It seems that you can't have a conversation about improving education without someone blaming the teachers union for the all of the problems with public education. Are teachers unions perfect? No. Are they the problem with American education? No.
First it should be noted that only 38% of the nation’s educators belong to a union. Given that nearly two thirds of public school teachers are non-union it seems like a stretch to blame the unions for the failings of public education. Also, if the teachers unions were to at fault for the downfall of public education there should be some research that provides evidence for such a claim. The data however shows that there is little to no difference in test scores of students taught by union teachers versus non-union teachers.
Given the lack of data to support the attack on teachers unions the next argument you often hear is that teacher tenure is ruining public education. This belief was fueled by the following quote from the documentary 'Waiting for Superman'.
...in Illinois, 1 in 57 doctors loses his or her medical license, and 1 in 97 attorneys loses his or her law license, but only 1 teacher in 2500 has ever lost his or her credentials."
Unfortunately this "statistic" has no basis in reality. Unlike the filmmakers, Leonie Haimson from the Huffington Post actually took the time to examine the data and found that the numbers across these three occupations are nearly identical.
But even these numbers don't give an accurate picture of the situation. To get a law license in most states you need only to get a law degree and pass the bar. To get a license to practice medicine you need to earn a medical degree, pass the boards and practice medicine for one year. To get tenure you need to get a degree in education and teacher for around 4 years (varies by state). Given the fact that 46% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years it should come as no surprise that the turnover rate for tenured teachers is low. Those teachers that make it to tenure tend to be those who are most dedicated to the job.
Regardless of these facts many people will still argue against unions because they claim unions cost the taxpayers too much. Again, this is a fallacy. Most often we debate what a teacher makes without ever considering the cost of living. Teachers unions tend to be the strongest in the states that are the most expensive to live. When you take cost of living into account the states with little to no union teachers actually make more money per year than the teachers in states with little to no non-union teachers.
If the goal is truly to improve education in America then there is plenty of good data on real solutions which make a difference. Focusing on unions is a politically motivated diversionary tactic that helps no one but the politicians.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
Government overreach or convenient rhetoric
If you've listened to any conservative leaning news source over the past three years you most likely believe that President Obama and other various government entities such as the EPA have overstepped their authority.
This may or may not be true but it should be noted that here in Michigan a court recently ruled that the Michigan Department of Human Services exceeded their power by cutting welfare assistance to many who should not have been removed from the welfare rolls. It is also true that the Michigan legislature overstepped their authority by ignoring a constitutional requirement in the immediate affect clause.
While conservative news sources like Fox News are more than happy to list every perceived overreach by the Obama administration they seem to have completely missed these two events which have actually been declared by US courts to be illegal. Maybe we aren't really concerned about government overreach at all since if government overreach is bad, then it is bad regardless of which political party perpetrates the overreach yet that never seems to be the case. The complaints always seem to fall along party lines.
The good news is that interpreting the constitution and other laws is in the hands of those who actually know the law instead of being in the hands of the court of public opinion. So if Obama and other government entities are guilty of overstepping their authority the courts will let us know and everyone can rest easy knowing that the constitution exists un-trampled for another day.
This may or may not be true but it should be noted that here in Michigan a court recently ruled that the Michigan Department of Human Services exceeded their power by cutting welfare assistance to many who should not have been removed from the welfare rolls. It is also true that the Michigan legislature overstepped their authority by ignoring a constitutional requirement in the immediate affect clause.
While conservative news sources like Fox News are more than happy to list every perceived overreach by the Obama administration they seem to have completely missed these two events which have actually been declared by US courts to be illegal. Maybe we aren't really concerned about government overreach at all since if government overreach is bad, then it is bad regardless of which political party perpetrates the overreach yet that never seems to be the case. The complaints always seem to fall along party lines.
The good news is that interpreting the constitution and other laws is in the hands of those who actually know the law instead of being in the hands of the court of public opinion. So if Obama and other government entities are guilty of overstepping their authority the courts will let us know and everyone can rest easy knowing that the constitution exists un-trampled for another day.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Misconceptions abound on ACA
Given the recent arguments made in front of the Supreme Court regarding the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as ObamaCare or RomneyCare) there has been a lot of discussion about the effects on the President's legacy and rehashing of the ACA.
While I can't speak for the president I do take issue with many of the opinions that have been offered.
First, as much as this legislation has been tied to President Obama, the talk at the time of passage was that Obama was too distant in the process and let congress do too much of the leg work. Did Obama support health care reform? Yes. Was this his bill? Hardly.
Second, the rhetoric over the individual mandate suggests that progressives like the idea. The truth is progressives feel that every American citizen should have access to health care without going bankrupt. They support a single payer system. When the ACA was being passed there were conversations among progressives on whether you accept a flawed bill that accomplishes only a small portion of your goals and hope for future revisions and improvements or if you just scrap the whole thing and start over.
Progressives probably don't support the individual mandate (the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation) any more than conservatives, but they value the benefits it provides to the uninsured and others such as those with the dreaded "pre-existing condition".
Third, the debate over how this affects the deficit is largely irrelevant to progressives. Again the progressive stance is that universal health care falls under the basic tenant of government of general welfare. Medicare is more cost effective than private insurance so if progressives had their way and got a universal health care system the CBO score wouldn't make any difference. There is a reason we spend more money per person than any other nation in the world and our lack of a universal health care is a key component of that.
Additionally if your complaint is that the ACA doesn't reduce the deficit or actually increases it some, it should be noted that if we did nothing or if we eliminate the ACA the increase in deficit would be worse. Fighting against the ACA doesn't lead to a cut in the deficit.
If you’re a conservative and you hate the ACA then welcome to the club. This is nowhere near the progressive health care utopia that it is being portrayed as, but it gives more people access to health care and that is at least a good start.
While I can't speak for the president I do take issue with many of the opinions that have been offered.
First, as much as this legislation has been tied to President Obama, the talk at the time of passage was that Obama was too distant in the process and let congress do too much of the leg work. Did Obama support health care reform? Yes. Was this his bill? Hardly.
Second, the rhetoric over the individual mandate suggests that progressives like the idea. The truth is progressives feel that every American citizen should have access to health care without going bankrupt. They support a single payer system. When the ACA was being passed there were conversations among progressives on whether you accept a flawed bill that accomplishes only a small portion of your goals and hope for future revisions and improvements or if you just scrap the whole thing and start over.
Progressives probably don't support the individual mandate (the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation) any more than conservatives, but they value the benefits it provides to the uninsured and others such as those with the dreaded "pre-existing condition".
Third, the debate over how this affects the deficit is largely irrelevant to progressives. Again the progressive stance is that universal health care falls under the basic tenant of government of general welfare. Medicare is more cost effective than private insurance so if progressives had their way and got a universal health care system the CBO score wouldn't make any difference. There is a reason we spend more money per person than any other nation in the world and our lack of a universal health care is a key component of that.
