"They Keep Acting As If It's Always 1980"

Another old-school Republican* who- free from the confines of politics- acknowledges that the current GOP economic plan is nonsensical:

The most important thing to understand is that certain policies such as the Reagan tax cut in 1981 - which I supported and continue to support - were the right thing to do at that time under those economic conditions. (But) Republicans keep acting as if it's always 1980 with exactly those particular problems and they simply refuse to acknowledge that anything has changed in the last thirty years and I think the basic problem with the economy today is a lack of aggregate demand and I just don't see any way of increasing that through the sorts of tax policies that (current Republican presidential candidates) are talking about.

That was the analysis of Bruce Bartlett, Fmr. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary under George H.W. Bush (amongst other credentials), as stated on last night's Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.

Well said, sir.


* see also Paul O'Neill and David Stockman.

Mavs Win!

I really don't care about who won the NBA championship other than I'm glad that it was not Lebron James. I guess that makes me a LBJ hater so these comments below, that James made yesterday, to some small extent are directed at me.

"All the people that were rooting on me to fail, at the end of the day they have to wake up tomorrow and have the same life that they had before they woke up today. They have the same personal problems they had today. I'm going to continue to live the way I want to live and continue to do the things that I want to do with me and my family and be happy with that. So they can get a few days or a few months or whatever the case may be on being happy about not only myself, but the Miami Heat not accomplishing their goal. But they got to get back to the real world at some point."

The problem I have is that Lebron wants it both ways. You don't get to reap the rewards of having your own ESPN special to announce, like some attention starved high school kid, what NBA team you are going to play for and then when you get there talk about how many championships you are going to win, and then turn around and lament the number of people to root for you to fail.

You made yourself the villain so you don't get to act like the victim now. I assume at some point James will win a championship and if he does I bet one of the first things he talks about is how he is vindicated and that all the people who didn't believe in him can shove it. If he really wanted to create fans out of those of us who like to see him fail he would take the high road and say nothing about those who take joy in his pain. Unfortunately he won't recognize his own hypocrisy and will continue to think he should be allowed to have his cake and eat it too.

Education is the solution, not the problem

In the past when I have posted about Education some commenters have taken the opportunity to assert that "money is not the answer" with regards to how to improve our education system. I assume this position to be based more on the interest in keeping taxes low than a fully researched opinion since the data tends to show a small positive correlation between education spending and test scores. Additionally if money didn't matter in education then the test prep industry wouldn't be a $4 billion a year industry and parents would send their kids to Community College instead of MIT. The truth is that like most things you get what you pay for. We want our kids to get a good education to give them the best chance of being successful and some of the most expensive colleges have the best ROI. A more appropriate statement would be that money isn't the ONLY answer.

One thing that I find particularly odd about the recent obsession over teachers pay by the right is just how at odds this is with the typical Republican ideology. When a CEO receives massive compensation the argument is that you have to pay top dollar to get the best people. The same is true of teachers. This is a highly educated workforce specifically trained to be educators. As with a CEO the free market idea should be that a teachers pay should reflect his or her value to the corporation (the school) i.e. the ability to replace the position without a drop in production.

A New York Times report on what makes a good teacher suggests that a teachers ability shows a high correlation to student achievement. It also shows that these are skills that can be taught. Obviously, as with all skills, there are a certain set of people that will excel and a certain set that will fail. The point being that you can't just turn any bum into a great teacher but if you hope to make a good teacher it will require a good education. Given that private schools compensate their teachers at a fairly equivalent rate to public schools yet tend to require less education the free market would suggest that the current pay is not out of line as the rhetoric might suggest.

It then follows that if pay rates are not out of line the changes we should be pushing for are not monitary but improvement based. Studies conclude that having a highly trained workforce, good facilities, smaller class sizes and high parental involvement as the necessary ingredients to improved student achievement. reducing money for schools will have a negative impact on three out of the four items necessary to improving proformance.

Republicans also tend to push for the public sector to act more like the private sector. Any businessman will tell you that the goal of spending money should be to get the best return on your investment. Well, low educated couples are four times as likely to get a divorce as high educated couples. Increasing the graduation rate and subsequent college attendance rates by 5% could save as much as $8 billion a year for the American tax payer. The higher the education level of a woman the less likely she will be to have an abortion. The more educated you are the less likely you will be to smoke cigarettes which costs American taxpayers $100 billion a year. The higher your education level the lower your chances are of being Obese which costs the American tax payer over $36 billion a year. Drug use also drops as education increases. What other area of government spending has such a huge bang for your buck?

Instead of attacking teachers pay and security with shadow legislation we as a society would be better served to look for solutions that improve the core areas of education which lead to better results. Merit Pay, Vouchers, and Deficit reduction are the side show in the education circus. Teacher education, good facilities, limited class sizes and parent participation get real results. If only our elected officials could focus on good policy instead of convenient politics.

