One of the best parts of blogging for the Detroit News is the debate that often occurs after the article. Sometimes these conversations bring about good questions that deserve more than just a quick response in the comment section. For example in my recent post on Michelle Malkin I stated that "Republicans defend the wages of CEOs, because the more you pay, the better CEO you get." which prompted Tim Kelly to ask "Show us anyone that says that."
The Heritage Foundation November 16th, 2011:
"As frustrating as it may seem to watch top executives at government-backed firms take in millions in bonuses, in other words, the alternative is to limit those firms’ abilities to attract the best talent. The inevitable result is a crop of less-skilled managers, which put those companies at even greater risk of financial loss."
Cato Institute September 10, 2008:
"High executive compensation is a market outcome caused by limited supply and high and rising demand for top talent."
Glencore Chief Executive Ivan Glasenberg June 7th 2012:
"If you want good CEOs, you are going to have to pay."
Or these four talking heads on Fox News :
"If the shareholders want to get their money's worth, they better pay a good CEO what a good CEO demands."
Of course these are just individuals and organization who don't speak for all Republicans but it should be noted that in a survey of companies "over 40 percent of companies say that they want to pay their CEO's above market average -- numbers like 60 percent and 75 percent of market are often used."
Another good conversation was started in a post Libby had regarding Federal Spending where a few commenter’s took exception to the idea that George W. Bush would be responsible for the 2009 budget (excluding the 2009 stimulus spending).
The Cato Institute had this to say on the topic :
"critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt.
But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House."
Also from this topic was the data that under Obama federal spending, after inflation, has actually decreased. Commenter Kevin Burke said "It is a fact that federal spending under Obama has skyrocketed. Just because you keep repeating a lie doesn't make it true."
Daniel J Mitchell of the Cato Institute did a more nuanced review of the numbers quoted in Libby's post and found that by certain measures "it turns out that Obama does win the prize for being the most fiscally conservative president in recent memory." After a few more tweaks Daniel eventually concludes that in terms of government spending Obama falls somewhere in the middle of the last eight presidents.
In the end I as a blogger always appreciate those of you who take the time to read these posts and comment and try my best to read and respond to as many of the good questions as I can. Hopefully these conversations help us to agree on some of the facts which should help us to respectfully disagree on our subsequent solutions.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Michelle Malkin takes it down a notch
With the failure of the Scott Walker recall election, Michelle Malkin took the opportunity to voice her distain for the unions and in particular the teachers unions that organized the recall vote.
While she may have some good points they are difficult to weed out among the 7th grade level tone Mrs. Malkin takes with her piece. Apparently Michelle believes name calling is an effective form of debate.
Mixed in with her juvenile taunts are the occasional examples of how one teacher acted inappropriately meant to paint the entire profession with the same brush. But who doesn't love equating the actions of one individual to the intentions of everyone within that group.
She of course follows this up with some data on union spending for the recall which conveniently ignores the fact that Republicans and their supporters outspent Democrats by a 7 to 1 margin in the run up to this vote. If her point is that money in elections is a problem, I agree. But that wouldn't fit with her theme that teachers unions are a bunch of booger eating doody-heads.
I imagine that one of the big reasons for Mrs. Malkin's condescending tone is the fact that she doesn't understand what the unions are fighting for. Michelle seems to think that Scott Walker and state Republicans were simply "asking teachers to contribute more to their pension plans". The reality is that Walker never asked. Framing this government power grab as union obstinance is a massive mischaracterization of the union’s position.
But the cherry on top of her article is her final paragraph where she states that "the union bosses have made one thing clear as a playground whistle: It's not about the children. It's never about the children." While fighting for the right to collectively bargain may have little to do with the children, Michelle Malkin should recognize that fighting to end collective bargaining rights isn't about the children either. As a matter of fact the cost cutting measures that Malkin apparently supports will have a detrimental effect on the education that Wisconsin students receive.
Michelle Malkin seems to prescribe to this Republican notion that we have a bunch of bad teachers and education will only improve when these awful teachers are removed. Yet it is also these same Republicans that defend that wages of CEO because the more you pay, the better CEO you get. I'm not sure where the disconnect comes in but a recent study shows that education is no different than other professions. The more you pay, the better the employee and the better the employee, the better the results.
If Republicans wanted to return to the glory days of the US they would see that a starting teacher made almost as much as first year lawyer while today the gap in pay is around $115,000. They might also be interested in knowing that there is a correlation with how much a country pays its teachers and the educational achievement of that country.
So while Michelle Malkin can take issue with the union bosses and the occasional radical teacher, acting like she and her party somehow have the best interests of students in mind as they systematically dismantle the collective bargaining rights of US union members shows how much of a bean pole poopy face she is.
While she may have some good points they are difficult to weed out among the 7th grade level tone Mrs. Malkin takes with her piece. Apparently Michelle believes name calling is an effective form of debate.
Mixed in with her juvenile taunts are the occasional examples of how one teacher acted inappropriately meant to paint the entire profession with the same brush. But who doesn't love equating the actions of one individual to the intentions of everyone within that group.
She of course follows this up with some data on union spending for the recall which conveniently ignores the fact that Republicans and their supporters outspent Democrats by a 7 to 1 margin in the run up to this vote. If her point is that money in elections is a problem, I agree. But that wouldn't fit with her theme that teachers unions are a bunch of booger eating doody-heads.
I imagine that one of the big reasons for Mrs. Malkin's condescending tone is the fact that she doesn't understand what the unions are fighting for. Michelle seems to think that Scott Walker and state Republicans were simply "asking teachers to contribute more to their pension plans". The reality is that Walker never asked. Framing this government power grab as union obstinance is a massive mischaracterization of the union’s position.
But the cherry on top of her article is her final paragraph where she states that "the union bosses have made one thing clear as a playground whistle: It's not about the children. It's never about the children." While fighting for the right to collectively bargain may have little to do with the children, Michelle Malkin should recognize that fighting to end collective bargaining rights isn't about the children either. As a matter of fact the cost cutting measures that Malkin apparently supports will have a detrimental effect on the education that Wisconsin students receive.
Michelle Malkin seems to prescribe to this Republican notion that we have a bunch of bad teachers and education will only improve when these awful teachers are removed. Yet it is also these same Republicans that defend that wages of CEO because the more you pay, the better CEO you get. I'm not sure where the disconnect comes in but a recent study shows that education is no different than other professions. The more you pay, the better the employee and the better the employee, the better the results.
If Republicans wanted to return to the glory days of the US they would see that a starting teacher made almost as much as first year lawyer while today the gap in pay is around $115,000. They might also be interested in knowing that there is a correlation with how much a country pays its teachers and the educational achievement of that country.