Additionally if your complaint is that the ACA doesn't reduce the deficit or actually increases it some, it should be noted that if we did nothing or if we eliminate the ACA the increase in deficit would be worse. Fighting against the ACA doesn't lead to a cut in the deficit.
If you’re a conservative and you hate the ACA then welcome to the club. This is nowhere near the progressive health care utopia that it is being portrayed as, but it gives more people access to health care and that is at least a good start.
Fired up over coal
Conservative media outlets are at it again. They are painting the EPA's recent decision about coal fired power plants as more proof that President Obama and the EPA are hell-bent on ruining this country. Unfortunately their data is about as accurate as a Rick Santorum speech when it comes to providing all of the facts.
The President and nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that climate change is real and the EPA is acting to lower the harmful emissions that coal fired power plants produce. According to reports the new regulations would essentially end the production of traditional new coal fired power plants. That doesn't mean that coal will no longer be used to produce electricity because existing coal fired power plants will not be subject to these standards. Also the technology is available to produce new coal fired power plants that meet the new EPA standards but the energy sector of course complains that these technologies are too expensive.
The same was true when President Gerald Ford signed the CAFE standards in to law and when President Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol. The industries affected started their sky is falling campaign suggesting it would ruin their companies. Of course their doomsday predictions never came true because as the greatest country in the world, Americans rose to the challenge and not only met the new standards but even started embracing them as necessary.
So while this new EPA ruling may change the future plans for energy companies it is not the end of the world.
The right also claims this will lead to higher energy prices. Given that energy prices have been steadily outpacing inflation for the past five years and are at record highs the odds are that energy prices will continue to go higher. For example after building a new coal fired power plant in the Upper Peninsula residents saw their energy bills spike by as much as 30%. Building new energy plants costs money regardless of what source the plant uses to generate that power. The real question we should ask is whether these new regulations will have any affect above and beyond the increases that we are already seeing. It is a distortion of the facts to ignore the costs associated with new coal facilities while including the costs of new natural gas or wind facilities.
It should also be noted that as of 2008, before Barak Obama was even elected, more natural gas plants were being built than coal fired plants. Plans to build new coal fired plants were being canceled because of market forces not EPA regulations. According to a Duke Energy representative "as one of the largest utilities and largest - users of coal in the country (we have) no plans to build a new coal plant for two decades so the regulations are not relevant." He also stated that "natural gas (was becoming) the crack cocaine of the power industry." because "It was cheap to build the plants".
Oddly enough this new EPA regulation is actually also catching heat from environmentalists as well. The reason being that is does nothing to affect existing coal fired plants. In a perverse way this actually leads to more air pollution given that energy companies have no incentive to build new cleaner coal facilities and instead will rely on the old plants that have been grandfathered in. At this point China is actually ahead of the US in clean coal plants because we have chosen pricing and politics over our long standing history of being the world's innovators.
If Obama and the EPA really wanted to reduce emissions they should support the retirement of old coal fired plants and push natural gas while also gradually increasing the requirements for all coal fired power plants.
Clearly there are flaws in these standards but the flaws have little to do with the standard corporate talking points that always get thrown around when the good of the people is put ahead of corporate profits.
The President and nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that climate change is real and the EPA is acting to lower the harmful emissions that coal fired power plants produce. According to reports the new regulations would essentially end the production of traditional new coal fired power plants. That doesn't mean that coal will no longer be used to produce electricity because existing coal fired power plants will not be subject to these standards. Also the technology is available to produce new coal fired power plants that meet the new EPA standards but the energy sector of course complains that these technologies are too expensive.
The same was true when President Gerald Ford signed the CAFE standards in to law and when President Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol. The industries affected started their sky is falling campaign suggesting it would ruin their companies. Of course their doomsday predictions never came true because as the greatest country in the world, Americans rose to the challenge and not only met the new standards but even started embracing them as necessary.
So while this new EPA ruling may change the future plans for energy companies it is not the end of the world.
The right also claims this will lead to higher energy prices. Given that energy prices have been steadily outpacing inflation for the past five years and are at record highs the odds are that energy prices will continue to go higher. For example after building a new coal fired power plant in the Upper Peninsula residents saw their energy bills spike by as much as 30%. Building new energy plants costs money regardless of what source the plant uses to generate that power. The real question we should ask is whether these new regulations will have any affect above and beyond the increases that we are already seeing. It is a distortion of the facts to ignore the costs associated with new coal facilities while including the costs of new natural gas or wind facilities.
It should also be noted that as of 2008, before Barak Obama was even elected, more natural gas plants were being built than coal fired plants. Plans to build new coal fired plants were being canceled because of market forces not EPA regulations. According to a Duke Energy representative "as one of the largest utilities and largest - users of coal in the country (we have) no plans to build a new coal plant for two decades so the regulations are not relevant." He also stated that "natural gas (was becoming) the crack cocaine of the power industry." because "It was cheap to build the plants".
Oddly enough this new EPA regulation is actually also catching heat from environmentalists as well. The reason being that is does nothing to affect existing coal fired plants. In a perverse way this actually leads to more air pollution given that energy companies have no incentive to build new cleaner coal facilities and instead will rely on the old plants that have been grandfathered in. At this point China is actually ahead of the US in clean coal plants because we have chosen pricing and politics over our long standing history of being the world's innovators.
If Obama and the EPA really wanted to reduce emissions they should support the retirement of old coal fired plants and push natural gas while also gradually increasing the requirements for all coal fired power plants.
Clearly there are flaws in these standards but the flaws have little to do with the standard corporate talking points that always get thrown around when the good of the people is put ahead of corporate profits.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Do business tax cuts create jobs?
Late last week I set out to write a post discussing the value of business tax cuts to the economy and in particular to job creation. Unfortunately, as I researched, it became apparent that there is little to no data to support the idea that the across the board tax cuts like the ones Governor Snyder championed actually do anything to create jobs. Even the Governors office has been unable to supply any studies to back the Governors opinion that eliminating the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) will promote job growth.
Prehaps the governor didn't need to do a bunch of research to since he has a business background and a Republican controlled congress which also believes that cutting business taxes will help Michigan. Maybe a group like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce would have some supporting documetation. They did afterall boast that "last year the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was successful in repealing the Michigan Business Tax". With this in mind I contacted my representative to see what information they had that made reducing business taxes their number one priority. Their response: "We do not have any data that suggests the specific tax cuts create jobs."
Making matters worse it doesn't seem that either the NFIB or the Heritage Foundation, two business friendly organizations, have any figures to lend credence to the belief that Governor Snyder's business tax cuts will create jobs.
The only source that seems to care about these tax cuts is the Tax Foundation in their state business tax climate index rankings. The only problem is that the Tax Foundation rankings don't appear to have any correlation to job creation. The Tax Foundation addmitted that they do not take every aspect of business climate into account when compliling their rankings which might lead to this lack of link between their rankings and job creation.
