A core aspect of the Republican platform over recent years is the desire to eliminate government regulations. The rationale most often associated with this push is the idea that government regulations cost jobs. Unfortunately jobs are really just a red herring in this argument since the actual impetus has more to do with corporate profits and campaign donations than jobs.
The reality is that even if one product is deemed unacceptable, the market demand for that product will still exist and whatever products fills the void should create an equivalent number of jobs. In the past, for example, when it was determined that asbestos and lead paint cost lives, the government, as the protector of the people, stepped in and essentially regulated these products out of business. Luckily at the time corporate money was much less important and the good of the people easily trumped "jobs" or any other misdirection corporations could dream up.
Did the country suddenly slip into a recession because the asbestos and lead paint industries no longer existed? No. Instead other companies that produced better products which were less harmful gain market share.
Today a similar war is being waged over coal, but now corporate money is wagging the dog and the good of the people has taken a backseat.
Employees in the coal industry are nearly seven times a likely to die on the job than similar occupations. They also miss four times as many days of work. Additionally some 24,000 people die each year from the affects of coal. So regardless of how many hypothetical jobs are lost in the conversion to clean energy, as long as another product is available and is less detrimental, we should support that change.
The problem here is that Republicans are portraying regulations as the enemy instead of the public protection devise they really are.
The truth is, regulations only exist because some unscrupulous or ignorant person or corporation messed it up for the rest of us. When congress passed Dodd-Frank is was a result of banks acting badly not some imaginary lust for punishing big business. When a compounding facility in Massachusetts failed to operate within the law - causing a fungal meningitis outbreak that has claimed fifty lives so far - calls to increase regulations are an effort to prevent future issues not an affront to capitalism. And when Congress passed Sarbanes–Oxley it was a direct result of Enron's failure to self-regulate costing many their life savings and thousands of jobs not some socialist government overreach.
The vast majority of Americans would love it if their mortgage documents were a few short pages instead of a Stephen King like horror novel or if they could board a plane without having to take off half of their clothes however the same greed and drive that make capitalism so successful also leads to many doing whatever it takes to increase their share of the pie. Pretending that preventing these deviants from being able to act unimpeded is the main reason for our sluggish economy helps no one but the very corporate despoilers that precipitated the problems in the first place.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
The government and market greed
In an effort to extol the virtues of capitalism my colleague Gary Wolfram a piece in which he blames government cost controls for long lines at gas stations after Hurricane Sandy.
Unfortunately this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The reality is that after this catastrophe there was a spike in demand for gasoline since the power was out for millions of people. Additionally the supply was limited since some gas stations did not have backup generators handy. Simple supply and demand was the reason for long lines at gas stations after Hurricane Sandy not socialism.
To further the fallacy Mr. Wolfram claims that no such lines existed for other products such as "milk, bread, coffee, sugar etc...”. A quick image search of Hurricane Sandy grocery stores would refute this position. Also contrary to what Gary would have you believe there were long lines for items like milk, bread, water, and sugar. And unlike is assertion the market didn't suddenly produce more of these items to meet demand. Instead you can find photos of empty shelves.
Of course it should be noted that if price controls are somehow to blame then we should be seeing long lines for milk every day since milk has been price controlled by both Republicans and Democrat lead congress' since 1949.
But the biggest problem here is this idea that somehow Democrats, liberals, independents, and R.I.N.O's who support some government involvement are against the free market. Polls show this isn't even remotely accurate. Instead these polls show that Democrats have a general mistrust of large corporations similar to the mistrust that Republicans have for the Federal Government.
Those who support legislation against price gouging in cases of emergency are not fighting against capitalism, they are fighting for the fair treatment of those who would be pushed out of the market if prices of everyday staples suddenly spiked.
The truth is Hurricane Sandy represents the best of government not the worst.
Unfortunately this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The reality is that after this catastrophe there was a spike in demand for gasoline since the power was out for millions of people. Additionally the supply was limited since some gas stations did not have backup generators handy. Simple supply and demand was the reason for long lines at gas stations after Hurricane Sandy not socialism.
To further the fallacy Mr. Wolfram claims that no such lines existed for other products such as "milk, bread, coffee, sugar etc...”. A quick image search of Hurricane Sandy grocery stores would refute this position. Also contrary to what Gary would have you believe there were long lines for items like milk, bread, water, and sugar. And unlike is assertion the market didn't suddenly produce more of these items to meet demand. Instead you can find photos of empty shelves.