Doing The Right Thing? Does Not Compute.

A few observations from last night's Rachel Maddow Show:

Ms. Maddow was discussing the Anthony Weiner scandal with Chris Hayes and they agreed that GOP politicians who are calling on Rep. Weiner to resign are really nothing more than opportunists. Mr. Hayes says:

The cheapest way to score a "family values point" is... to parachute in with some censorious statement about someone else's problem... it doesn't cost anything. You don't actually have to do anything.

I agree (to the extent that they have not felt the need to urge David Vitter et al to resign in the past). Ms. Maddow also agrees. Rachel says:

I feel like I understand why Republicans are calling for Anthony Weiner's resignation... it's, as you say, opportunism (but) what is going on with the 9 or 10 Democrats now who are also calling on Anthony Weiner to resign?

Uhhh... maybe because it's the right thing to do? (And, of course, it was/is the right thing for David Vitter to have done/do too). They absolutely brought embarassment to the institution of the United States congress; I say that fully aware that certain people (*cough* Bachmann!) arguably bring shame every time they open their cheese-holes.

I guess that brings me to my own counterpoint. If those previous paragraphs were brought to you by Derek Anderson Fan... perhaps these next few paragraphs might be considered to be authored by my alter ego, Derek Jeter Hater.

Earlier in the segment - the pretext if you will - was a video of GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum saying:

If I had done what Congressman Weiner had done, I'd be worried about my family and getting my life back together... I would've stepped down and done what's best for the people that I love.

Now, who is he to say what is best for Anthony Weiner's family? Why is it everyone assumes that stepping down is necessarily a positive? Who looks at a family situation and says "you know what would improve this situation? Unemployment!" Brilliant idea!!

Now, admittedly, I am probably being somewhat silly with the unemployment concern - but I am absolutely serious as to my questioning as to why it is universally assumed that resignation helps save families/marriages? Rep. Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, who has long been involved in Democratic politics, have been married less than a year. Weiner has been a US Congressman since 1999. Seemingly, they have only known each other in essentially their current roles - meaning there is no 'Reset' button in this relationship where they can go back to a simpler time when they were college sweethearts, before Anthony was corrupted by the allure of power, notoriety, and/or internet porn.

They are what they are. Only they know what is best for their relationship. If Huma wants him to resign - he should probably resign- but he sure as shit should not resign because a Bible thumping douchebag like Rick Santorum thinks it's best. Fuck him.

New International Trade Crossing support confusing

Back when it was called the Detroit River International Crossing supported by Governor Granholm all of the Republicans in the State Senate were against it and all but one Democrat was for it.

Now that Governor Snyder supports it Republicans are finding it much more palatable. Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville went from being against the project to submitting the bills for it. In September of 2007, before the major economic melt down, Richardville said "Despite the state's current budget problems, MDOT" is pushing forward with "building an unnecessary bridge".

At the time he also stated that "MDOT insists on moving forward with plans to build a bridge on a massively polluted site". I can not find any information suggesting that the site for the bridge has changed since Richardville's original objections. If that is the case and the site is still the same I'm not sure why his objection to the site no longer exist.

Richardville's new found support for the project seems to be focused around some maneuvering that Governor Snyder has done which basically eliminates that tax burden on Michigan residents. Unfortunately this offer was on the table about a year ago or a full 6 months before Richadville voted against the then DRIC.

Adding to the confusion is the statements from Governor Snyder on how important this is to Michigan's trade and jobs. If this is true now then it was also true when Richardville was against this "unnecessary bridge". Canada apparently thinks it has so much value that they are willing to spend millions, and perhaps billions, of their own money as well as chip in Michigan's $550 million.

The main opponents to this bridge, not surprisingly, are the owners of the Ambassador Bridge. They put together a report showing how a new bridge will lose millions a dollars a year. Their President of operations, Dan Stamper, also claims that traffic across the bridge has been decreasing for the past decade so there is no need for a new bridge yet his company has spent millions on efforts to expand their own bridge.

Unfortunately the Republican objections to the plan appear more tied the $553,665 in campaign contributions that they received from the owners of the Ambassador Bridge than anything else. After all the bridge will create jobs, cost Michigan tax payers nothing and create competition. I thought those were the ideas that got Republicans elected in November.

At least in this case Governor Snyder has put the good of the state ahead of his re-election. If only every politician were so inclined.

Why Even Have FoxTrax?

Let me start by catching up the uninitiated as to what I am talking about in that post title.

FoxSports Detroit and I would assume all affiliates of the 29 other MLB teams - or, rather, all those with a contract with FoxSports use a technology called FoxTrax to show whether a (disputed) pitch was a ball or a strike (i.e. did the ump get it right?)