If the belief is that companies will suddenly decide to relocate to Michigan due to a reduced tax rate the data doesn't seem to support this claim. Washington College economics professor Robert Lynch authored a study on the topic and found that "firms don't necessarily relocate or expand to an area more just because it has lower taxes." He also found that "a lower tax rate...doesn't necessarily create substantial jobs."
In Copperas Cove, Texas, the economic development group gathered data on why companies relocate and found that the two most important reasons were access to a larger and/or better talent pool and to aquire additional space. They found that taxes were no more important to the decision than labor costs or regulatory environment.
Maybe the Snyder tax cuts will defy the odds and actually create some jobs but I imagine the "possibility" of job creation is little comfort to those public sector employees that lost their jobs or the elderly who will see their pensions taxed or the charities that will see a drop in donations all in exchange for busines tax cut that the governor "feels" will be good for the state.
Prehaps the governor didn't need to do a bunch of research to since he has a business background and a Republican controlled congress which also believes that cutting business taxes will help Michigan. Maybe a group like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce would have some supporting documetation. They did afterall boast that "last year the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was successful in repealing the Michigan Business Tax". With this in mind I contacted my representative to see what information they had that made reducing business taxes their number one priority. Their response: "We do not have any data that suggests the specific tax cuts create jobs."
Making matters worse it doesn't seem that either the NFIB or the Heritage Foundation, two business friendly organizations, have any figures to lend credence to the belief that Governor Snyder's business tax cuts will create jobs.
The only source that seems to care about these tax cuts is the Tax Foundation in their state business tax climate index rankings. The only problem is that the Tax Foundation rankings don't appear to have any correlation to job creation. The Tax Foundation addmitted that they do not take every aspect of business climate into account when compliling their rankings which might lead to this lack of link between their rankings and job creation.
If the belief is that companies will suddenly decide to relocate to Michigan due to a reduced tax rate the data doesn't seem to support this claim. Washington College economics professor Robert Lynch authored a study on the topic and found that "firms don't necessarily relocate or expand to an area more just because it has lower taxes." He also found that "a lower tax rate...doesn't necessarily create substantial jobs."
In Copperas Cove, Texas, the economic development group gathered data on why companies relocate and found that the two most important reasons were access to a larger and/or better talent pool and to aquire additional space. They found that taxes were no more important to the decision than labor costs or regulatory environment.
Maybe the Snyder tax cuts will defy the odds and actually create some jobs but I imagine the "possibility" of job creation is little comfort to those public sector employees that lost their jobs or the elderly who will see their pensions taxed or the charities that will see a drop in donations all in exchange for busines tax cut that the governor "feels" will be good for the state.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Fallout
Amongst the pundit class, there seems to be a consensus that the "ObamaCare" individual mandate provision is going down and, perhaps, the entire bill with it.
Is this awful (from a progressive perspective)? Yes, this is awful.
But is it the end of the world (metaphorically speaking)? Absolutely not.
Let's not forget that this was really a conservative bill, anyway. The individual mandate was an idea spawned in The Heritage Foundation (a right-wing think tank). Paul Krugman was one of many journalists/pundits who recognized that "ObamaCare" was to the right of President Richard Nixon's proposal in 1974.
So, while I am not necessarily fully trying to talk Furriners readers (or myself) into believing this is absolutely going to, in the long run, prove to be a good thing because it provides an opportunity to get a better bill. It does just that, I suppose. Of course, technically, everyday is an opportunity to make your life, your nation, and your world a better place... and most of us do nothing of the sort (at least, not beyond the incidental benefit we do in being consumers and producers, parents and mentors, friends and neighbors, etc - all important, of course - and not in that order).
Anyway, this post has taken an unexpected turn; I didn't necessarily plan on going down that path. What I planned on focusing on was a quote I pulled from yesterday's The Dylan Ratigan Show. Before I quote it, I would like to add that this is merely a succinct summation of what I was already saying around the Furriners offices on Tuesday afternoon after the initial reports of "Train Wreck".
Without further ado, here is a quote from Rob Cox from Reuters on The DR Show:
(Republicans) have to be careful what they wish for here. Strike it down. Beat it up. Get it declared unconstitutional. They can "win"... and they can deal with 50 million uninsured people - with no plan. Good luck.
Exactly. That said, the American electorate do perplex me. We've had 30+ years of policies favoring special interests and the rich and, yet, the electorate is not voting in politicians committed to reversing these policies. So consider me disappointed, yet hopeful, yet forelorn.
We all, as Americans, deserve better.
Is this awful (from a progressive perspective)? Yes, this is awful.
But is it the end of the world (metaphorically speaking)? Absolutely not.
Let's not forget that this was really a conservative bill, anyway. The individual mandate was an idea spawned in The Heritage Foundation (a right-wing think tank). Paul Krugman was one of many journalists/pundits who recognized that "ObamaCare" was to the right of President Richard Nixon's proposal in 1974.
So, while I am not necessarily fully trying to talk Furriners readers (or myself) into believing this is absolutely going to, in the long run, prove to be a good thing because it provides an opportunity to get a better bill. It does just that, I suppose. Of course, technically, everyday is an opportunity to make your life, your nation, and your world a better place... and most of us do nothing of the sort (at least, not beyond the incidental benefit we do in being consumers and producers, parents and mentors, friends and neighbors, etc - all important, of course - and not in that order).
Anyway, this post has taken an unexpected turn; I didn't necessarily plan on going down that path. What I planned on focusing on was a quote I pulled from yesterday's The Dylan Ratigan Show. Before I quote it, I would like to add that this is merely a succinct summation of what I was already saying around the Furriners offices on Tuesday afternoon after the initial reports of "Train Wreck".
Without further ado, here is a quote from Rob Cox from Reuters on The DR Show:
(Republicans) have to be careful what they wish for here. Strike it down. Beat it up. Get it declared unconstitutional. They can "win"... and they can deal with 50 million uninsured people - with no plan. Good luck.
Exactly. That said, the American electorate do perplex me. We've had 30+ years of policies favoring special interests and the rich and, yet, the electorate is not voting in politicians committed to reversing these policies. So consider me disappointed, yet hopeful, yet forelorn.
We all, as Americans, deserve better.
Yeah, Yeah. Too Soon.
I was watching The Last Word on Tuesday night and Lawrence O'Donnell decided to give "the last word" to his MSNBC colleague, Reverend Al Sharpton. He proceeded to play a clip of Rev. Sharpton speaking about his 87 year old mother who had just passed away in Alabama. In referencing how the country has changed in her lifetime, Rev. Sharpton says:
When she was born in (Alabama) in 1925, she didn't have the right to vote.
Am I the only A-hole who watched that segment and whose first thought was "hmmmm, you know, Al, if she was born in the United States in 2012, she still wouldn't have the right to vote." Why? Because newborns don't vote!
When she was born in (Alabama) in 1925, she didn't have the right to vote.