Of course it should be noted that if price controls are somehow to blame then we should be seeing long lines for milk every day since milk has been price controlled by both Republicans and Democrat lead congress' since 1949.
But the biggest problem here is this idea that somehow Democrats, liberals, independents, and R.I.N.O's who support some government involvement are against the free market. Polls show this isn't even remotely accurate. Instead these polls show that Democrats have a general mistrust of large corporations similar to the mistrust that Republicans have for the Federal Government.
Those who support legislation against price gouging in cases of emergency are not fighting against capitalism, they are fighting for the fair treatment of those who would be pushed out of the market if prices of everyday staples suddenly spiked.
The truth is Hurricane Sandy represents the best of government not the worst.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Choosing money over life is un-American
In an attempt to drum up fear, the oil industry recently released data suggesting new EPA rules meant to clean up sulfur pollution from gasoline will add as much as $0.09 per gallon to the cost of fuel for your car. The EPA however feels the cost would be closer to $0.01 per gallon since refineries are already producing gasoline with the same specs for other countries.
The EPA estimates that the change will save 2,400 people per year from dying a premature death and prevent as many as 23,000 cases of respiratory illness in children per year.
China is experiencing a similar pollution issue which has had devastating consequences. It is currently estimated that air pollution in China prematurely ends the lives of 1.2 million Chinese residents per year, costing the economy a full 5.8% of GDP.
So while the Oil industry and others may be sounding the alarms regarding the costs of fixing a problem that cuts short the lives of thousands while also making life much more difficult for tens of thousands more the reality is that doing nothing also has a cost which we are already paying.
Of course the real irony here for those who oppose the EPA change is what many of them do support. If money is the sole concern we should consider ending our patent system since it is estimated that this adds 13% to the cost of an item like a cell phone. While 22 Republican Senators voted against it, domestic violence against women leads to over 1,200 deaths per year while costing over $5 billion a year in health care costs. And when it comes to saving a collection of cells, anti-abortion advocates spare no expense even putting measures in place to increase the cost of the medical procedure to remove these unwanted cells.
The reality is that increased costs are a red herring in this debate. Most would gladly spend an extra hundred dollars a year if they knew it would give them more time to spend with elderly family members. Unfortunately we have reached a point where politics now trumps decency and compassion and we get people booing a serviceman because he is gay, cheering the death of an uninsured man, and wild applause for executing death row inmates.
While most Americans could use more dollars in their pocket, believing that a nominal amount of cash is an acceptable rationale for letting others suffer and die shows that as a country our biggest deficiency has nothing to do with money.
The EPA estimates that the change will save 2,400 people per year from dying a premature death and prevent as many as 23,000 cases of respiratory illness in children per year.
China is experiencing a similar pollution issue which has had devastating consequences. It is currently estimated that air pollution in China prematurely ends the lives of 1.2 million Chinese residents per year, costing the economy a full 5.8% of GDP.
So while the Oil industry and others may be sounding the alarms regarding the costs of fixing a problem that cuts short the lives of thousands while also making life much more difficult for tens of thousands more the reality is that doing nothing also has a cost which we are already paying.
Of course the real irony here for those who oppose the EPA change is what many of them do support. If money is the sole concern we should consider ending our patent system since it is estimated that this adds 13% to the cost of an item like a cell phone. While 22 Republican Senators voted against it, domestic violence against women leads to over 1,200 deaths per year while costing over $5 billion a year in health care costs. And when it comes to saving a collection of cells, anti-abortion advocates spare no expense even putting measures in place to increase the cost of the medical procedure to remove these unwanted cells.
The reality is that increased costs are a red herring in this debate. Most would gladly spend an extra hundred dollars a year if they knew it would give them more time to spend with elderly family members. Unfortunately we have reached a point where politics now trumps decency and compassion and we get people booing a serviceman because he is gay, cheering the death of an uninsured man, and wild applause for executing death row inmates.
While most Americans could use more dollars in their pocket, believing that a nominal amount of cash is an acceptable rationale for letting others suffer and die shows that as a country our biggest deficiency has nothing to do with money.