It's not my favorite technology since it often shows pitches that I believe were "on the black" to be off the plate. I just accept that I would be more of a pitchers umpire because I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt considering all the drift to hitter-friendly conditions in the past generation (if you know baseball, you know the list: mound height, smaller ballparks, smaller strikezone, 'roided up players, juiced ball?, etc).

Okay, now that my readers are all hopefully caught up - here is the problem I have:

Over the weekend Detroit-ChiSox series, there was a pitch that White Sox DH/1B Adam Dunn took for a called strike three. A replay was shown and Tigers play-by-play broadcaster, Mario Impemba, audibly gasped and said "that was nowhere near the strike zone!" Later in the game when Adam Dunn came to the plate, Impemba again claimed Dunn was "called out earlier today on a pitch that clearly out of the strike zone.".

With that said...it should be a surprise to you, dear reader, that when FoxSports showed a replay using FoxTrax, it indicated the pitch was a strike!! Now, why would you invest in this technology if you clearly do not take it seriously and apparently don't expect your viewing audience to trust it? It makes no sense!

Moreover, I am curious about how the technology actually works? It is just a shmuck in the production truck just eyeballing an approximate square? That could sound like an inexact technology that would produce errors except that is how the First & 10 lines are generated on football broadcasts... and how often are those actually wrong? Pretty much never!

Also, I wanted to compare this technology to what they use for tennis tournaments these days. They have a replay system which routinely zooms in to show a ball in or out by mere millimeters and I have never, ever heard anyone suggest that the technology got it wrong. So I guess the analagous situation would be that Mario (& Rod Allen) were calling a tennis match and having replay show a ball was on the line but they actually insisted the ball was out by a foot!

All right, if I have not made myself clear, consider me on the side of technology. Mario Impemba got the call wrong. The replay indicated he was wrong. He was too stubborn to acknowledge it. The reason you have FoxTrax is because announcers like Mario Impemba don't know a strike when they see one!

Palin 2012

As a Democrat I'm very excited about the continued obsession with Sarah Palin and her potential run for President. Nothing boosts the Democratic brand more than having people like Palin as the spokes people for the Republican party. Unfortunately Palin only has a 22% favorability rating which is as low as George W. Bush ever sank. At least Bush actually did something for people to like or dislike. Palin might as well have been a community organizer for the past few years for as much as she has accomplished.

In what I assume to be an effort to improve her brand Palin is taking a "vacation" across America using money donated to SarahPAC and made her latest gaffe of butchering the history of Paul Revere.

Personally I really don't care what Sarah Palin does or does not know about American history. There is plenty of quotes to suggest that she might not be the smartest candidate for president that this country has every seen. The problem I have is that she defended her ignorance and the blamed a gotcha question. This is a tried and true response for Palin when she missteps on questions. Since her supporters have backed this defense in the past why not try it again. But maybe she has a point. Who among us would so readily be able to answer such a loaded question as the one posed to Palin.

"What have you seen so far today and what are you going to take away from your visit?"

Clearly the person asking this question was planted by the liberal media just looking for a way to make Palin look silly. If we don't blame someone else for Palin's gaffes then she just becomes another citizen who is completely unqualified to be President and she is just too important to the Democratic party to let that happen.

O'Reilly setting the table for 2012

Bill O'Reilly is a smart guy who prefers conservative values. Given this he tends to support Republican candidates in elections. It should then come as no surprise that in an effort to exploit the bias of his viewers he would use the tried and true fallacy of media bias to tip the scales in favor of "his" guys.

On his show from June 1st O'Reilly quotes from a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) a "nonpartisan" organization that just happens to get 86% of it's funding from conservative leaning sources. The study indicates that in the 2008 election cycle, ABC, NBC, and particularly CBS present more favorable views of Obama than McCain. Based on this study O'Reilly concluded that "(the coverage) was all favorable to Obama" and "it just wasn't fair the last time around, Barack Obama got kid gloves treatment."

Void of the fact that this same study also points out that not only is Fox News, which O'Reilly happens to work for, not fair and balanced on this topic, they actually show their own bias by giving more favorable views on McCain than Obama.

The beauty is that by putting this out there now in reference to the 2012 elections O'Reilly has already set the table to claim bias on anything he disagrees with over the next year and a half relating the coverage of the presidential candidates.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that O'Reilly is a good judge of bias. On this same program he claims that his staff has more liberals than conservatives. This may be true but it also could be true that O'Reilly believes he falls in the middle of the political spectrum and therefore anyone left of him is liberal. This reminds me of a George Carlin bit that one of my colleagues often quotes where he says “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” Just because politically you passed Bill O'Reilly that is not proof that you are in fact a maniac.

The other unfortunate and telling issue I take with O'Reilly's definitive statements about how Obama was treated by the media is the fact the this same organization also put out another study titled: MEDIA BASH BARACK (NOT A TYPO) Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain. (take note of the bias in the title from this "nonpartisan" organization). This study shows the exact opposite results of the study that O'Reilly quotes. Additionally this study shows that Fox News was the worst offender of "bashing" Obama surpassing the bias that CBS showed that prompted O'Reilly to say "I am concerned as an American, that the three network news nightly broadcasts are in the tank for the Democratic candidate."