Am I the only A-hole who watched that segment and whose first thought was "hmmmm, you know, Al, if she was born in the United States in 2012, she still wouldn't have the right to vote." Why? Because newborns don't vote!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Missile defense boondoggle
Much has been made recently of a private conversation President Obama had with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Apparently Obama offered some compromise on our European missile defense system in exchange for a reduction in nuclear weapons.
Obviously the president would have preferred for this private conversation to have been kept private but the implication that Obama is sacrificing our security are vastly overstated. In test after test missile defense systems have failed to do the job they were designed to do while costing tax payers billions.
If Obama was a businessman he would be hailed as a genius for giving away a program that doesn't even work in exchange for something that is valuable to his company.
We are no longer in a cold war and even if a missile defense system worked, times have changed and our technology and tactics need to change with it. But to conservatives no defense boondoggle is too expensive and this president, no matter how far to the right he moves, will never be viewed as a success.
Obviously the president would have preferred for this private conversation to have been kept private but the implication that Obama is sacrificing our security are vastly overstated. In test after test missile defense systems have failed to do the job they were designed to do while costing tax payers billions.
If Obama was a businessman he would be hailed as a genius for giving away a program that doesn't even work in exchange for something that is valuable to his company.
We are no longer in a cold war and even if a missile defense system worked, times have changed and our technology and tactics need to change with it. But to conservatives no defense boondoggle is too expensive and this president, no matter how far to the right he moves, will never be viewed as a success.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Santorum's glass house
Rick Santorum lost his cool yesterday when responding to a NY Time reporter who misrepresented a statement Santorum made regarding Mitt Romney. Santorum termed the reporter’s question as "BS" and told him to "stop lying". To be fair running for President is no easy task and it would certainly test ones patience but that doesn't change the fact that people should expect more from someone running for the highest office in the land.
Having said that I really don't think this little outburst should change how people view Rick Santorum. What people should find troubling is how hypocritical Santorum's response is. Last month Santorum made a number of false claims regarding euthanasia in the Netherlands. When confronted about these lies a Santorum spokesman said that Rick was just saying "what's in his heart".
So when the lies come from the media it is proof that the media is bunch of leftist in the tank for Obama but when they come from a man hoping to become president, all that is important is that he believes his lies are true in his heart.
The good news is Santorum must have a huge heart because the Netherland euthanasia "facts" are not the first time Rick has stretched the truth.
Other instances include the time -
Rick was wrong about abortion statistics
Rick was wrong about birthrate statistics
Rick was wrong about female suicide and crime rate statistics
Rick misrepresented a political dispute
Rick claimed he didn't vote for a steel bailout
Rick was wrong on the Massachusetts health care law
Rick was wrong on the Massachusetts health care law a second time
Rick was wrong about Obama's stance on marriage
Rick misrepresented Obama's statements on Iran
Rick was wrong about the ACA's Medicare advisory panel
Rick was wrong about the amount of money the government borrows
Rick was wrong on Obama's stance on drilling in Alaska
While the NY Times reporter may have been off base with the question he asked, calling him a liar is the ultimate in glass houses coming from Rick Santorum.
Having said that I really don't think this little outburst should change how people view Rick Santorum. What people should find troubling is how hypocritical Santorum's response is. Last month Santorum made a number of false claims regarding euthanasia in the Netherlands. When confronted about these lies a Santorum spokesman said that Rick was just saying "what's in his heart".
So when the lies come from the media it is proof that the media is bunch of leftist in the tank for Obama but when they come from a man hoping to become president, all that is important is that he believes his lies are true in his heart.
The good news is Santorum must have a huge heart because the Netherland euthanasia "facts" are not the first time Rick has stretched the truth.
Other instances include the time -
Rick was wrong about abortion statistics
Rick was wrong about birthrate statistics
Rick was wrong about female suicide and crime rate statistics
Rick misrepresented a political dispute
Rick claimed he didn't vote for a steel bailout
Rick was wrong on the Massachusetts health care law
Rick was wrong on the Massachusetts health care law a second time
Rick was wrong about Obama's stance on marriage
Rick misrepresented Obama's statements on Iran
Rick was wrong about the ACA's Medicare advisory panel
Rick was wrong about the amount of money the government borrows
Rick was wrong on Obama's stance on drilling in Alaska
While the NY Times reporter may have been off base with the question he asked, calling him a liar is the ultimate in glass houses coming from Rick Santorum.
Monday, March 26, 2012
March Pet Peeve
One of the timeless joys of being a sports fan is complaining about the announcers. For example, my parents generation bitched about Howard Cosell. My generation - given the huge increase in television coverage of all sports - get to whine about dozens of sportscasters who get on our nerves for reasons big and small.
The reason I bring this up is there seems to be a theme amongst the analysts doing the tournament games for CBS. They all have a hissy-fit every time a player takes a "quick" shot. It's like they all were forced to watch Hoosiers Clockwork Orange-style and have unanimously embraced Coach Norman Dale's philosophy on passing the ball several times before taking a shot. Steve Kerr will exhort the team to "run their stuff" before taking a shot; Bill Raftery will chide any player who doesn't "show patience".
Call me...uh, what is the opposite of "old fashioned"?, but I don't accept this line of thinking. "Running your stuff" is best viewed as a means to an end; and what is that end? It's getting an open shot! If you have an open shot without "running your stuff", take the shot! At least that is my opinion.
Anyway, if the New Yorks Knicks GM happens to find this blog post, please feel free to request a resume when you look to permanently fill the head coaching vacancy created by the departure of Mike D'Antoni. I am willing to work weekends. You offer health insurance, right?
The reason I bring this up is there seems to be a theme amongst the analysts doing the tournament games for CBS. They all have a hissy-fit every time a player takes a "quick" shot. It's like they all were forced to watch Hoosiers Clockwork Orange-style and have unanimously embraced Coach Norman Dale's philosophy on passing the ball several times before taking a shot. Steve Kerr will exhort the team to "run their stuff" before taking a shot; Bill Raftery will chide any player who doesn't "show patience".
Call me...uh, what is the opposite of "old fashioned"?, but I don't accept this line of thinking. "Running your stuff" is best viewed as a means to an end; and what is that end? It's getting an open shot! If you have an open shot without "running your stuff", take the shot! At least that is my opinion.
Anyway, if the New Yorks Knicks GM happens to find this blog post, please feel free to request a resume when you look to permanently fill the head coaching vacancy created by the departure of Mike D'Antoni. I am willing to work weekends. You offer health insurance, right?
Friday, March 23, 2012
The rich pay absolutely positively no taxes - except for the taxes they do pay
Every time the topic of taxes comes up the liberals talk about how the rich aren't taxed enough and the conservatives counter with the 47% that pay no taxes as well as the following chart.