So while Michelle Malkin can take issue with the union bosses and the occasional radical teacher, acting like she and her party somehow have the best interests of students in mind as they systematically dismantle the collective bargaining rights of US union members shows how much of a bean pole poopy face she is.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Republicans have no business in government
Mitt Romney claims he is better for the country because of his business background. This is based on the conservative idea that government should be run like a business.
So the question then becomes how have companies successfully emerged from this recession? Ford is a good example given their size, debt issues and near collapse leading up to the great recession. Losing millions of dollars a year the company went deep into debt and cut costs by eliminating employees and shuttering unprofitable plants. This part of the Ford recovery plan is very similar to what the US government has done so far reducing government spending by an average of 1.4% per year under Obama after inflation and cutting government personnel by around 600,000 employees.
But that is where the similarities end. Unlike the federal government Ford has actually increased the cost of their products and reduced incentives boosting their profit by about $2,000 per car. Yes, running the government like a company requires that, as the economy improves, the costs of products and services increase or in terms of the federal government, taxes increase.
Suggesting a tax increase of course elicits cries from the right of already being overtaxed by the most radically socialist president this country has ever seen. Ignoring the ignorance of this claim it should be noted that according the Heritage Foundation we are currently near record lows when it comes to tax revenue and tax rates.
These same people also claim that any increase in tax rates will have a detrimental effect on the economy. Ford however seems to have experienced no such correlation as their increased prices have not produced a slowdown in sales. In fact sales are still increasing.
No businessman worth his salt would run his business like the Republicans are attempting to run the government. Even Mitt Romney raised an additional $750 in revenue from taxes in his time as governor. The reality is that these people don't want to run the government like a business. They want to run the government into the ground.
So the question then becomes how have companies successfully emerged from this recession? Ford is a good example given their size, debt issues and near collapse leading up to the great recession. Losing millions of dollars a year the company went deep into debt and cut costs by eliminating employees and shuttering unprofitable plants. This part of the Ford recovery plan is very similar to what the US government has done so far reducing government spending by an average of 1.4% per year under Obama after inflation and cutting government personnel by around 600,000 employees.
But that is where the similarities end. Unlike the federal government Ford has actually increased the cost of their products and reduced incentives boosting their profit by about $2,000 per car. Yes, running the government like a company requires that, as the economy improves, the costs of products and services increase or in terms of the federal government, taxes increase.
Suggesting a tax increase of course elicits cries from the right of already being overtaxed by the most radically socialist president this country has ever seen. Ignoring the ignorance of this claim it should be noted that according the Heritage Foundation we are currently near record lows when it comes to tax revenue and tax rates.
These same people also claim that any increase in tax rates will have a detrimental effect on the economy. Ford however seems to have experienced no such correlation as their increased prices have not produced a slowdown in sales. In fact sales are still increasing.
No businessman worth his salt would run his business like the Republicans are attempting to run the government. Even Mitt Romney raised an additional $750 in revenue from taxes in his time as governor. The reality is that these people don't want to run the government like a business. They want to run the government into the ground.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Barack Obama's economic policies are failing!
The May jobs report shows that our economy's slow growth is getting slower and Republicans are suggesting this proves the president’s economic policies are failing. I couldn't agree more.
The president has allowed corporate interests and Republicans to run roughshod over American economic policy and the affects have been slow growth. This includes the following:
A too small stimulus bill chock full of tax cuts.
Using corporate tax cuts as a method of economic stimulus.
"Company profits ... increased at an 11.7 percent annual rate from the previous quarter and were up 14.8 percent from a year ago."
Continuing of the Bush tax cuts.
"federal taxes as a share of gross domestic product were at their lowest level in generations."
Failure to get implement public option in health care reform.
"CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer."
Buying into the "Job Creators" argument which allows the rich like Mitt Romney to pay a tax rate lower than the average American.
"Millionaire entrepreneur and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer puts it this way: “An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.”
Allowing states and the federal government to cut massive amounts of public sector jobs costing the country over a million jobs and reducing the GDP by 0.78 percentage point in the first quarter of 2012.
"Typically, the government offers a base level of support" when the economy is weak, says Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates. "In this case, the government is actually contributing to the weakness of the recovery.
Continuing two costly wars.
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed to the U.S. having severe unsustainable structural imbalances in its government finances,"
The truth is Barack Obama isn't even remotely close to the radical socialist that Republicans love to portray him as. Heck, he's hardly even a liberal but regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office next January the reality is that we live in a global economy and blaming one person or even one party for our current economic situation is asinine.
The president has allowed corporate interests and Republicans to run roughshod over American economic policy and the affects have been slow growth. This includes the following:
A too small stimulus bill chock full of tax cuts.
Using corporate tax cuts as a method of economic stimulus.
"Company profits ... increased at an 11.7 percent annual rate from the previous quarter and were up 14.8 percent from a year ago."
Continuing of the Bush tax cuts.
"federal taxes as a share of gross domestic product were at their lowest level in generations."
Failure to get implement public option in health care reform.
"CBO estimates for liberals' preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer."
Buying into the "Job Creators" argument which allows the rich like Mitt Romney to pay a tax rate lower than the average American.
"Millionaire entrepreneur and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer puts it this way: “An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.”
Allowing states and the federal government to cut massive amounts of public sector jobs costing the country over a million jobs and reducing the GDP by 0.78 percentage point in the first quarter of 2012.
"Typically, the government offers a base level of support" when the economy is weak, says Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates. "In this case, the government is actually contributing to the weakness of the recovery.
Continuing two costly wars.
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed to the U.S. having severe unsustainable structural imbalances in its government finances,"
The truth is Barack Obama isn't even remotely close to the radical socialist that Republicans love to portray him as. Heck, he's hardly even a liberal but regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office next January the reality is that we live in a global economy and blaming one person or even one party for our current economic situation is asinine.
Going Bostal
This past week Illinois State Representative Mike Bost lost it. After Democrats used a 1995 rule to block amendments and debate on a bill regarding changes to the states pension system, Bost started yelling and throwing papers around because, as he says "I'm sick of it." "Total power in one person's hands—not the American way!" "Let my people go!" "They sent me here to vote for them ... but I'm trapped. I'm trapped by rules that have been forced down our throats."
I don't know much about Mike Bost or his politics but I can say to some extent I actually agree with his complaints. Total power in one person's hands historically is not the American way. What I find perplexing is that this only seems to be a concern because his party is in the minority. For instance, I haven't heard too many Michigan Republicans complain about the Emergency Financial Manager law that allows one person the power to "sell assets like the water department, undo union contracts, abrogate collective bargaining agreements without discussion, and dissolve local governments."
Similarly Republicans don't seem very concerned about trapping Democrats with rules like the filibuster and holds that have lead to the least productive congress in history and the lowest percentage of judicial confirmations on record.
The real problem here is not the politicians are complete hypocrites. Everyone knows this. No, the problem is that the electorate blindly defends their party’s hypocrisies while simultaneously blindly attacking those on the other side.