Gay Marriage, Bestiality and Polygamy - one of these things is not like the others
One of the queerest arguments I've heard against gay marriage is the slippery slope idea that if gays are allowed to get married then a man marrying an animal or a man having multiple wives is next.
It should be noted that zoophilia and polygamy are both illegal while being gay is not. The reality is that being gay does not preclude one from getting a license to drive, vote or purchase a handgun. So if gay marriage is not illegal and homosexuals are not seen as second class citizens by any other measure why should they be subject to restrictions others are not.
Of course these people never consider the counterfactual to their simplistic argument. If sexual orientation can be used to discriminate when it comes to marriage what's next? Perhaps these same people will take aim at other sinners like overweight gluttons, lazy sloths or those who exhibited the rage of wrath. But why stop there, felons aren't allowed to own a gun so why should they be allowed to get a marriage license? Adulterers have obviously proven they aren't serious about the solemn vows of marriage. Maybe anyone with a handicap shouldn't be given the opportunity to share their life with someone. Marriages between individuals of different faiths are three times as likely to end in divorce so why let them get married in the first place. Also some believe the purpose of marriage is to birth children so perhaps anyone incapable of producing offspring shouldn't be allowed to marry.
The reason these people manufacture such off the wall arguments is because there is no reality based justification for their bigotry. If these people really cared as deeply as the claim about the institution of marriage they would put their anti-gay energy into improving marriages instead of restricting who can marry. With nearly 50% of marriages ending in divorce they could use their exuberance to lower that number by eliminating spousal abuse, helping some before they have an affair, counseling those with addiction, warning people of the pitfalls of working too much or increasing everyone's educational achievement - all of which will lower divorce rates and secure the sanctity of marriage.
But if you think that 1 in 25 people that you see on the street who were born gay are somehow inhuman deviants who deserve to have their rights restricted - I will pray for you.
It should be noted that zoophilia and polygamy are both illegal while being gay is not. The reality is that being gay does not preclude one from getting a license to drive, vote or purchase a handgun. So if gay marriage is not illegal and homosexuals are not seen as second class citizens by any other measure why should they be subject to restrictions others are not.
Of course these people never consider the counterfactual to their simplistic argument. If sexual orientation can be used to discriminate when it comes to marriage what's next? Perhaps these same people will take aim at other sinners like overweight gluttons, lazy sloths or those who exhibited the rage of wrath. But why stop there, felons aren't allowed to own a gun so why should they be allowed to get a marriage license? Adulterers have obviously proven they aren't serious about the solemn vows of marriage. Maybe anyone with a handicap shouldn't be given the opportunity to share their life with someone. Marriages between individuals of different faiths are three times as likely to end in divorce so why let them get married in the first place. Also some believe the purpose of marriage is to birth children so perhaps anyone incapable of producing offspring shouldn't be allowed to marry.
The reason these people manufacture such off the wall arguments is because there is no reality based justification for their bigotry. If these people really cared as deeply as the claim about the institution of marriage they would put their anti-gay energy into improving marriages instead of restricting who can marry. With nearly 50% of marriages ending in divorce they could use their exuberance to lower that number by eliminating spousal abuse, helping some before they have an affair, counseling those with addiction, warning people of the pitfalls of working too much or increasing everyone's educational achievement - all of which will lower divorce rates and secure the sanctity of marriage.
But if you think that 1 in 25 people that you see on the street who were born gay are somehow inhuman deviants who deserve to have their rights restricted - I will pray for you.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Obama has time for NCAA bracket but not Federal Budget
Last week the good folks over at Breitbart.com and Fox News trotted out their latest in faux outrage - Obama filled out an NCAA bracket but didn't submit a Federal Budget. And of course good soldiers like Representative Tim Walberg were more than happy to fall in line and tweet their enmity.
I'm not sure how many brackets these people have filled out but if they are spending as much time on their NCAA brackets as they would a Federal Budget they are either investing way too much time on their bracket or way too little time on a Federal Budget.
Having said that, seeing someone like Tim Walberg call out the President for wasting time, is laughably ironic. 36 times now Republicans have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a vote that if successful would have to get by a presidential veto from the same guy have championed the legislation in the first place. And this doesn't just waste the time of one person. This involves valuable legislative time.
Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg. Rather than having substantive meetings working out meaningful compromises, Congress has become one big political advertisement where votes are mainly held to put the views of legislators on record. These include such symbolic votes as the Ryan budget, the Keystone XL pipeline, opposition to increasing the D=debt-limit, the Bush tax cuts, internet sales tax, ban on abortions for "gender-selection", cutting DOJ salaries, and defunding Planned Parenthood, PBS, and NPR.
Not surprisingly, the complaints about what the president spends his time on are equally as symbolic since the issues surrounding the Federal Budget are significantly more involved than can possibly be explained in a tweet. But this is a sign of the times and a large part of the reason why congressional approval continues to hover in the teens. Politicians are constantly running for office which has forced them to treat members of the opposite party as combatants instead of colleagues. They have essentially become power hungry used car salesmen - willing to do anything to seal the deal.
I'm not sure how many brackets these people have filled out but if they are spending as much time on their NCAA brackets as they would a Federal Budget they are either investing way too much time on their bracket or way too little time on a Federal Budget.
Having said that, seeing someone like Tim Walberg call out the President for wasting time, is laughably ironic. 36 times now Republicans have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a vote that if successful would have to get by a presidential veto from the same guy have championed the legislation in the first place. And this doesn't just waste the time of one person. This involves valuable legislative time.
Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg. Rather than having substantive meetings working out meaningful compromises, Congress has become one big political advertisement where votes are mainly held to put the views of legislators on record. These include such symbolic votes as the Ryan budget, the Keystone XL pipeline, opposition to increasing the D=debt-limit, the Bush tax cuts, internet sales tax, ban on abortions for "gender-selection", cutting DOJ salaries, and defunding Planned Parenthood, PBS, and NPR.
Not surprisingly, the complaints about what the president spends his time on are equally as symbolic since the issues surrounding the Federal Budget are significantly more involved than can possibly be explained in a tweet. But this is a sign of the times and a large part of the reason why congressional approval continues to hover in the teens. Politicians are constantly running for office which has forced them to treat members of the opposite party as combatants instead of colleagues. They have essentially become power hungry used car salesmen - willing to do anything to seal the deal.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Republican hypocrisy on Emergency Manager Protest
Republicans have got themselves whipped up into a frenzy over the protests Jesse Jackson has organized in opposition to the takeover of Detroit by the governor appointed Emergency Manager.
They view these protests as some form of extortion of thuggery. The irony of course is how little concern they have for these tactics when the shoe is on the other foot. When corporate CEO's informed employees that an Obama victory in November would mean layoffs it was meant to influence their employee's votes. When Papa John's CEO John Schnatter threatened to raise the price of pizzas if the Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed he did so to pressure politicians. And when corporations threaten employees who are considering forming a union they do it to compel these employees to abandon their efforts.
Be it organized by the common man or the global corporation, these tactics are meant to intimidate and coerce and Republicans support these methods every time when the perpetrators bankroll the advancement of an ideology they agree with.
But being hypocritical is par for the course with these people. The difference between right and wrong is determined by who benefits most not some phantom moral belief they pretend dictates their decisions. So rather than have an honest discussion about how the Emergency Manager law, that grants Governor Snyder the authority to usurp the power of elected officials in favor of a Detroit dictator, was voted down by the people and only exists because of political maneuvering much like the maneuvering that has been the source of much consternation for conservatives regarding legislation enacted under President Obama.
And it wouldn't be a Republican rant without the racial undertones. Given that a true grass roots movement of the people often includes a multitude of skin colors not oft associated with the Republican Party, conservatives are again trotting out their recently minted meme that minorities are racist and old white guys are being repressed.
Look, if you don't like being called racist then stop being so racist. If you don't like protests that force your covert agenda into the light of day then stop plotting against the will of the people. And if you don't want Jesse Jackson in your town then don't give him a reason to be there.
The protestors are not rooting for Detroit to fail. They are just voicing their concerns and hoping to sway public opinion to address the problems with Detroit in a more democratic way. My colleague Dawud Walid does a good job of laying out the concerns that many of the people of Detroit probably have with the new Emergency Manager. Unfortunately Republicans are too either too ignorant or arrogant to understand.