The chart shows the number of tax returns that have a positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and their percentage of the overall income and taxes paid. The typical take away is that the top 1% only earn 16.90% of the wages yet they pay 36.70% of the taxes. This of course indicates that the super rich not only pay their fair share but they cover some of your share as well.
The problem I have with this table is that it uses AGI as its starting point. 23% of tax returns owe no federal taxes not because of extravagant loopholes and credits but due to standard deductions. In all of the debates over tax rates I have never heard the argument that the standard deduction is the problem. This probably stems from the fact that everyone who pays taxes receives the standard deduction. While the standard deduction does vary it is essentially fair across all income levels.
So if everyone takes advantage of the standard deduction and it is not one of the areas of concern regarding tax inequality then why would you use a data set that doesn't take the standard deduction into account?
If you use everyone with a positive return after standard deductions as your starting point instead of everyone with a positive return at the AGI it has a dramatic affect on the percentages.
Using this method the Top 1% ($450,000 and above) earn 31.65% of the income but only pay 21.83% of the taxes. Similarly the next category of the top 1-5% ($175,000 - $450,000) earn 18.46% of the income while paying only 14.29% of the taxes while the top 5-10% (125,000 - 175,000) earn 17.45% of the income and pay 12.96%. The bottom 50% ($50,000 and lower) on the other hand earn 9.49% of the income and pay 14.82% of the taxes. This leaves the remaining 40% ($50,000 - $160,000) earning 23% of the income and paying 36% of the taxes.
If looked at this way the data shows that the bottom 90% pay a far higher percentage of their income than the top 10%. Does this mean that liberals are right and the rich don't pay their fair share? Maybe. Maybe not. But the real point is that it all depends on how you look at it. It seems to me that starting at AGI gives you the biggest slant towards the rich while starting after the deductions gives the biggest slant towards the poor and middle class. In the end neither analysis proves anything by itself because there are multiple ways to analyze the same data set.
Unfortunately, all too often, our desire to be right trumps our desire to find the truth so we end up using one narrow interpretation simple because it supports our beliefs. This makes for good debates but terrible solutions.
The chart shows the number of tax returns that have a positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and their percentage of the overall income and taxes paid. The typical take away is that the top 1% only earn 16.90% of the wages yet they pay 36.70% of the taxes. This of course indicates that the super rich not only pay their fair share but they cover some of your share as well.
The problem I have with this table is that it uses AGI as its starting point. 23% of tax returns owe no federal taxes not because of extravagant loopholes and credits but due to standard deductions. In all of the debates over tax rates I have never heard the argument that the standard deduction is the problem. This probably stems from the fact that everyone who pays taxes receives the standard deduction. While the standard deduction does vary it is essentially fair across all income levels.
So if everyone takes advantage of the standard deduction and it is not one of the areas of concern regarding tax inequality then why would you use a data set that doesn't take the standard deduction into account?
If you use everyone with a positive return after standard deductions as your starting point instead of everyone with a positive return at the AGI it has a dramatic affect on the percentages.
Using this method the Top 1% ($450,000 and above) earn 31.65% of the income but only pay 21.83% of the taxes. Similarly the next category of the top 1-5% ($175,000 - $450,000) earn 18.46% of the income while paying only 14.29% of the taxes while the top 5-10% (125,000 - 175,000) earn 17.45% of the income and pay 12.96%. The bottom 50% ($50,000 and lower) on the other hand earn 9.49% of the income and pay 14.82% of the taxes. This leaves the remaining 40% ($50,000 - $160,000) earning 23% of the income and paying 36% of the taxes.
If looked at this way the data shows that the bottom 90% pay a far higher percentage of their income than the top 10%. Does this mean that liberals are right and the rich don't pay their fair share? Maybe. Maybe not. But the real point is that it all depends on how you look at it. It seems to me that starting at AGI gives you the biggest slant towards the rich while starting after the deductions gives the biggest slant towards the poor and middle class. In the end neither analysis proves anything by itself because there are multiple ways to analyze the same data set.
Unfortunately, all too often, our desire to be right trumps our desire to find the truth so we end up using one narrow interpretation simple because it supports our beliefs. This makes for good debates but terrible solutions.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Breaking News: Politicians waste time and play politics
It has been suggested recently that the President was using the Sandra Fluke flap as a political tool. It has also been suggested that by choosing to use some of his personal time on a passion of his, college basketball, the President was wasting time that could have been better spent on more pressing issues. I tend to believe that both of these ideas are off base but never the less, they are out there because someone thinks they have merit.
With this in mind I recently read an op-ed piece that Tim Walberg penned for the Daily Telegraph in Adrian, MI to assure his constituents that he is working hard to defend them. One of the ways Representative Walberg is accomplishing this goal is by fighting tooth and nail to defeat the evil empire known as the EPA from implementing a new regulation that could adversely affect local farmers. To defend his constituents from this impending regulation Mr. Walberg voted for The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. You may ask yourself what EPA regulation does this Act prevent? Well there is no impending regulation from the EPA regarding farm dust. As a matter of fact more than a month before Tim Walberg voted for this Act, an EPA assistant administrator testified before the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that, as the government body in charge of coarse particle pollution, they were keeping existing EPA standards in place. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson later reaffirmed this decision by stating that the agency’s regulation of coarse particulate matter would be retained with no revisions
If the President taking an hour our two out of his day to fill out an NCAA bracket is a waste of time then what do you call writing, debating and voting on an Act that solves a problem that doesn't exist?
Of course just voting on the bill won't let all of Tim Walberg's constituents know about the important work he is doing in congress so his staff put together an op-ed to let everyone know about his accomplishment. So not only did Mr. Walberg vote for an Act that prevents the EPA from doing something they had no plans on doing, he is publicly bragging about it.
If the President making a private phone call to a US citizen is political grandstanding then what do you call writing an op-ed extolling your own virtues?
If the complaint is that politicians waste time on unnecessary endeavors and focus too much on getting reelected then I agree but acting like these problems only exist on one side of the aisle or only in the oval office is practically the definition of playing politics.
With this in mind I recently read an op-ed piece that Tim Walberg penned for the Daily Telegraph in Adrian, MI to assure his constituents that he is working hard to defend them. One of the ways Representative Walberg is accomplishing this goal is by fighting tooth and nail to defeat the evil empire known as the EPA from implementing a new regulation that could adversely affect local farmers. To defend his constituents from this impending regulation Mr. Walberg voted for The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. You may ask yourself what EPA regulation does this Act prevent? Well there is no impending regulation from the EPA regarding farm dust. As a matter of fact more than a month before Tim Walberg voted for this Act, an EPA assistant administrator testified before the Energy and Commerce subcommittee that, as the government body in charge of coarse particle pollution, they were keeping existing EPA standards in place. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson later reaffirmed this decision by stating that the agency’s regulation of coarse particulate matter would be retained with no revisions
If the President taking an hour our two out of his day to fill out an NCAA bracket is a waste of time then what do you call writing, debating and voting on an Act that solves a problem that doesn't exist?