Mike Bost's statements may have been true in the past since we used to live in a country where these political tactics were not the American way but the American people no longer hold their party accountable for their actions instead we live in a time where the phrase "bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans" is an applause line.
I don't know much about Mike Bost or his politics but I can say to some extent I actually agree with his complaints. Total power in one person's hands historically is not the American way. What I find perplexing is that this only seems to be a concern because his party is in the minority. For instance, I haven't heard too many Michigan Republicans complain about the Emergency Financial Manager law that allows one person the power to "sell assets like the water department, undo union contracts, abrogate collective bargaining agreements without discussion, and dissolve local governments."
Similarly Republicans don't seem very concerned about trapping Democrats with rules like the filibuster and holds that have lead to the least productive congress in history and the lowest percentage of judicial confirmations on record.
The real problem here is not the politicians are complete hypocrites. Everyone knows this. No, the problem is that the electorate blindly defends their party’s hypocrisies while simultaneously blindly attacking those on the other side.
Mike Bost's statements may have been true in the past since we used to live in a country where these political tactics were not the American way but the American people no longer hold their party accountable for their actions instead we live in a time where the phrase "bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans" is an applause line.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Out of state money buying the direction of the nation
For almost 150 years campaign finance reform has been a topic of discussion in American politics. The first real nationally successful reform occurred in the 1970's in the form of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This Act, of course, did not settle the debate over campaign finance. In the years that followed both political parties staked out their position with Republicans generally favoring unlimited campaign funding and Democrats generally preferring to limit all funding.
Regardless of where you fall on this debate there is one trend that should disturb everyone - out of state money. While many on both sides of the aisle complain about the influence money buys on a politicians voting record, studies apparently don't support this claim. But that doesn't mean money doesn't affect the direction of this country. Instead of paying off a politician for a yes or a no vote on a particular piece of legislation today's special interest groups spend millions of dollars to make sure the candidates that match their ideology get elected. After all, why buy one vote when you can buy them all with the right candidate?
The real problem with all of this outside money is that it turns what should be local elections representing local constituents and their concerns into national elections. So when John Boehner gets over $6 million of his $7 million from out of state contributors it has more to do with his 100% party line voting record than what he brings back to his district. And when Richard Mourdock defeated Richard Lugar in the May 8th Republican primary it was in large part thanks to special interest spending from groups like Club for Growth and FreedomWorks which according to ABC News "routinely pick inexpensive states and vulnerable Republican incumbents, attacking them for moderate votes" to support individuals like Mourdock who wants to "do away with the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development".
What groups like FreedomWorks and Club for Growth understand is that a certain level of spending is required for a candidate to be competitive. They supply the funds for these lesser known fringe candidates and then pour millions of dollars into advertisements to set the agenda for the campaign. It is these special interest groups that have turned “moderate” and “compromise” into dirty words and put constitutional bans on gay marriage on the ballot to mobilize the zealots.
The overall effect of these tactics is a shift away from the center towards the radical fringe. This combined with our sound bite obsessed media, has led to the increased partisanship and subsequent political stalemate that we are currently experiencing in this country.
Our current system is a perversion of the constitution's requirement that congress represent the people of the state and their opinion. By allowing out of state funding, which clearly affects election outcomes, we are allowing those outside of a district or state a considerable amount of power over the results. Eliminating out of state money could have a dramatic affect on the lack of civility and production present in today’s politics while also forcing politicians to put the concerns of their constituents above those of their party or of their special interest sugar daddies.
Regardless of where you fall on this debate there is one trend that should disturb everyone - out of state money. While many on both sides of the aisle complain about the influence money buys on a politicians voting record, studies apparently don't support this claim. But that doesn't mean money doesn't affect the direction of this country. Instead of paying off a politician for a yes or a no vote on a particular piece of legislation today's special interest groups spend millions of dollars to make sure the candidates that match their ideology get elected. After all, why buy one vote when you can buy them all with the right candidate?
The real problem with all of this outside money is that it turns what should be local elections representing local constituents and their concerns into national elections. So when John Boehner gets over $6 million of his $7 million from out of state contributors it has more to do with his 100% party line voting record than what he brings back to his district. And when Richard Mourdock defeated Richard Lugar in the May 8th Republican primary it was in large part thanks to special interest spending from groups like Club for Growth and FreedomWorks which according to ABC News "routinely pick inexpensive states and vulnerable Republican incumbents, attacking them for moderate votes" to support individuals like Mourdock who wants to "do away with the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development".
What groups like FreedomWorks and Club for Growth understand is that a certain level of spending is required for a candidate to be competitive. They supply the funds for these lesser known fringe candidates and then pour millions of dollars into advertisements to set the agenda for the campaign. It is these special interest groups that have turned “moderate” and “compromise” into dirty words and put constitutional bans on gay marriage on the ballot to mobilize the zealots.
The overall effect of these tactics is a shift away from the center towards the radical fringe. This combined with our sound bite obsessed media, has led to the increased partisanship and subsequent political stalemate that we are currently experiencing in this country.
Our current system is a perversion of the constitution's requirement that congress represent the people of the state and their opinion. By allowing out of state funding, which clearly affects election outcomes, we are allowing those outside of a district or state a considerable amount of power over the results. Eliminating out of state money could have a dramatic affect on the lack of civility and production present in today’s politics while also forcing politicians to put the concerns of their constituents above those of their party or of their special interest sugar daddies.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Power over ideology
About a year and a half ago Mitch McConnell let the world know his top priority - to make sure Barack Obama was a one term president. So while unemployment crept higher the only job Mitch McConnell was concerned about creating was the one the president currently occupies.
To make sure this happens McConnell and his Republican brethren have done everything thing in their power to make government look incompetent leading to the lowest congressional approval rating in the history of this country.
It's one thing to object to the president’s plans because of ideological differences but today's Republicans have altered their beliefs simply to make the president look bad. One of the core concepts of the Mitch McConnell led Republican recovery plan is to reduce government spending. As my colleague Libby Spencer pointed out recently increases in government spending have slowed to historic lows and these cuts in spending have cost around 600,000 public sector jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute these public sector job losses have cost the economy another 500,000 private sector jobs. So while Republican's lament the slow job growth their own best recovery plan has cost the economy over 1 million jobs.
The real problem I have with Republicans in this situation is that when it was George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan trying to pull the economy out of a recession the obsession over government spending and public jobs was completely non-existent. As a matter of fact it can be argued that it was this exact government spending and public sector job growth that led to an economic recovery for both Bush and Reagan. It should also be noted that the growth in private sector jobs under Obama outpaces both Reagan and Bush after their recessions hit bottom.