While the work of Jesse Jackson and fight against the Emergency Manager law are probably a lost cause, this is a moment Detroiter's, union members, R.I.N.O's and Democrats across Michigan should remember because the only thing more entertaining than watching all of these Republicans completely contradict all the values and principles they claim to hold so dear will be watching newly elected Democrats and reasonable Republicans slowly dismantle all of the big government, anti-democratic, overreach these congressman and their corporate backers spend so much time and money on.
They view these protests as some form of extortion of thuggery. The irony of course is how little concern they have for these tactics when the shoe is on the other foot. When corporate CEO's informed employees that an Obama victory in November would mean layoffs it was meant to influence their employee's votes. When Papa John's CEO John Schnatter threatened to raise the price of pizzas if the Affordable Care Act wasn't repealed he did so to pressure politicians. And when corporations threaten employees who are considering forming a union they do it to compel these employees to abandon their efforts.
Be it organized by the common man or the global corporation, these tactics are meant to intimidate and coerce and Republicans support these methods every time when the perpetrators bankroll the advancement of an ideology they agree with.
But being hypocritical is par for the course with these people. The difference between right and wrong is determined by who benefits most not some phantom moral belief they pretend dictates their decisions. So rather than have an honest discussion about how the Emergency Manager law, that grants Governor Snyder the authority to usurp the power of elected officials in favor of a Detroit dictator, was voted down by the people and only exists because of political maneuvering much like the maneuvering that has been the source of much consternation for conservatives regarding legislation enacted under President Obama.
And it wouldn't be a Republican rant without the racial undertones. Given that a true grass roots movement of the people often includes a multitude of skin colors not oft associated with the Republican Party, conservatives are again trotting out their recently minted meme that minorities are racist and old white guys are being repressed.
Look, if you don't like being called racist then stop being so racist. If you don't like protests that force your covert agenda into the light of day then stop plotting against the will of the people. And if you don't want Jesse Jackson in your town then don't give him a reason to be there.
The protestors are not rooting for Detroit to fail. They are just voicing their concerns and hoping to sway public opinion to address the problems with Detroit in a more democratic way. My colleague Dawud Walid does a good job of laying out the concerns that many of the people of Detroit probably have with the new Emergency Manager. Unfortunately Republicans are too either too ignorant or arrogant to understand.
While the work of Jesse Jackson and fight against the Emergency Manager law are probably a lost cause, this is a moment Detroiter's, union members, R.I.N.O's and Democrats across Michigan should remember because the only thing more entertaining than watching all of these Republicans completely contradict all the values and principles they claim to hold so dear will be watching newly elected Democrats and reasonable Republicans slowly dismantle all of the big government, anti-democratic, overreach these congressman and their corporate backers spend so much time and money on.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Better education requires smarter politicians.
When it comes to education the goal for changes we make to the system should be based on improvement. Unfortunately the Republican solutions seem to value privatization over all else.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter schools perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
For some Republicans outcomes is secondary to their belief that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure as 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter schools perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
For some Republicans outcomes is secondary to their belief that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure as 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
Climate change will kill us all!
Every time the weather gets a little colder that usual conservative conspiracy theories come out of the woodworks, thumping their chests and claiming the "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are just some liberal media hoax imagined by Al Gore and his posse of green corporate pirates (also known as "job creators" when lead by Republicans). And rather than supply anything that counters the litany of data that exists in opposition to their position they pretend that because they have to put on a winter hat and jacket they are suddenly experts in science.
Each week they come up with a new completely unsupported argument that is instantly embraced by climate deniers regardless of the facts. Last week it was "remember when it was Global Cooling" and this week's trendy denial is "no statistically significant warming’ between 1995 and 2009". Next week it will be another misunderstanding of the facts or clever manipulation of reality and you can guarantee that every week it will include some form of "liberal media bias" since believing in a meme is much easier for climate denying simpletons than reading a scientific article.
The reality is that the earth is getting warmer, there is more CO2 in the air now than ever, and the strength and severity of storms are growing.
While many conservatives may not take climate change seriously entities like the insurance industry, the US military and even Exxon Mobil certainly do.
In a recent report to investors Exxon Mobil made the following statements:
"Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks poses by rising greenhouse gas emissions"
"we believe an economy-wide, revenue neutral, greenhouse gas (carbon) tax is the tool most likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the minimum cost to society."
"Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world's growing energy need over the coming decades will incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change."