Of course just voting on the bill won't let all of Tim Walberg's constituents know about the important work he is doing in congress so his staff put together an op-ed to let everyone know about his accomplishment. So not only did Mr. Walberg vote for an Act that prevents the EPA from doing something they had no plans on doing, he is publicly bragging about it.
If the President making a private phone call to a US citizen is political grandstanding then what do you call writing an op-ed extolling your own virtues?
If the complaint is that politicians waste time on unnecessary endeavors and focus too much on getting reelected then I agree but acting like these problems only exist on one side of the aisle or only in the oval office is practically the definition of playing politics.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Who is to blame for high gas prices
For the past few weeks it has become an obsession of the right to blame President Obama for increasing gas prices. They will point out that gas prices doubled since his inauguration while ignoring that prices were at a 6 year low due to a worldwide recession. They say the President wanted higher gas prices as part of some great environmentalist agenda then ignore his actually comments that never support this claim.
Back in 2008 when gas hit "record highs" it was Democrats blaming then President Bush for the high prices and Republicans giving the defense. Here are a few examples:
Cal Thomas - 11-22-08 - "The facts are...no President has the power to increase or lower gas prices. Those are market forces."
Neil Cavuto - 5-20-08 - "you got China and India slopping up all of that oil faster than we can these days and that that is the not so sinister response to what’s going on. Nothing to do with the President"
Bill O'Reilly - 4-23-08 - "Most American's are getting hammered by high gas prices. Yesterday oil hit a record high and politicians cannot do a thing about it."
Cheryl Casone - 7-1-08 - "You know at this point it really is tough for this President to be honest with you because he really doesn’t have any control what’s going to happen with the markets and the economy and with oil prices and supply and demand and gasoline it really is out of this President's hands"
Dr Dan Yergin - 7-18-08 - (before Senate Republicans and Democrats as part of a one day energy summit) the reason for high gas prices: speculation, the weak dollar, geopolitics or volatile world events, like Iran's nuclear ambitions, and a "shortage psychology."
Bill O'Reilly with Former VP of New York Mercantile Exchange, John D'Agostino - 4-29-08 - (O'Reilly)"OPEC sets the price for a barrel of oil. And they keep raising it and raising it and raising it. Dick Cheney went over there and tried to say, “Hey, give us a break.” They gave Cheney the middle digit. All right? So they can — they can charge whatever they want to charge, correct?" (D'Agostino)D: "Well, OPEC sets the supply for what they can produce. The price of oil is actually set in exchange at trades in New York and in London, as well."
Marianne Lavalle (US News & World Report) on Greta Van Susteren - 6-18-08 - "the energy economists in the government made and assessment just a few weeks ago and what they came up with was (drilling in Anwar) it would reduce the price of oil about $0.40 a barrel or maybe as much as $1.40 a barrel" (Van Susteren) "So what did that do to my gallon of gas?" (Lavalle) "Did not really change it much at all.”
Bill O'Reilly - 4-21-08 - "The next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices understand that it’s complete BS."
Ben Lieberman (Energy Analyst Heritage Foundation) - 5-22-07 - "the biggest factor (in increasing gas prices) is the rise in the price of oil."
The reality is that these statements were accurate then and they are accurate now. Politicians have little to no affect on the price of gasoline. Blaming the President is a political move used by both sides to excite the foot soldiers. Unfortunately it works every time.
Back in 2008 when gas hit "record highs" it was Democrats blaming then President Bush for the high prices and Republicans giving the defense. Here are a few examples:
Cal Thomas - 11-22-08 - "The facts are...no President has the power to increase or lower gas prices. Those are market forces."
Neil Cavuto - 5-20-08 - "you got China and India slopping up all of that oil faster than we can these days and that that is the not so sinister response to what’s going on. Nothing to do with the President"
Bill O'Reilly - 4-23-08 - "Most American's are getting hammered by high gas prices. Yesterday oil hit a record high and politicians cannot do a thing about it."
Cheryl Casone - 7-1-08 - "You know at this point it really is tough for this President to be honest with you because he really doesn’t have any control what’s going to happen with the markets and the economy and with oil prices and supply and demand and gasoline it really is out of this President's hands"
Dr Dan Yergin - 7-18-08 - (before Senate Republicans and Democrats as part of a one day energy summit) the reason for high gas prices: speculation, the weak dollar, geopolitics or volatile world events, like Iran's nuclear ambitions, and a "shortage psychology."
Bill O'Reilly with Former VP of New York Mercantile Exchange, John D'Agostino - 4-29-08 - (O'Reilly)"OPEC sets the price for a barrel of oil. And they keep raising it and raising it and raising it. Dick Cheney went over there and tried to say, “Hey, give us a break.” They gave Cheney the middle digit. All right? So they can — they can charge whatever they want to charge, correct?" (D'Agostino)D: "Well, OPEC sets the supply for what they can produce. The price of oil is actually set in exchange at trades in New York and in London, as well."
Marianne Lavalle (US News & World Report) on Greta Van Susteren - 6-18-08 - "the energy economists in the government made and assessment just a few weeks ago and what they came up with was (drilling in Anwar) it would reduce the price of oil about $0.40 a barrel or maybe as much as $1.40 a barrel" (Van Susteren) "So what did that do to my gallon of gas?" (Lavalle) "Did not really change it much at all.”
Bill O'Reilly - 4-21-08 - "The next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices understand that it’s complete BS."
Ben Lieberman (Energy Analyst Heritage Foundation) - 5-22-07 - "the biggest factor (in increasing gas prices) is the rise in the price of oil."
The reality is that these statements were accurate then and they are accurate now. Politicians have little to no affect on the price of gasoline. Blaming the President is a political move used by both sides to excite the foot soldiers. Unfortunately it works every time.
Tony Kornheiser is a Backslider
Just an hour or so ago, I mentioned in an award eligible blog post that yours truly and Elijah Moon have differences. I mean, what is with all the racist jokes he tells around the Furriners offices?!? It makes me uncomfortable.
Anyway, one thing we totally 100% agree on that Sam Bradford has been ridiculously overrated by the national media. I may focus on it in an absolutist way (Bradford sucks!!) while Elijah seemed somewhat more perturbed by it in a relative sense (Another "expert" has Bradford rated ahead of Matt Stafford! I call bullshit!!). I feel like we're both right.
As the 2011 season progressed, it did seem as if some in the national media did finally start to catch on. There were at least whispers that maybe he was overrated. In fact, an October 28, 2011 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons ranked Sam Bradford as the #29 QB in the league (sort of).
I thought things were going in the right direction. Then, yesterday, on PTI, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon were having a discussion of the Redskins trade to move up to presumably draft Robert Griffin III with the #2 pick in 2012 draft. In expression some reservation about the trade, Tony Kornheiser said:
It would be interesting to get a poll of NFL GMs and HCs to see who they'd rather have: Sam Bradford or Josh Freeman? I'm not saying I think really highly of Freeman either - but I will say that I would take Freeman over Bradford.