This sort of gamesmanship is emblematic of the issues our country faces. Politicians and the powerful have made the collection of power their number one priority using the rest of us as pawns to fight against our own best interests. We deserve a congress that represents their constituents and values the success of the country over their own personal gain. But until that happens, we will continue to see politicians demonize the other side and let their desire to rule, control their political ideology, regardless of how hypocritical it makes them.
To make sure this happens McConnell and his Republican brethren have done everything thing in their power to make government look incompetent leading to the lowest congressional approval rating in the history of this country.
It's one thing to object to the president’s plans because of ideological differences but today's Republicans have altered their beliefs simply to make the president look bad. One of the core concepts of the Mitch McConnell led Republican recovery plan is to reduce government spending. As my colleague Libby Spencer pointed out recently increases in government spending have slowed to historic lows and these cuts in spending have cost around 600,000 public sector jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute these public sector job losses have cost the economy another 500,000 private sector jobs. So while Republican's lament the slow job growth their own best recovery plan has cost the economy over 1 million jobs.
The real problem I have with Republicans in this situation is that when it was George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan trying to pull the economy out of a recession the obsession over government spending and public jobs was completely non-existent. As a matter of fact it can be argued that it was this exact government spending and public sector job growth that led to an economic recovery for both Bush and Reagan. It should also be noted that the growth in private sector jobs under Obama outpaces both Reagan and Bush after their recessions hit bottom.
This sort of gamesmanship is emblematic of the issues our country faces. Politicians and the powerful have made the collection of power their number one priority using the rest of us as pawns to fight against our own best interests. We deserve a congress that represents their constituents and values the success of the country over their own personal gain. But until that happens, we will continue to see politicians demonize the other side and let their desire to rule, control their political ideology, regardless of how hypocritical it makes them.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Mitt Romney doesn't get it
At a recent campaign fundraiser Mitt Romney complimented the hosts accommodations noting the pool and golf course. But rather than just stop there Mitt decided to take a shot a Democrats using a commonly held fallacy stating "You know, if a Democrat were here he’d look around and say no one should live like this. Republicans come here and say EVERYONE should live like this."
This is a popular idea among conservatives and it shows just how little people like Mitt Romney really understand the common man. If you ask Mitt Romney why a majority of Americans want to raise taxes on the rich he will say it's because people envy his wealth. The problem here is the Mitt Romney has never been an average American so he doesn't understand that what really matters to the American people is that our system is fair - that everyone has the same chance to succeed. People currently feel that the system favors the rich, making it unfair. But rather than attempting to understand the common man's concerns people like Mitt dismiss these concerns as unjustified.
So if you complain that Mitt Romney earns like the top 1% yet pays a tax rate closer to those in the middle class, you're just jealous. If you want to become rich like Mitt Romney he thinks you should just borrow $20,000 from your parents and start your own company. Never mind that Romney himself never started his own company and even held back from joining Bain Capital until the companies partnership agreement was restructured to remove all financial risk for Mitt. And when it comes to bailouts Mitt supported the one saved his investments while attacking the one that supported 13 million working class American jobs.
Given that Mitt has never had to struggle with money it's no wonder that he can't relate to the average American but the more concerning issue with his statement is that it shows he can't put himself in other peoples shoes. Just because Mitt Romney and others have put wealth as their top priority doesn't mean that everyone else places the same value on money.
I imagine very few people who join the Clergy because they see it as their path to fame and fortune. The people drawn to teaching have college degrees yet have no illusions of joining the top 1%. Firefighters and policeman probably don't put wealth as the number one reason for pursing their career. And even in occupations like Lawyers and Doctors there are those that place a higher value on helping those in need over high wages like Doctors without borders and public defenders who could easily make more in private sector.
The thing that Mitt doesn't get is that not everyone is motivated by money and not everyone values big homes and expensive things. Sloughing off this difference in personality as jealousy or envy is insulting and it shows an extraordinary amount of ego and ignorance on Mitt's part. But he represents a party who thinks being gay is a choice, being part of the working poor means you're lazy and "reverse racism" is a bigger problem than actual racism so the fact that he doesn't understand how other people think is not surprising.
While Mitt Romney will suggest his business background makes him more qualified to turn the economy around this same logic also means he is completely unqualified to help the poor and middle class realize the American Dream having been part of the rich his entire life. But Mitt Romney doesn't get that his dreams may not be yours. He doesn't get what it is like to live pay check to pay check. And he doesn't get how his agenda of making life better for the top 1% may seem unfair to the other 99%. Because, at the end of the day, Mitt Romney doesn't get it.
This is a popular idea among conservatives and it shows just how little people like Mitt Romney really understand the common man. If you ask Mitt Romney why a majority of Americans want to raise taxes on the rich he will say it's because people envy his wealth. The problem here is the Mitt Romney has never been an average American so he doesn't understand that what really matters to the American people is that our system is fair - that everyone has the same chance to succeed. People currently feel that the system favors the rich, making it unfair. But rather than attempting to understand the common man's concerns people like Mitt dismiss these concerns as unjustified.
So if you complain that Mitt Romney earns like the top 1% yet pays a tax rate closer to those in the middle class, you're just jealous. If you want to become rich like Mitt Romney he thinks you should just borrow $20,000 from your parents and start your own company. Never mind that Romney himself never started his own company and even held back from joining Bain Capital until the companies partnership agreement was restructured to remove all financial risk for Mitt. And when it comes to bailouts Mitt supported the one saved his investments while attacking the one that supported 13 million working class American jobs.
Given that Mitt has never had to struggle with money it's no wonder that he can't relate to the average American but the more concerning issue with his statement is that it shows he can't put himself in other peoples shoes. Just because Mitt Romney and others have put wealth as their top priority doesn't mean that everyone else places the same value on money.
I imagine very few people who join the Clergy because they see it as their path to fame and fortune. The people drawn to teaching have college degrees yet have no illusions of joining the top 1%. Firefighters and policeman probably don't put wealth as the number one reason for pursing their career. And even in occupations like Lawyers and Doctors there are those that place a higher value on helping those in need over high wages like Doctors without borders and public defenders who could easily make more in private sector.
The thing that Mitt doesn't get is that not everyone is motivated by money and not everyone values big homes and expensive things. Sloughing off this difference in personality as jealousy or envy is insulting and it shows an extraordinary amount of ego and ignorance on Mitt's part. But he represents a party who thinks being gay is a choice, being part of the working poor means you're lazy and "reverse racism" is a bigger problem than actual racism so the fact that he doesn't understand how other people think is not surprising.
While Mitt Romney will suggest his business background makes him more qualified to turn the economy around this same logic also means he is completely unqualified to help the poor and middle class realize the American Dream having been part of the rich his entire life. But Mitt Romney doesn't get that his dreams may not be yours. He doesn't get what it is like to live pay check to pay check. And he doesn't get how his agenda of making life better for the top 1% may seem unfair to the other 99%. Because, at the end of the day, Mitt Romney doesn't get it.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Christian group bullying the Daily Show
The Catholic League recently manufactured some flap over a Daily Show segment which they claim is "anti-women" and "anti-Christian".