Ironically O'Reilly is using "gotcha journalism" here on his guest Diane Sawyer since she wasn't given a heads up on this topic to be able to defend her network against these accusations.

O'Reilly would have more credibility if he didn't exhibit such blatant bias when calling out someone else for showing bias.

The fight over bias may never end because there is no statistical measure that will come remotely close to settling the issue and the easiest way to discredit those whom you disagree with is to make a claim that is impossible to prove. As I said before, O'Reilly is a smart guy and you can bet he knows exactly what he is doing in continuing to represent bias as an important topic of political conversation instead of the diversionary tactic that it is.

Smoking ban hurts business

Last year Michigan put in a ban on smoking that is affecting many bars and restaurants. These establishments complain that the ban is hurting their business. While I do feel for them, this ban helps save lives so tough cookies.

Having said that, do you know what else hurts business for bars and restaurants? High gas costs. Corn being used for ethanol. 10's of thousands of public employees losing their jobs. Inflation. Large companies hoarding money instead of hiring new employees. Lack of consumer confidence. Poor weather conditions. Rising health care costs. The earth quake in Japan. Health inspections. etc.

There are plenty of things business can complain about these days. That doesn't mean that the complaints are valid.

Newt under attack

Newt Gingrich has come under attack from his own party for suggesting that Paul Ryan's plan of privatizing Medicare might not be a great idea. Gingrich claims he was not talking about the Ryan plan but then again he also claimed he cheated on his wife because of how much he loves America.

This seems to be a pattern with Republicans where you are either in lock step agreement or you are "an embarrassment to the party". It should be noted that the majority of Americans are also against the Ryan plan on Medicare so Newt is actually in the majority if in fact he was commenting on the Ryan plan.

While I certainly don't mind the Right cannibalizing each other, in a race to see how politically far right they can go, since this strategy will only benefit Democrats, I think it is a dangerous trend to suggest that disagreement or debate somehow makes you a turn coat or Un-American.

The confrontation Newt Gingrich experienced is an example of why our politics is so divisive now-adays. The extreme wings have the most skin in the game but make for the worst decision makers. Our politicians would make better decisions if they put their constituents before party and certainly before their own reelection.

So while Republicans and the media act like Newt stumbled in his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination the real failure here is on the part far right for holding up the unpopular as the infallible while marginalizing the middle.

Squaring the Circle

Yesterday the Senate held a vote on eliminating subsidies for the five largest oil companies. While a majority of Senators did vote Yes on the bill, the perversion of the filibuster, where a super majority is now required to pass almost every piece of legislation, stopped the bill from passing.

In response to the vote Mitch McConnell called the actions of Senate Democrats a "dog and pony show". I think it is safe to say that this term falls into the category of pot and kettle, where political rhetoric exhibits a complete lack of self awareness. By now it should be assumed that "at least 90%" of all political actions are "dog and pony shows". Stating that fact like it is breaking news just seems odd.

Void of that the fact that a mere 10 years ago this bill would have been passed by simple majority, 74% of Americans favor ending the subsidies to big oil companies. Support like that doesn't indicate an elaborately staged performance by Democrats as much as it does a "we know what's best for you" attitude from Republicans.

Also it should be noted that ending this subsidy would reduce the deficit by five and a half times as much as ending funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR combined. If you recall the rhetoric from those debates it was about "shared sacrifice" and "everything is on the table". But when part of that everything includes big oil you get quotes like " we’re only talking about four billion dollars." from Sarah Palin and "the Obama proposal [of cutting oil subsidies] is ludicrous." from Tim Pawlenty.

The other point to consider is that fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul tend to be against all government interference in the private sector. While that means they want less regulations it also means that aren't excited about subsidies. If you are interested in reducing the size of government, ending the oil subsidies will do that. Additionally it will help to reduce the deficit while having no negative impact on consumers since gas prices won't go up, jobs won't be lost and our dependence on foreign oil won't change.

In the end changing the narrative to imply this whole debate is a publicity stunt by Democrats is preferable to having to explain how your votes don't match your rhetoric. And having a media that is too paranoid of being labeled liberal to cut through the dog and pony show that is political spin, doesn't hurt either.

Are You An Extremist?

Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?

That quote is one of the more famous observations of the late great George Carlin. I actually often think of that quote while on the road as a reminder to myself to not fall into the trap of being judgmental about others whose driving habits don't exactly mirror my own.