And the really easy choice? Matthew Stafford over any of them.
Anyway, one thing we totally 100% agree on that Sam Bradford has been ridiculously overrated by the national media. I may focus on it in an absolutist way (Bradford sucks!!) while Elijah seemed somewhat more perturbed by it in a relative sense (Another "expert" has Bradford rated ahead of Matt Stafford! I call bullshit!!). I feel like we're both right.
As the 2011 season progressed, it did seem as if some in the national media did finally start to catch on. There were at least whispers that maybe he was overrated. In fact, an October 28, 2011 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons ranked Sam Bradford as the #29 QB in the league (sort of).
I thought things were going in the right direction. Then, yesterday, on PTI, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon were having a discussion of the Redskins trade to move up to presumably draft Robert Griffin III with the #2 pick in 2012 draft. In expression some reservation about the trade, Tony Kornheiser said:
You look at that conference - the Big 12 - the past ten years, every team runs a spread, every quarterback throws for 80,000 yards, but only (Sam) Bradford so far looks real good. Josh Freeman? Colt McCoy? Ehh. Do you want Vince Young? Do you want Blaine Gabbert? So I don't know... we'll see.
It would be interesting to get a poll of NFL GMs and HCs to see who they'd rather have: Sam Bradford or Josh Freeman? I'm not saying I think really highly of Freeman either - but I will say that I would take Freeman over Bradford.
And the really easy choice? Matthew Stafford over any of them.
Most Insufferable Day Of The Year!
There are several key differences between myself and Elijah Moon. I like good music. He has chosen, oddly, to like bad music. Go figure. There are other differences too - but that one is key.
Another key difference is that while Elijah Moon really does not want to hear about your fantasy football team, I have that aversion about who you picked in your NCAA brackets.
So, here's my message to the world:
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR "SLEEPERS"!!
They are total guesses. You know it. I know it. The American people know it.
If you get one or more right, it does not mean you had any great insight. It means you beat the odds. Period.
So, while the mandate on Detroit's leading sports talk radio station this morning, 97.1 The Ticket, was to call in and "give us your sleepers", I feel I must write a blog entry that warns anybody in the Furriners offices that tells me who their sleeper is today, I just might punch them in the face.
Another key difference is that while Elijah Moon really does not want to hear about your fantasy football team, I have that aversion about who you picked in your NCAA brackets.
So, here's my message to the world:
I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR "SLEEPERS"!!
They are total guesses. You know it. I know it. The American people know it.
If you get one or more right, it does not mean you had any great insight. It means you beat the odds. Period.
So, while the mandate on Detroit's leading sports talk radio station this morning, 97.1 The Ticket, was to call in and "give us your sleepers", I feel I must write a blog entry that warns anybody in the Furriners offices that tells me who their sleeper is today, I just might punch them in the face.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Rationalizing for Rush
There has been an ongoing conversation on this blog over the past week regarding Rush Limbaugh's "two words" with both sides agreeing that what he said was wrong. That is of course the last point at which they agree.
With that in mind I wanted to address a few items.
First, it should be noted that Rush didn't just say two unkind words about Sandra Fluke. He leveled over 20 personal attacks (jokes) on her and her family. One of the big things that those who are rationalizing the comments by Rush seem to be missing is that 99% of women have used birth control so when Rush calls Sandra Fluke a "slut" for using birth control that is covered under insurance, he is essentially calling every woman who uses birth control covered by insurance a "slut".
It is not breaking news that the fringe talking heads make inappropriate comments but when you pigeonhole an entire group you tend to see a backlash. Making this a liberal media issue also completely misses the point. Rush Limbaugh has the most listened to radio show in the US. Unfortunately for Rush and his supporters this means he is also the biggest target. His words are powerful and so are the reactions.
Consider Tiger Woods. Have other golfers cheated on their wives? Sure they have. But none of them will get the airtime for their indiscretions that Tiger did because none of them have the status that Tiger does not because the liberal media has it out for Tiger.
Also consider Ted Nugent. Back in 2007 he made the following statements about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
"Obama, he's a piece of sh**. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bit**."
After these comments there was no apology from Ted Nugent or President Bush. There was no outcry from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN. In fact they don't seem to have even covered it. Instead Ted is considered a "friend of the show" by Sean Hannity and was interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN.
The point being Rush Limbaugh gets the biggest push back because he is the biggest bully on the playground. Going to the "liberal media" well every time a conservative hero puts their foot in their mouth only diminishes an already questionable paradigm.
The other thing that I find peculiar is how this debate has turned in to a criticism of the President. It has been suggested that calling Sandra Fluke was purely a political move since he did not take similar actions for insults by liberal talking heads. If the President was playing politics with this phone call he would have called a press conference to apologize. Instead he made a private call that became public. It should also be noted that Sandra Fluke was not just the target of Rush Limbaugh. She was also attacked by Patricia Heaton and others on Twitter, Facebook and blogs everywhere. When Bill Maher used inappropriate language to describe Sarah Palin it didn't start a tidalwave of personal attacks on Sarah Palin. The President called to apologize for everything that Sandra has been put through for deciding to give a voice to her side in front of congress not just because Rush Limbaugh's insults.
The media frenzy over this story started long before the President made his call and it is a perversion of the facts to suggest that a private call to a US citizen who testified before congress resulting in a litany of personal attacks could be viewed as political grandstanding. Ironically the one thing that really should be considered a purely political move is turning Rush Limbaugh's personal attacks into a critique on the President.
With that in mind I wanted to address a few items.
First, it should be noted that Rush didn't just say two unkind words about Sandra Fluke. He leveled over 20 personal attacks (jokes) on her and her family. One of the big things that those who are rationalizing the comments by Rush seem to be missing is that 99% of women have used birth control so when Rush calls Sandra Fluke a "slut" for using birth control that is covered under insurance, he is essentially calling every woman who uses birth control covered by insurance a "slut".
It is not breaking news that the fringe talking heads make inappropriate comments but when you pigeonhole an entire group you tend to see a backlash. Making this a liberal media issue also completely misses the point. Rush Limbaugh has the most listened to radio show in the US. Unfortunately for Rush and his supporters this means he is also the biggest target. His words are powerful and so are the reactions.
Consider Tiger Woods. Have other golfers cheated on their wives? Sure they have. But none of them will get the airtime for their indiscretions that Tiger did because none of them have the status that Tiger does not because the liberal media has it out for Tiger.
Also consider Ted Nugent. Back in 2007 he made the following statements about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
"Obama, he's a piece of sh**. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bit**."
After these comments there was no apology from Ted Nugent or President Bush. There was no outcry from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN. In fact they don't seem to have even covered it. Instead Ted is considered a "friend of the show" by Sean Hannity and was interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN.