First it should be noted that the folks at the Catholic League are no saints when it comes to exercising the right to free speech having apparently slandered Hillary Rosen, compared Kathleen Sebelius to neo-Nazi's and skinheads, and lied about statements from the founder of planned parenthood in an attempt to portray her as a racist.
Having said that, I certainly support their right to free speech and to pressure the sponsors of the Daily Show. But I would hope that these advertisers would realize, like the Kellogg company did, that the Catholic league has only 233,000 members while the Daily Show has over 2.3 million views per episode. I doubt very highly that the viewers of the Daily Show see this joke in the same light as the Catholic League and suspect that the vast majority of the "complaints" that the Daily Show advertisers will receive will not be from people who actually watch the Daily Show.
With this in mind I think viewers of the Daily Show who support the Daily Show's right to free speech should use the Daily Show advertiser contact list the Catholic League has been kind enough to provide and defend the right of the Daily Show to speak their mind even if that might offend a teeny tiny portion of the population.
First it should be noted that the folks at the Catholic League are no saints when it comes to exercising the right to free speech having apparently slandered Hillary Rosen, compared Kathleen Sebelius to neo-Nazi's and skinheads, and lied about statements from the founder of planned parenthood in an attempt to portray her as a racist.
Having said that, I certainly support their right to free speech and to pressure the sponsors of the Daily Show. But I would hope that these advertisers would realize, like the Kellogg company did, that the Catholic league has only 233,000 members while the Daily Show has over 2.3 million views per episode. I doubt very highly that the viewers of the Daily Show see this joke in the same light as the Catholic League and suspect that the vast majority of the "complaints" that the Daily Show advertisers will receive will not be from people who actually watch the Daily Show.
With this in mind I think viewers of the Daily Show who support the Daily Show's right to free speech should use the Daily Show advertiser contact list the Catholic League has been kind enough to provide and defend the right of the Daily Show to speak their mind even if that might offend a teeny tiny portion of the population.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
John Thune's not responsible
While most conservatives are big on personal responsibility John Thune is apparently not one of them. Mr. Thune recently set out to explain the problems with our economy and not surprisingly he lays all of the blame at the feet of Democrats and the president.
He starts off his attack by suggesting the Democrats shifted money from the student loan program, which has recently come up for debate, to pay for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to Thune this $9 billion shift shows that Democrats never took an "honest look at our financial situation." It should be noted that repealing the ACA, which Thune supports, would actually add more to the Federal Deficit than leaving the legislation alone. It should also be noted that when talking about the nearly $47 billion in additional revenue that the Buffet Rule would have captured John Thune stated that this rule would only "raise about half of one day's worth of federal spending." If $47 billion is a waste of time then why would Mr. Thune make a mere $9 billion the centerpiece of his argument.
Of course this doesn't end John Thune's finger pointing. Next he asserts that Democrats are to blame for increases in the national deficit while failing to mention the affects of the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Great Recession. All of which Mr. Thune had a hand in. Perhaps MR. Thune would also like to blame Democrats and the president for the deficit increases in Europe as well even though those countries have enacted the austerity measures that Republicans believe will save this country. Mr. Thune also never discusses that under President Obama we saw the first reduction in government outlays in nearly 50 years.
To further complicate things Mr. Thune suggests that the president’s current 2013 budget will lead to a massive loss in jobs yet he provides no evidence for such a claim. This could be based on some actual data but it could just as well be another politician with an errant opinion.
Next up in the blame game is the lack of jobs for college students. According the John Thune Democrats and the president are at fault for students who are struggling to find jobs in their chosen field. Unfortunately for Mr. Thune the facts don't back up his claim. The reality is there are millions of unfilled jobs in the US and the main reason that these jobs exist is because there are a lack of qualified candidates to fill the positions not because of some Democratic agenda.
Beyond the fact that his opinion is not supported by the available data, the cuts that Mr. Thune and his Republican brethren have demanded have put an additional 600,000 Americans out of work and further constricted the economy and job prospects
Over the first three years of President Obama's term the only thing that Republicans and John Thune have been willing to offer is excuses and blame. If Mr. Thune truly cared about anything other than election year politics he would take an honest look at our financial situation and accept a little personal responsibility for the current state of the economy because while blaming the other guy may be good for getting reelected it does nothing to solve the real issues that American's desperately want our legislators to work together on.
He starts off his attack by suggesting the Democrats shifted money from the student loan program, which has recently come up for debate, to pay for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to Thune this $9 billion shift shows that Democrats never took an "honest look at our financial situation." It should be noted that repealing the ACA, which Thune supports, would actually add more to the Federal Deficit than leaving the legislation alone. It should also be noted that when talking about the nearly $47 billion in additional revenue that the Buffet Rule would have captured John Thune stated that this rule would only "raise about half of one day's worth of federal spending." If $47 billion is a waste of time then why would Mr. Thune make a mere $9 billion the centerpiece of his argument.
Of course this doesn't end John Thune's finger pointing. Next he asserts that Democrats are to blame for increases in the national deficit while failing to mention the affects of the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Great Recession. All of which Mr. Thune had a hand in. Perhaps MR. Thune would also like to blame Democrats and the president for the deficit increases in Europe as well even though those countries have enacted the austerity measures that Republicans believe will save this country. Mr. Thune also never discusses that under President Obama we saw the first reduction in government outlays in nearly 50 years.
To further complicate things Mr. Thune suggests that the president’s current 2013 budget will lead to a massive loss in jobs yet he provides no evidence for such a claim. This could be based on some actual data but it could just as well be another politician with an errant opinion.
Next up in the blame game is the lack of jobs for college students. According the John Thune Democrats and the president are at fault for students who are struggling to find jobs in their chosen field. Unfortunately for Mr. Thune the facts don't back up his claim. The reality is there are millions of unfilled jobs in the US and the main reason that these jobs exist is because there are a lack of qualified candidates to fill the positions not because of some Democratic agenda.
Beyond the fact that his opinion is not supported by the available data, the cuts that Mr. Thune and his Republican brethren have demanded have put an additional 600,000 Americans out of work and further constricted the economy and job prospects
Over the first three years of President Obama's term the only thing that Republicans and John Thune have been willing to offer is excuses and blame. If Mr. Thune truly cared about anything other than election year politics he would take an honest look at our financial situation and accept a little personal responsibility for the current state of the economy because while blaming the other guy may be good for getting reelected it does nothing to solve the real issues that American's desperately want our legislators to work together on.
Friday, May 4, 2012
War on America
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent a couple of ideological hypocrisies for Republicans that the media seems to largely ignore.