"In 2010, ExxonMobil and SGI opened a new greenhouse research and testing facility, entering an important second stage in the collaboration to develop strains of
algae that could produce refinery feedstock and make transportation fuels."
If President Obama or other leading Democrats made these statements you could be certain Fox News and the "Society of Climate Change Deniers" would make fun of algae as a solution or lament the Socialism of a carbon tax, but the truth is when you are forced to put your money where your mouth is - climate change is a real and serious issue.
Each week they come up with a new completely unsupported argument that is instantly embraced by climate deniers regardless of the facts. Last week it was "remember when it was Global Cooling" and this week's trendy denial is "no statistically significant warming’ between 1995 and 2009". Next week it will be another misunderstanding of the facts or clever manipulation of reality and you can guarantee that every week it will include some form of "liberal media bias" since believing in a meme is much easier for climate denying simpletons than reading a scientific article.
The reality is that the earth is getting warmer, there is more CO2 in the air now than ever, and the strength and severity of storms are growing.
While many conservatives may not take climate change seriously entities like the insurance industry, the US military and even Exxon Mobil certainly do.
In a recent report to investors Exxon Mobil made the following statements:
"Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks poses by rising greenhouse gas emissions"
"we believe an economy-wide, revenue neutral, greenhouse gas (carbon) tax is the tool most likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the minimum cost to society."
"Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world's growing energy need over the coming decades will incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change."
"In 2010, ExxonMobil and SGI opened a new greenhouse research and testing facility, entering an important second stage in the collaboration to develop strains of
algae that could produce refinery feedstock and make transportation fuels."
If President Obama or other leading Democrats made these statements you could be certain Fox News and the "Society of Climate Change Deniers" would make fun of algae as a solution or lament the Socialism of a carbon tax, but the truth is when you are forced to put your money where your mouth is - climate change is a real and serious issue.
Monday, March 18, 2013
The New Host Of UP?
There was something of a bombshell dropped last Wednesday night (3/13/13) when Ed Schultz abruptly, at least to the non-insider, announced he was abandoning the 8pm slot (M-F) in the MSNBC lineup. This announcement put the preimo time slot up for grabs (even if the show is likely destined to lose to Fox blowhard, Bill O'Reilly).
Speculation quickly grew over who would get the time slot, with Ezra Klein being called the front-runner. However,it was announced within ~12 hours of Schultz's announcement that Chris Hayes would be moving to host a new show in that time slot. This leaves an opening at Up which airs Saturday and Sunday from 8am-10am. So, who is going to replace Chris Hayes? The post is about making that prediction.
LONGSHOTS:
JOY REID (8%): Joy will get a look. She is a frequent commentator on the network and does a nice job. I see her as a longshot because, as far as I know, she has very little hosting experience. To be honest, I've never seen her host a show so I can't comment on her ability to interview or lead a panel discussion. I'm giving her as much as a 10% chance because she was guest hosting Melissa Harris-Perry the very weekend that the job opened up... was this something of a test? If so, did she pass? I have no idea - I didn't watch!
SAM SEDER (5%): The chances for Sam are slim because he currently has no official role with the network. This does not fit the model that we have witnessed with Maddow, O'Donnell, Hayes, & MHP all being insiders prior to getting their respective hosting gigs. However, Ed Schultz was brought in from the outside, so it is not impossible. Moreover, Seder is one of only a couple guest hosts in the relatively brief history of Up with Chris Hayes; that has got to give him at least a punchers chance.
ARI MELBER (2%): There seems to be little buzz around Ari's chances. He has no hosting experience (as far as I know). However, he is a frequent MSNBC commentator who really knows his stuff. A likeable wonk who would presumably be able to hold the current viewers of Up.
OTHER (10%): There are other players within the network (moving an Alex Wagner or Krystal Ball) but mostly this covers the possibility that the network will look outside and go for a big splash. Jennifer Granholm!?!? Could Eliot Spitzer get on his third network in the past three years? Don't count on it!
CO-FAVORITES:
EZRA KLEIN (35%): Ezra has a bright future with MSNBC; there seems to be little question about that. I have no doubt he could do a great job as the new host of Up. He's smart and engaging - seemingly a very hard worker and a team-player (given how often he shows up on the assorted MSNBC shows in his role as a policy analyst) - and, importantly, likeable. The only reason I will not call him the definitive favorite is that it's possible he is so valuable in his current role (policy analyst and, often, the Friday night host of The Last Word), that perhaps the network heads could hope to keep him in his current role for the time being with the intention of giving him a more high profile role down the line (replacement for Lawrence O'Donnell? Taking the 7pm hour from Hardball? This is, needless to say, nothing but wild speculation!)?