The point being Rush Limbaugh gets the biggest push back because he is the biggest bully on the playground. Going to the "liberal media" well every time a conservative hero puts their foot in their mouth only diminishes an already questionable paradigm.
The other thing that I find peculiar is how this debate has turned in to a criticism of the President. It has been suggested that calling Sandra Fluke was purely a political move since he did not take similar actions for insults by liberal talking heads. If the President was playing politics with this phone call he would have called a press conference to apologize. Instead he made a private call that became public. It should also be noted that Sandra Fluke was not just the target of Rush Limbaugh. She was also attacked by Patricia Heaton and others on Twitter, Facebook and blogs everywhere. When Bill Maher used inappropriate language to describe Sarah Palin it didn't start a tidalwave of personal attacks on Sarah Palin. The President called to apologize for everything that Sandra has been put through for deciding to give a voice to her side in front of congress not just because Rush Limbaugh's insults.
The media frenzy over this story started long before the President made his call and it is a perversion of the facts to suggest that a private call to a US citizen who testified before congress resulting in a litany of personal attacks could be viewed as political grandstanding. Ironically the one thing that really should be considered a purely political move is turning Rush Limbaugh's personal attacks into a critique on the President.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Santorum: Bringing us back from the brink.
The best thing about having Rick Santorum in the race for President is that he has finally helped focus the debate on the most pressing issue facing the country - moral values. After all, who better to set the moral compass of the US than politicians?
In an example of how Rick is leading us in the right direction he has taken to attacking President Obama on defunding abstinence only education stating:
"In fact, he (Obama) has required programs not to talk about marriage, not to talk about abstinence, if -- in order to get federal funds.""
While some may focus on the reality that none of this statement is factually accurate and point out that the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as Obamacare, contains $110 million in grants for abstinence education, what is really important here is that Rick has us talking about the vital moral issues that are the ruin of this country.
With that being said if you still believe that being factually accurate is paramount to making good decisions regarding the values of this country there are plenty of facts that support Rick's beliefs.
For instance, Rick believes that Obama is a snob for suggesting everyone should attend college. Fact - A greater percentage of high school students are virgins than college students. Much like Obama's plan to take gun rights away this data proves that the President is trying to ruin America by forcing our young people into a culture rampant with dirty lusty sexy sex.
The good news is that another survey shows that the higher the IQ for a young person the lower the likelihood that they will have sex. So when Rick is elected President and mandates abstinence only education, the teaching of evolution, and grants for homeschooling we should see an immediate jump in the IQ of our students which will of course lead to less naughty business for the kids.
This same survey also shows that 0% of students pursuing a degree in Studio Arts at Wellesley College were virgins in contrast to 83% of Chemistry, and Mathematics students. Once Rick gets a hold of this information I assume he, like any good patriot, will demand an immediate end to all Studio Art programs in the US. Obviously Studio Art degrees are part of the larger socialist agenda being pushed by this President and must be stopped.
Thank God for Rick Santorum.
In an example of how Rick is leading us in the right direction he has taken to attacking President Obama on defunding abstinence only education stating:
"In fact, he (Obama) has required programs not to talk about marriage, not to talk about abstinence, if -- in order to get federal funds.""
While some may focus on the reality that none of this statement is factually accurate and point out that the Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as Obamacare, contains $110 million in grants for abstinence education, what is really important here is that Rick has us talking about the vital moral issues that are the ruin of this country.
With that being said if you still believe that being factually accurate is paramount to making good decisions regarding the values of this country there are plenty of facts that support Rick's beliefs.
For instance, Rick believes that Obama is a snob for suggesting everyone should attend college. Fact - A greater percentage of high school students are virgins than college students. Much like Obama's plan to take gun rights away this data proves that the President is trying to ruin America by forcing our young people into a culture rampant with dirty lusty sexy sex.
The good news is that another survey shows that the higher the IQ for a young person the lower the likelihood that they will have sex. So when Rick is elected President and mandates abstinence only education, the teaching of evolution, and grants for homeschooling we should see an immediate jump in the IQ of our students which will of course lead to less naughty business for the kids.
This same survey also shows that 0% of students pursuing a degree in Studio Arts at Wellesley College were virgins in contrast to 83% of Chemistry, and Mathematics students. Once Rick gets a hold of this information I assume he, like any good patriot, will demand an immediate end to all Studio Art programs in the US. Obviously Studio Art degrees are part of the larger socialist agenda being pushed by this President and must be stopped.
Thank God for Rick Santorum.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Outsourcing America at your expense
I wanted to follow up slightly on a post of mine from last week regarding infrastructure spending which there were a considerable number of good comments on.
As I mentioned previously the President is pushing infrastructure spending as part of his job creation plan and Republicans are balking at the idea because of the costs associated with infrastructure spending. The reason the President keeps coming back to infrastructure spending is because it has a good return on investment when compared with other actions the government can take. According to Moody's the Bush tax cuts return $0.29 per dollar spent while infrastructure has a return of $1.59 per dollar spent.
The conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, reported that Americans gained more than $788 billion of economic activity a year from transportation infrastructure while spending only $185 billion a year for that infrastructure.
It should also be noted that we are currently underspending on infrastructure and this under spending by federal and state governments thanks to a poor economy and the belt tightening that has come with it, is having unintended consequences.
For example Chicago is leasing out all of their parking meters to an investment group working through Morgan Stanley with a state owned investment arm of Abu Dhabi owning a significant share and possibly a majority stake. To make matters worse shortly after the sale the price for parking jumped by as much as 300 %. Additionally the city has had to pay millions of dollars for times when the parking meters were unusable. So while the Mayor gets to claim it's a great deal for the Chicago tax payers because they get an immediate influx of cash, the reality is that if the city had maintained control of the meters and just changed the rates they could have had a long term return much higher than their one time deal.
In Virginia, the city of Chesapeake considered closing a bridge because they couldn't afford to fix it or tear it down. In the end they sold the bridge to a private company who plans on nearly doubling the toll to pay for the fixes.
Perhaps the real problem here is that the government doesn't charge enough for their services. Take the US Postal Service for example. Data shows that shipping via USPS is significantly cheaper than using UPS or FedEx regardless of the package. But try and raise the cost of a stamp and people go nuts. Their first reaction is that postal employees or overpaid or this is just another government organization wasting money while completely ignoring the revenue side of things.
We used to take pride in our world leading infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam and the Erie Canal but with today's obsession for austerity and keeping tax rates low we are not only losing our standing as a country with the greatest infrastructure in the world we are also losing out on the economic activity that this infrastructure provides.
The reality is that like it or not infrastructure spending is going to happen and if Americans aren't willing to pay for it with taxes then they will pay for it with tolls which will include a profit margin that the government doesn't. If we are lucky these profits will go to American companies but recent reports suggest other countries like China are interested in investing heavily in American infrastructure. Who would have thought that it would be the communist country making the best use of capitalism? And all at the expense of the American tax payer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