However, I don't typically think of it as being necessarily applicable to other areas of life... until yesterday. What happened yesterday? Glad you asked. I got an e-mail from my brother which included an accusation that:

"(you) parrot out extreme left wing viewpoints (and therefore are) an idiot"

Now, how exactly do you refute such a charge? One's instinct it to inquire as to who exactly is an extremist out of such people whom I admire (in policy and media - listed alphabetically):

Stephen Colbert
David Gergen
Melissa Harris-Perry (column: Fighting For Change, Longing For The Sea)
Simon Johnson
Ezra Klien
Paul Krugman (op-ed: Republicans War on Math)
Rachel Maddow (segment: Obama Risks Compromising the Presidency)
Bill Maher
Keith Olbermann
Nouriel Roubini (interview: with Charlie Rose)
Robert Shiller
Eliot Spitzer
Jon Stewart (YouTube: final speech at Rally To Restore Sanity)
Joseph Stiglitz
Fareed Zakaria (YouTube: comments regarding the "Ground Zero Mosque")

And, as I may have mentioned on this site before, I actually respect David Brooks and, to some extent, even David Frum.

And is Defense Secretary Robert Gates a left-wing extremist? I really like what he has had to say about defense spending, military intervention in the Middle East, DADT, etc.

Anyway, maybe faced with such an inquiry, my brother picks a couple he considers extremists (and who are we kidding? Olbermann and Maher are going to get tagged)... maybe others?

Maybe he accuses, for example, Robert Shiller (although to be honest, I suspect my brother has as much chance of knowing who won the bronze medal in the Hammer Throw at the 1976 Olympics as he does of knowing anything of significance about Mr. Shiller). Now I know from watching Mr. Shiller on Charlie Rose that he advocates mandatory tax increases on the wealthy when the inequality index rises. Does that opinion make him an extremist? I'd say "no" - but who am I to judge? I suspect it's not an idea that would poll well with the American people. Does that, by definition, make it extreme? I say 'no'... it merely makes it unpopular (at least temporarily so). Moreover, the same brother accusing me (sort of) of being an extremist is a long-time advocate of the Fair Tax. This is a policy proposal recently referenced by Rachel Maddow as something like "a fringe, Right-Wing idea" (I can't find the actual quote just now... hopefully I will!).

Is she right? Maybe, but not necessarily. It is her opinion. Is the Fair Tax "extreme"? Maybe... who am I to say? I can define it as "extreme" by my own standards, but that is all those standards are: mine and mine alone.

So, back to the beginning. My concern is that many people are falling into a trap where they define people in their own party who are closer to the center as, well not necessarily "idiots" per se, but rather, in conservative circles, they talk of RINOs (a common charge against Meghan McCain for example); liberals and progressives might label their centrists as "corporatists" and/or the more blunt "sell outs" (I'm looking at you Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, etc).

I suppose if there is one thing that we should all agree with: Joe Lieberman is a worthless piece of shit.

And then people further from the center become "wing-nuts" and/or "extremists". I, of course, cannot and/or should not speak for the mainstream Right, but one has to assume they're embarrassed by the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Allen West, etc.

So, I don't know. I guess all I can say is if Fareed Zakaria is considered an extremist: consider me an extremist.

Snyder's three card monty

Last week Governor Snyder signed into law a restructuring of the tax code giving a massive cut to businesses. Republicans are praising the move as they believe it will bring companies to Michigan and create jobs. The move changes Michigan's standing in the nation from 19th in business tax burden to 35th. While this is an improvement it falls well short of driving companies to Michigan. If you had the choice between 50 different mortgage rates would you choose the 15th best rate? At best this will drive a small number of companies in bordering states to Michigan.

The good news is that by electing Rick Snyder we elected a smart business man who excels at analyzing the situation and compiling data to maximize the value of every tax dollar. After what I assume was exhaustive research into the topic the Governor had this to say about the return on investment Michigan can expect to see with these business tax cuts "Can we quantify all the numbers (of jobs created)? No. But we know it's going to happen."

So I guess the Governor has decided using business techniques in political office is too burdensome and he has chosen to run the Governors office more like Jim Leyland would - using his gut to guide him.

Given that the Governor has not shown any interest in putting some numbers to his proposal I did a little research to see what $1.7 billion in tax cuts gets you. According to the Center for American Progress tax cuts result in 1 job for every $137,000 in cuts. This means at a cost of $1.7 billion the Governor's tax cuts will create around 12,400 new jobs over the next year. The reason for the low return on investment is that companies are in business to make money not create jobs.

12,000 new jobs doesn't sound too bad. The problem is that over the last year we have lost 19,000 public sector jobs due to lost tax revenue and that number will certainly increase once the Governors new cuts go into affect. Maybe the goal is to eliminate those vile public sector jobs like policemen, firefighters and teachers and slowly replace them with private sector jobs. If so, this tax cut is spot on.

Michigan residents and businesses have already seen massive tax cuts over the last few years thanks to the drop in house and commercial building values and the subsequent drop in property tax.