Republicans tend to identify themselves as extremely patriotic more than any other group in America yet they are the first group in the history of this country to go to war without implementing some form of tax to pay for the war. Of course making matters worse, not only did Republicans avoid paying for these wars they actually cut taxes. In the past paying some form of war tax was considered your patriotic duty and a way to support the troops with shared sacrifice.
Republicans are also the group that wants to cut government spending yet every time we go to war we increase the size and cost of government. While it should come as no surprise that this occurs, the real issue is that once the war is over we almost never fall back to spending levels at or below pre-war levels. Essentially by going to war we are permanently increasing the size and cost of government.
As an example of this the base cost of defense spending (not including the cost of the wars) has increase from $407 billion in 2001 to $553 billion in 2011. This steady rise has added over $1 trillion to the deficit. If you add in the actual costs of these wars, Defense Spending accounts for nearly a third of today's national debt. A shocking number for a group that considers the increase in national debt as a greater concern than any other group in the country.
Basically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent a massive increase in the national debt and a permanent increase in the size and cost of government while also managing to be the poorest showing of patriotism for any military activity in our nation’s history.
Ironically the best solution to this problem is declaring war on America, but like it was done in the past. The kind of war where we increase taxes to fund the war effort and cut spending to make sure our resources are best focused on one common goal. The kind of war where the good of the country takes priority over the good of the political party. The kind of war that unites individuals, regardless of status, behind our leader, regardless of ideological differences.
While we do have legislators like Tom Coburn who are willing to work across the aisle, regardless of the political ramifications, the reality is that we have allowed our country to become a place where compromise is a dirty word and the number one objective of nearly every politician is getting elected. The only war really being fought is a civil war over power. This war has no winners, only losers.
Republicans tend to identify themselves as extremely patriotic more than any other group in America yet they are the first group in the history of this country to go to war without implementing some form of tax to pay for the war. Of course making matters worse, not only did Republicans avoid paying for these wars they actually cut taxes. In the past paying some form of war tax was considered your patriotic duty and a way to support the troops with shared sacrifice.
Republicans are also the group that wants to cut government spending yet every time we go to war we increase the size and cost of government. While it should come as no surprise that this occurs, the real issue is that once the war is over we almost never fall back to spending levels at or below pre-war levels. Essentially by going to war we are permanently increasing the size and cost of government.
As an example of this the base cost of defense spending (not including the cost of the wars) has increase from $407 billion in 2001 to $553 billion in 2011. This steady rise has added over $1 trillion to the deficit. If you add in the actual costs of these wars, Defense Spending accounts for nearly a third of today's national debt. A shocking number for a group that considers the increase in national debt as a greater concern than any other group in the country.
Basically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent a massive increase in the national debt and a permanent increase in the size and cost of government while also managing to be the poorest showing of patriotism for any military activity in our nation’s history.
Ironically the best solution to this problem is declaring war on America, but like it was done in the past. The kind of war where we increase taxes to fund the war effort and cut spending to make sure our resources are best focused on one common goal. The kind of war where the good of the country takes priority over the good of the political party. The kind of war that unites individuals, regardless of status, behind our leader, regardless of ideological differences.
While we do have legislators like Tom Coburn who are willing to work across the aisle, regardless of the political ramifications, the reality is that we have allowed our country to become a place where compromise is a dirty word and the number one objective of nearly every politician is getting elected. The only war really being fought is a civil war over power. This war has no winners, only losers.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Unions and the political influence fallacy
Anytime I discuss unions one of the commenter’s will undoubtedly bring up campaign contributions and how the Democrats are being bought by unions. If the idea is that money is ruining our democracy, I agree. That, however, never seems to be their point since the criticism always stops at union contributions. It appears that there are some who truly believe that unions and unions alone are setting the agenda for Democrats.
It is no secret that Democrats fight for labor but they do so because of a shared ideology not because of political contributions. The same is true of organizations like the NRA and anti-abortion groups and their unabashed support for Republicans. Groups like this spend money to convince voters who to vote for not to convince politicians to support their agenda.
So just what percentage of the contributions to Democrats are coming from labor? 75%? Nope. 50%? Not quite. 25%? Still too high. The reality is that labor makes up only 5% of the contributions to Democrats. Business on the other hand accounts for nearly 75% of contributions to Democrats and 83% of the contributions to Republicans.
The idea of labor wagging the dog is just a political tactic meant to fool voters into believing that labor and business represent an equal force in the election process. The fact is business is outspending labor by a margin of 15 to 1 so this fallacy of labor's political spending power is yet another false equivalency being propagated by the media. Even politicians have bought into the illusion. As an example, Governor Chris Christie enacted an Executive Order to limit the political contributions by labor unions which was later ruled as unconstitutional.
The flap over labor contributions is just a diversion to keep people from some of the more disturbing contribution tends such as the rise in individual contributions. This year the top 100 individual contributors have contributed nearly as much to political campaigns as labor has contributed to Democrats. The reason this should concern people is how much influence is being concentrated with such a small number of people. Labor represents over 14 million people but they are being outspent by less than 0.000001% of the population. This is a clear perversion of the principles of democracy.
Is money ruining our democratic process? Absolutely. But the reality is that labor is a drop in the bucket when compared to the influence of business and individuals.
It is no secret that Democrats fight for labor but they do so because of a shared ideology not because of political contributions. The same is true of organizations like the NRA and anti-abortion groups and their unabashed support for Republicans. Groups like this spend money to convince voters who to vote for not to convince politicians to support their agenda.
So just what percentage of the contributions to Democrats are coming from labor? 75%? Nope. 50%? Not quite. 25%? Still too high. The reality is that labor makes up only 5% of the contributions to Democrats. Business on the other hand accounts for nearly 75% of contributions to Democrats and 83% of the contributions to Republicans.
The idea of labor wagging the dog is just a political tactic meant to fool voters into believing that labor and business represent an equal force in the election process. The fact is business is outspending labor by a margin of 15 to 1 so this fallacy of labor's political spending power is yet another false equivalency being propagated by the media. Even politicians have bought into the illusion. As an example, Governor Chris Christie enacted an Executive Order to limit the political contributions by labor unions which was later ruled as unconstitutional.
The flap over labor contributions is just a diversion to keep people from some of the more disturbing contribution tends such as the rise in individual contributions. This year the top 100 individual contributors have contributed nearly as much to political campaigns as labor has contributed to Democrats. The reason this should concern people is how much influence is being concentrated with such a small number of people. Labor represents over 14 million people but they are being outspent by less than 0.000001% of the population. This is a clear perversion of the principles of democracy.
Is money ruining our democratic process? Absolutely. But the reality is that labor is a drop in the bucket when compared to the influence of business and individuals.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Ending free speech in America
If you are reading the Detroit News political blog you are probably the sort of person that receives and possibly sends political emails. Below is one of the latest that I received.
