.
The cost of a college education has gone up by around 66% over inflation over the past 20 years.
CEO pay has increased by as much as 725% over inflation the last 30 years by some estimates.
To some extent those who argue for cuts to education have largely ignored or argued against cuts to these ever increasing numbers. Why then is education spending so different, especially since it has increased at a much lower rate than these other entities.
Unfortunately to the diehard reformer none of this makes any difference. They believe in their hearts that education is broken and needs to be fixed. The good news for these people is that data shows there is a simple solution that has the potential to make the US number 1 in the world in education. All the government needs to do is reduce the poverty rate in America because if you equalize results based on poverty rates the US is already the world leader in education.
Ironically the fact that so many people insist on improving education using methods that don't actually improve education suggests there is a problem. It's just not with the public school system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