A government worker pays taxes just like anyone else in the state so lowering taxes to the point of massive public sector job loss is counter productive. These cuts are a policy of job shifting not job creation. My guess is the Governor isn't promising to create jobs not because he hasn't looked at all of the data, but because he has.

Rod Allen Again? Yes. Sorry.

Sorry, dear readers. I know it's probably not a good thing that I am turning this esteemed blog into a schizophrenic journal where Elijah Moon is doing insightful analysis/commentary on the big issues of the day and I am metaphorically throwing things at Rod Allen (and other nitwit baseball commentators), but, alas, it is what it is.

Last night's spotlighted Rod Allen comment was only annoying because of how he so blatantly contradicted himself from a different recent conversation he had with Mario Impemba. The Tigers were facing the Blue Jays and power-armed right-handed starter Brandon Morrow. Morrow cruised through the first couple innings which led Rod Allen to say:

Why did Seattle give up on a guy like this? And they got a reliever for him! Brandon League.

Now, truthfully, I completely agree with that sentiment of that comment. The problem is that just a few weeks ago - I can't recall the context but it may have been in reference to Joba Chamberlin (who has been a successful reliever after essentially failing as a starter during the 2009 season) - Rod Allen said he'd rather have a stud closer than a stud starter. His reasoning, as I recall, was that there was nothing more demoralizing to a baseball team than to have a lead going into the 8th/9th innings only to have the back end of the bullpen blow the game. I didn't agree with him when he said it, I don't agree with him now, but that is what he said.

Okay. Now who is the closer for Seattle? Why... it's Brandon Fucking League!! And as of this posting, League is tied for third in the A.L. in saves with 9 - and he is the only one of the top 4 to have not blown a save yet this season! Even Mariano Rivera has blown two.

So, again, I apologize. I will go down to the office of Elijah Moon and suggest he write something about the debt ceiling debate or Chinese currency manipulation so we can get this Furriners blog back to it's mission statement: smart political thoughts and Derek Anderson worship.

I Call B.S. - Mark Mulder Edition

It should probably come as no surprise that new ESPN baseball analyst (and former oft-injured pitcher), Mark Mulder, does not know what he is talking about... the guy went to Michigan State! How embarrassing for him.

ESPN should probably hire smart guys like Chris Sabo or Barry Larkin to be analysts.... oh, they did hire Barry Larkin? Christ almighty!! Why do they need so many guys? Just re-hire Harold Reynolds and go with the classic lineup of John Kruk, Reynolds, and Peter Gammons and everybody will be happy! You could even keep Buster Olney and Tim Kurkjian. They do a good job too.

Anyway, back to Mark Mulder. Why was this guy hired? He clearly does not know what the heck he is talking about, as this is what he had to say regarding Justin Verlander's no-hitter on Saturday:

What makes him so good is the stuff that he has and he pitches to contact - which keeps his pitch count down (and) allows him to go deeper into games. I think if he wanted to, he could strike out a lot more guys but he chooses not to. He gets ahead and stays ahead and pitches to contact.

Okay, that is a reasonable analysis of the Justin Verlander that pitched the no-hitter on Saturday, but that is most definitely NOT consistent with what Tiger fans see on a start-to-start basis.

For example, "pitches to contact" who "chooses not to" go for strikeouts? You don't have to be a baseball historian like the aforementioned Tim Kurkjian to know that Justin Verlander led the major leagues in strikeouts in 2009 with 269. He followed that up with a fourth place finish in the A.L. in 2010 with 219. (By the way, he is currently tied for second in the league in 2011. He is one strikeout behind the current league leader, Dan Haren.)

To continue, then there is the "keeps his pitch count down" comment. That is such bollocks!! I got an e-mail from my father just last Wednesday where he completely unprompted wrote "Last line I saw on JV was 6 IP and 127 pitches... will he ever be able to pound strikes and develop command consistently?" Does that sound like a comment one would make about a guy who does a great job at keeping his pitch count down?

Want more evidence? Just look at JV's game log: Prior to the no-hitter, his last four starts were:

6 IP - 127 pitches
6 IP - 114 pitches
7 IP - 117 pitches
6 IP - 116 pitches

So let's not confuse JV with Greg Maddux or Orel Hershisher!

Oh, and one last piece of evidence. Prior to the no-hitter, Verlander was averaging ~17.0 pitches per inning. That is a total that would put him at the 7th highest in the league - behind six pitchers who don't have a sub-4.50 ERA amongst them as of this posting.

Memo to ESPN, please hire analysts who actually demonstrate that they know what they're talking about! And to reiterate, one hint that they don't know anything is a resume that mentions Michigan State.

Rod Allen Will Not Be My G.M.!

Another ridiculous statement last night by Fox Sports Detroit analyst Rod Allen last night during the Tigers-Blue Jays game.