Read it and weep, folks.
Welcome to America.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHECK THIS OUT ON SNOPES - IT MADE FOX NEWS WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE VIDEO BY CLICKING ON BELOW! PRETTY SCARY FOLKS!!!
This is really frightening.
They sneaked another one in on us.
New law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's presence
This means that, wherever Obama is at, you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn’t like. Sound like he’s more like Hitler than Lincoln to you?
WATCH AND BE AMAZED AT HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A TAKE OVER OF AMERICA ...
Guess you’ve probably heard about this, but sending it on anyway. It’s probably the scariest thing this guy has done yet.
Are you aware of this new law, signed by “Obama” in early March 2012?
May the Lord have mercy on us!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium
So there you have it. The president is at it again. He is butchering the constitution.
Of course the president can't act alone on this. He would need congress to approve such a bill before he could sign it into law. Obviously Republicans wouldn't want to give this president any additional power especially a power that would limit the constitution. To their credit House Republicans put up quite a fight with a full 2 members voting no. Yes, this bill barely squeaked by with a 388 to 3 margin.
The reality is this is much ado about nothing. This bill is a slight tweak of a bill passed back in 1971. There is a change in verbiage making it incrementally more likely that anyone, including protesters, at an event with Secret Service could be arrested.
Now you may think this is just another example of a liberal blogger going after something Fox News is trying to drum up into a story but it should be noted that the Huffington Post and Slate also hate this bill. They think it is an attack on the Occupy movement. Go figure - the only thing that congress can agree on for the past three years raises the ire of the pundits on both the left and the right.
Is it possible that protesters of high profile individuals will be forced to stand at a greater distance when protesting than before? Sure it is, but let’s not act like this is some sort of sweeping change that will suddenly end one's right to free speech. With today's social media and never ending news coverage, proximity is not required to make your point. It may make you feel good to call the president a liar to his face but if you think that any of these people who have the power to enact change will be swayed by some tool with a blow horn you are sadly mistaken.
Having said that, if you feel this is still an egregious power grab by the president or congress feel free to cross the line into the restricted area that the Secret Service has established and you will get the chance to argue your case before a judge where decisions regarding constitutionality are made.
Read it and weep, folks.
Welcome to America.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHECK THIS OUT ON SNOPES - IT MADE FOX NEWS WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE VIDEO BY CLICKING ON BELOW! PRETTY SCARY FOLKS!!!
This is really frightening.
They sneaked another one in on us.
New law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's presence
This means that, wherever Obama is at, you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn’t like. Sound like he’s more like Hitler than Lincoln to you?
WATCH AND BE AMAZED AT HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A TAKE OVER OF AMERICA ...
Guess you’ve probably heard about this, but sending it on anyway. It’s probably the scariest thing this guy has done yet.
Are you aware of this new law, signed by “Obama” in early March 2012?
May the Lord have mercy on us!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium
So there you have it. The president is at it again. He is butchering the constitution.
Of course the president can't act alone on this. He would need congress to approve such a bill before he could sign it into law. Obviously Republicans wouldn't want to give this president any additional power especially a power that would limit the constitution. To their credit House Republicans put up quite a fight with a full 2 members voting no. Yes, this bill barely squeaked by with a 388 to 3 margin.
The reality is this is much ado about nothing. This bill is a slight tweak of a bill passed back in 1971. There is a change in verbiage making it incrementally more likely that anyone, including protesters, at an event with Secret Service could be arrested.
Now you may think this is just another example of a liberal blogger going after something Fox News is trying to drum up into a story but it should be noted that the Huffington Post and Slate also hate this bill. They think it is an attack on the Occupy movement. Go figure - the only thing that congress can agree on for the past three years raises the ire of the pundits on both the left and the right.
Is it possible that protesters of high profile individuals will be forced to stand at a greater distance when protesting than before? Sure it is, but let’s not act like this is some sort of sweeping change that will suddenly end one's right to free speech. With today's social media and never ending news coverage, proximity is not required to make your point. It may make you feel good to call the president a liar to his face but if you think that any of these people who have the power to enact change will be swayed by some tool with a blow horn you are sadly mistaken.
Having said that, if you feel this is still an egregious power grab by the president or congress feel free to cross the line into the restricted area that the Secret Service has established and you will get the chance to argue your case before a judge where decisions regarding constitutionality are made.
Friday, April 20, 2012
H.R. 9 - Republicans next tax cut for the rich
The GOP, led by Eric Cantor, recently introduced a new bill called the Small Business Tax Cut Act (H.R. 9). It should come as no surprise that this bill is rife with issues.
For example, for a business to qualify for this tax cut they have to have less than 500 employees. This disqualifies 0.1% of the companies in the US, meaning 99.9% of companies in the US are "Small Business" - mom and pop shops by this definition. Also the companies that most Americans think of as small businesses would not receive enough of a tax break to support the hiring of a new employee or even purchase new equipment. The reality is this bill creates yet another tax loophole for the rich to lower their tax rate.
Of course those are only the tip of the iceberg on this poorly designed and inappropriately named bill.
As we have all seen recently government agencies, like the GSA, can waste tax payer money. $44 for breakfast is something we should all be irritated by but politicians, seeing things through their partisan prism, only complain about the money wasted by the other party. With this in mind it should be noted that this GOP bill adds around $46 billion to the deficit while, according to Eric Cantor, only creating 40,000 jobs. The quick math puts the cost per job at around a million dollars. Even the sunniest projects show a cost of nearly a half million dollars per job. My guess is if similar results were offered for a Democratic bill this would become just another example of "big spending government", but when offered by Republicans it supposedly shows their commitment to creating jobs even though Republicans think government can't create jobs and hate it when the Democrats use government money to pick winners and losers.
The reason this will cost so much money yet create so few jobs is that this was never really intended to be a "jobs" bill. It is a tax cut for the rich disguised as a jobs bill. If the GOP truly cared about creating jobs with this bill they would have tied the tax cut to some form of job creation. No such requirement exists.
What is particularly perplexing about the lack of a job creating requirement is that similar requirements are paramount to Republicans when it comes to the poor. The complaints about welfare are that the government just gives away money without requiring that these people to find a job. Well this bill is essentially welfare for business owners. They get to reduce their taxes without creating a single job or purchasing a single piece of equipment. As a matter of fact they could reduce staff and still get the tax cut. If demanding work for pay should be a requirement for the poor to receive welfare then demanding jobs for tax cuts should be a requirement of corporate welfare.
The irony is that this bill is really just more stimulus. The president’s previous attempts to stimulate the economy have been an all of the above approach which not only included some spending but also a considerable amount of tax cuts.