Rod had this to say about Blue Jays shortstop Yunel Escobar:

If you were starting a team and you were picking a shortstop, (Escobar) might be the first guy you'd pick. He is that good on both sides of the ball. The young kid, Elvis Andrus, in Texas is a pretty good player too, but there are not many players walking around as good as this guy at that shortstop position.

Tigers play-by-play guy, Mario Impemba, lended his support to the statement with "Andrus is the first one that came to mind I guess as an alternative to Escobar."

Does Mr. Allen know there is a National League?

Has he ever heard of Troy Tulowitzki? Hanley Ramirez? Jose Reyes?

Now what you might be thinking is: yeah, yeah, Furriners, they are better than Escobar now, but if I am starting an organization from scratch, you probably want to start with younger talent to build a team for the long-haul (like the way one would certainly start an NFL team with Aaron Rodgers rather than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady). I would agree.

Do you know who is younger than Yunel Escobar?

Troy Tulowitzki. And Hanley Ramirez. And Jose Reyes.

Sorry, Rod Allen... you just got owned!


* And, by the way, I like to think I'm being nice by not pointing out Stephen Drew and Starlin Castro as well.

** Hmmm... that probably wasn't very nice of me to do that.

Tax increases off the table

While talking about the GOP stance on increasing the debt limit John Boehner recently stated that "Nothing Is Off the Table Except Raising Taxes."

First it should be noted that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of raising taxes on the rich to help with our current budget deficit.

Second the effective tax rate for Americans is at it's lowest point since the end of WWII.

Third, the goal should be getting money into the hands of people who will spend it. The government and the poor are much more likely to spend every dime they get than the rich who show a high propensity for saving when taxes are cut.

So tax increases being off the table do not represent sound or popular thinking regarding the budget deficit.

The Republican stance is that we don't have a taxing problem we have a spending problem. To some extent they are correct. We have a spending problem but that problem is military spending. While our current budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is very high it was higher in the 40's. It should come as no surprise that WWII had a negative affect on our budget deficit. We should also not be shocked that all of our current military actions are expanding our deficit. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been the second most expensive military actions behind only WWII and similarly our current budget deficit is second only to that of the WWII era.

While we obviously have a spending problem that we need to work on we do also have a tax problem. In 2009 the tax code was filled with $1.1 trillion in tax breaks. The problem is that these tax breaks favor some segments over others. One example of this is the Drug industry which pays an average effective tax rate of 5.4% while the Electric Utilities industry pays 33.8%. I would say that sort of disparity represents a problem.

It also makes the Republican talking point of businesses fleeing the country to places like Ireland, with their 12.5% tax rate, somewhat less plausible when a number of industries actually already pay less here in America.

If the goal is to eliminate the Federal Government than taking tax increases off the table makes sense. If however your goal is to reduce the budget deficit the data shows keeping tax rates low will do more harm than good.

Rod Allen Hyperbole

I don't know what it's like to be talking "live" on television for a couple hours a day for about six nights a week for six months out of the year. Maybe it's inevitable that one will unleash some really ludicrous statements in that job?

And I don't mean to pick on the man because, in general, I think he does a solid job - but it just so happens that I watch Tigers games about six nights a week for six months out of the year -and yesterday I took note of several Rod Allen statements that seem indefensible:

1. "(Robinson Cano) would be batting third on any other team in the major leagues."

Really? You're telling me that the Cardinals would bat him 3rd or 4th with Matt Holliday and Albert Pujols holding down those two spots in the batting order? Do you know Matt Holliday - as of this posting on May 4th - is batting .409 and slugging .648? And Albert Pujols is... well, he's Albert Pujols.

What about the Milwaukee Brewers with Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder? How about the Minnesota Twins with (a healthy) Justin Morneau and (a healthy) Joe Mauer? And you could arguments for other teams as well (Boston and Texas being two others) which would not bat Robinson Cano third (or fourth).

2. "(The Yankees) were rotating second basemen before (Cano) arrived on the scene. Derek Jeter couldn't find a double-play partner. He has one now."

Okay, this is sort of true. The fact is that Chuck Knoblauch played second base for the Yankees from 1998-2000. Knoblauch had a solid career and played fairly well for Yankees. However, he, of course, famously had some throwing issues that moved him to the OF for the 2001 season.

Then, the Yankees had Alfonso Soriano from 2001-03. A fantastic player for the Yankees... or, again, a fantasic hitter who was not a good defensive baseman and has since moved to the outfield. Regardless, he was shipped out as the main piece in the deal to get Alex Rodriguez.

Then, the 2004 season saw the Yankees using a very unheralded duo (Miguel Cairo and Enrique Wilson) before promoting Cano for the 2005 season. So, again, it is sort of true what Rod Allen said even if it is sort of ignoring the fact that the Soriano's departure was a Yankees choice -- I just think he made it sound like the Tigers issue at 3B in the decade or so between Aurelio Rodriguez and Travis Fryman... remember all the guys that got to play that spot (HoJo, Garbey, Brookens, Pittaro, Castillo, Coles, Lovullo, etc)?

3. "Those days are about over when a player plays for just one team throughout his entire career."

Announcers say this all the time... and that is my point I guess... they have been saying it for years and years! The fact is is that there will always be some players who play their entire career for one team! You might think of it like a bell curve; a few players will play an entire career for one team, the majority of players will change teams several times over the course of their career, and then there are some who will play for many, many teams (think Bruce Chen, Arthur Rhodes, Mike Myers, etc); that is just the way it is.


And I guess I'll just ignore the quote about what a luxury is to have a guy like Russell Martin hitting 8th. I mean, do they (Rod and Mario Impemba) not realize that Alex Avila bats 8th for the Tigers (and his stats are nearly identical to Russell Martin's)?!? So just because your #8 hitter is performing well doesn't automatically mean you have super deep lineup! Of course, in the Yankees case, it is true. The Tigers, unfortunately, would not be considered a deep lineup by any stretch (currently 8th in the A.L. in runs per game). It just so happens that Avila is hitting very well (probably overachieving - but who knows? Maybe he'll keep it up).

The Ryan Plan Individual Mandates

I might be beating a dead horse here given how unlikely and unpopular the Ryan plan is but as more information about the plan comes to light, the plan keeps getting worse.

First, Ryan suggests that his plan is just like the plan members of congress receive. As I have pointed out here before the costs for this plan increase at a faster rate than Medicaid, but to make matters worse the claim by Mr. Ryan is untrue. In the Ryan plan, the increases given to the general population, increase at the rate of inflation yet the plan provided to congress members has no such cap. Given that the cost of health care increases at a much faster rate than inflation all Ryan is doing to "control" the costs of Medicare is shift the burden away from the government and back onto the American public. Most notably Senior Citizens.

Second, the problem of increasing health care costs in not an issue with Medicare. It is an issue with increasing health care costs. While Ryan is more than willing to cut costs for Medicare he does nothing to fix the actual problem of rising health care costs. For all of it's problems at least the ACA does attempt to reign in costs rather than let big business run all over the health care needing public (see also all American citizens).

Last and most disturbing for Republicans, Tea Party members and lovers of the Constitution, the Ryan plan contains not one but two individual mandates. These two links go into more detail on the two mandates, but the basic idea in the Ryan plan is for those not covered under Medicare, you get a tax credit of $2,300. And you only get this tax credit if you buy health care insurance. The big difference between the ACA and the Ryan plan on this point? Semantics. One is a tax break the other is a tax penalty. In the end your taxes are lower if you buy health care insurance and higher if you don't.

The second mandate is for Senior Citizens. In Ryan plan you pay into a system through payroll taxes until you reach 65 years of age and then you get vouchers. If you chose not to use the vouchers for health care you forfeit the money you paid into the system.

I personally don't have a big issue with the individual mandate and fail to understand why Republicans are so against it since they came up with it in the first place, have used it here in the Ryan plan and implemented a health care plan using the individual mandate in Massachusetts under leading Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. But if you hate the individual mandate then you might not be real excited about the Ryan plan.

The Threat of Socialism

One of the talking points I hear from Republicans is that Obama is a socialist and his policies promoting socialism are ruining the country. Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich even went as far as naming his recent book "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine" in an effort to exploit this misconception.

What I find odd about this claim is not how baseless it is but how subjective the premise of the argument is. Those making this claim act like there is a clearly defined line that makes one socialist, as if tax payer funded roads, police, education and the USPS are not forms of socialism but raising taxes on the super rich is.

This claim of socialism seems very politically motivated since there is a socialist movement sweeping the nation faster than Sharia Law and no one seems to be talking about it. I am of course talking about Credit Unions. According to Wikipedia "A credit union is a cooperative financial institution that is owned and controlled by its members" and "A cooperative is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit" and "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively".

As you can see a Credit Union is a member owned Cooperative and Socialism is a Cooperative that is commonly owned i.e. Credit Unions = Socialism.

Not convinced?

Well consider this. Nearly 4 million people moved their money out of the Wall Street banks in 2010 and now nearly 93 million Americans* are Credit Union members. It is estimated that this shift costs the big banks $9.2 billion a year. To make matters worse in 1937 Congress gave Credit Unions Tax exempt status meaning they pay no taxes on all of the profits they make as a non-profit.

How can trickle down economics succeed and return America to greatness if the average American takes his money out of the hands of rich investors and redistributes the wealth among the middle class?

The threat that socialist organizations like Credit Unions and other Cooperatives such as the Farmers Cooperative, pose to the American way of life can not be understated. They should be treated like other nefarious organizations such as Acorn, NPR and Planned Parenthood. They must be stopped!

*It should be noted that I am unable to verify the claim that these 93 million people are in fact Americans as none of them has submitted their long form birth certificate for my review