While I would prefer to lean on the infrastructure spending type stimulus, given that it benefits main street more than wall street, the president’s plan has proved affective when compared to the Republican plan of mainly austerity measures similar to those enacted by the UK. So while this bill might be chock full of easy money for the rich it should be more effective at stimulating the economy than any of the other Republicans plans.
For example, for a business to qualify for this tax cut they have to have less than 500 employees. This disqualifies 0.1% of the companies in the US, meaning 99.9% of companies in the US are "Small Business" - mom and pop shops by this definition. Also the companies that most Americans think of as small businesses would not receive enough of a tax break to support the hiring of a new employee or even purchase new equipment. The reality is this bill creates yet another tax loophole for the rich to lower their tax rate.
Of course those are only the tip of the iceberg on this poorly designed and inappropriately named bill.
As we have all seen recently government agencies, like the GSA, can waste tax payer money. $44 for breakfast is something we should all be irritated by but politicians, seeing things through their partisan prism, only complain about the money wasted by the other party. With this in mind it should be noted that this GOP bill adds around $46 billion to the deficit while, according to Eric Cantor, only creating 40,000 jobs. The quick math puts the cost per job at around a million dollars. Even the sunniest projects show a cost of nearly a half million dollars per job. My guess is if similar results were offered for a Democratic bill this would become just another example of "big spending government", but when offered by Republicans it supposedly shows their commitment to creating jobs even though Republicans think government can't create jobs and hate it when the Democrats use government money to pick winners and losers.
The reason this will cost so much money yet create so few jobs is that this was never really intended to be a "jobs" bill. It is a tax cut for the rich disguised as a jobs bill. If the GOP truly cared about creating jobs with this bill they would have tied the tax cut to some form of job creation. No such requirement exists.
What is particularly perplexing about the lack of a job creating requirement is that similar requirements are paramount to Republicans when it comes to the poor. The complaints about welfare are that the government just gives away money without requiring that these people to find a job. Well this bill is essentially welfare for business owners. They get to reduce their taxes without creating a single job or purchasing a single piece of equipment. As a matter of fact they could reduce staff and still get the tax cut. If demanding work for pay should be a requirement for the poor to receive welfare then demanding jobs for tax cuts should be a requirement of corporate welfare.
The irony is that this bill is really just more stimulus. The president’s previous attempts to stimulate the economy have been an all of the above approach which not only included some spending but also a considerable amount of tax cuts.
While I would prefer to lean on the infrastructure spending type stimulus, given that it benefits main street more than wall street, the president’s plan has proved affective when compared to the Republican plan of mainly austerity measures similar to those enacted by the UK. So while this bill might be chock full of easy money for the rich it should be more effective at stimulating the economy than any of the other Republicans plans.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
The war on Rosen
While the whole thing is an example of how easily the electorate can be manipulated, there has been a lot of discussion recently about the war on women and the subsequent war on moms.
In response to comments made by Hilary Rosen regarding Ann Romney there has been a desperate attempt to attach Rosen to President Obama. The Washington Post did a good analysis on the topic and it turns out the connection is loose at best. Still when fellow blogger Libby Spence spoke on the topic she got a considerable amount of push back with the standard rhetoric being offered by the media with some suggesting that Rosen's mere appearance at the White House proves she has influence on the decisions the President makes.
It should be noted that Rosen currently works for a firm that handles strategic communications. They do not provide policy advice. Also it is estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 people are currently on the staff of the Executive Office of the President. It is an extraordinary leap to think that Hilary Rosen is meeting and providing political advice to the President on each of her 36 visits over the past three years.
Another problem with this claim is that the issues that Rosen and her company support are not ones that the president currently supports. If Rosen is so influential as to be considered a de facto spokesman for the white house then all of the positions she represents should be the reflected on the president's policies.
Of course the debate on Rosen only exists because of the false equivalence between what one woman said about another woman and the massive quantity of legislation attacking women that are currently being offered by Republican controlled state legislatures. The Daily show has a great piece on this but I assume very few conservative readers can stomach 6 minutes of Fox News clips accompanied by left leaning commentary so below are a list of the recent legislative "accomplishments" regarding women.
Wiscosin ends equal pay for women.
Arizona is looking to require women who want their insure to cover contraception to prove it is for a "medical condition".
Pennsylvania is trying to require women to get a sonogram before an abortion.
Virginia wanted to force women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.
Mississippi wants a constitutional amendment that would brand abortion as murder.
Arizona is allowing doctors to avoid any legal action for failing to disclose any issues with fetus.
Republicans opposed to the violence against women act.
Wisconsin wants to classify being a single parent as child abuse.
Texas is blocking funding for planned parenthood.
Topeka, Kansas decriminalized domestic violence.
House Republicans have a bill that would allow hospitals to let women die rather than perform a life saving abortion.
The reality is the comments made by Hilary Rosen are in no way shape or form equivalent to the legislative actions of Republicans.
In response to comments made by Hilary Rosen regarding Ann Romney there has been a desperate attempt to attach Rosen to President Obama. The Washington Post did a good analysis on the topic and it turns out the connection is loose at best. Still when fellow blogger Libby Spence spoke on the topic she got a considerable amount of push back with the standard rhetoric being offered by the media with some suggesting that Rosen's mere appearance at the White House proves she has influence on the decisions the President makes.
It should be noted that Rosen currently works for a firm that handles strategic communications. They do not provide policy advice. Also it is estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 people are currently on the staff of the Executive Office of the President. It is an extraordinary leap to think that Hilary Rosen is meeting and providing political advice to the President on each of her 36 visits over the past three years.
Another problem with this claim is that the issues that Rosen and her company support are not ones that the president currently supports. If Rosen is so influential as to be considered a de facto spokesman for the white house then all of the positions she represents should be the reflected on the president's policies.
Of course the debate on Rosen only exists because of the false equivalence between what one woman said about another woman and the massive quantity of legislation attacking women that are currently being offered by Republican controlled state legislatures. The Daily show has a great piece on this but I assume very few conservative readers can stomach 6 minutes of Fox News clips accompanied by left leaning commentary so below are a list of the recent legislative "accomplishments" regarding women.
Wiscosin ends equal pay for women.
Arizona is looking to require women who want their insure to cover contraception to prove it is for a "medical condition".
Pennsylvania is trying to require women to get a sonogram before an abortion.
Virginia wanted to force women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.
Mississippi wants a constitutional amendment that would brand abortion as murder.
Arizona is allowing doctors to avoid any legal action for failing to disclose any issues with fetus.
Republicans opposed to the violence against women act.
Wisconsin wants to classify being a single parent as child abuse.
Texas is blocking funding for planned parenthood.
Topeka, Kansas decriminalized domestic violence.
House Republicans have a bill that would allow hospitals to let women die rather than perform a life saving abortion.
The reality is the comments made by Hilary Rosen are in no way shape or form equivalent to the legislative actions of Republicans.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Teachers unions: The great diversion
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