STEVE KORNACKI (40%): To me, this just makes the most sense. The fans of Up with Chris Hayes should embrace Kornacki. He brings the same wonkish style and formidable intellect. Morever, he has guest hosted for Chris Hayes before (over the X-Mas holiday as I recall) and did a fine job in my opinion. This, presumably, gives him at least a small advantage over Klein. His current role as one of four co-hosts on The Cycle (3pm) is expendable. He could be replaced on that show with little problem... would Ari Melber want the role?
The announcement will be coming soon. Who ya got?!?
UPDATE: Nailed it! Steve Kornacki has been announced as the new host of Up.
Speculation quickly grew over who would get the time slot, with Ezra Klein being called the front-runner. However,it was announced within ~12 hours of Schultz's announcement that Chris Hayes would be moving to host a new show in that time slot. This leaves an opening at Up which airs Saturday and Sunday from 8am-10am. So, who is going to replace Chris Hayes? The post is about making that prediction.
LONGSHOTS:
JOY REID (8%): Joy will get a look. She is a frequent commentator on the network and does a nice job. I see her as a longshot because, as far as I know, she has very little hosting experience. To be honest, I've never seen her host a show so I can't comment on her ability to interview or lead a panel discussion. I'm giving her as much as a 10% chance because she was guest hosting Melissa Harris-Perry the very weekend that the job opened up... was this something of a test? If so, did she pass? I have no idea - I didn't watch!
SAM SEDER (5%): The chances for Sam are slim because he currently has no official role with the network. This does not fit the model that we have witnessed with Maddow, O'Donnell, Hayes, & MHP all being insiders prior to getting their respective hosting gigs. However, Ed Schultz was brought in from the outside, so it is not impossible. Moreover, Seder is one of only a couple guest hosts in the relatively brief history of Up with Chris Hayes; that has got to give him at least a punchers chance.
ARI MELBER (2%): There seems to be little buzz around Ari's chances. He has no hosting experience (as far as I know). However, he is a frequent MSNBC commentator who really knows his stuff. A likeable wonk who would presumably be able to hold the current viewers of Up.
OTHER (10%): There are other players within the network (moving an Alex Wagner or Krystal Ball) but mostly this covers the possibility that the network will look outside and go for a big splash. Jennifer Granholm!?!? Could Eliot Spitzer get on his third network in the past three years? Don't count on it!
CO-FAVORITES:
EZRA KLEIN (35%): Ezra has a bright future with MSNBC; there seems to be little question about that. I have no doubt he could do a great job as the new host of Up. He's smart and engaging - seemingly a very hard worker and a team-player (given how often he shows up on the assorted MSNBC shows in his role as a policy analyst) - and, importantly, likeable. The only reason I will not call him the definitive favorite is that it's possible he is so valuable in his current role (policy analyst and, often, the Friday night host of The Last Word), that perhaps the network heads could hope to keep him in his current role for the time being with the intention of giving him a more high profile role down the line (replacement for Lawrence O'Donnell? Taking the 7pm hour from Hardball? This is, needless to say, nothing but wild speculation!)?
STEVE KORNACKI (40%): To me, this just makes the most sense. The fans of Up with Chris Hayes should embrace Kornacki. He brings the same wonkish style and formidable intellect. Morever, he has guest hosted for Chris Hayes before (over the X-Mas holiday as I recall) and did a fine job in my opinion. This, presumably, gives him at least a small advantage over Klein. His current role as one of four co-hosts on The Cycle (3pm) is expendable. He could be replaced on that show with little problem... would Ari Melber want the role?
The announcement will be coming soon. Who ya got?!?
UPDATE: Nailed it! Steve Kornacki has been announced as the new host of Up.
Congress is the Post Office's biggest problem
If you watched any television this weekend you probably saw the National Association of Letter Carriers ad extolling the virtues of the US Postal service while spreading the fear of the diminished service Americans can expect from reduced hours and staff.
Many Republicans conveniently place the blame for the USPS’s financial troubles at the feet of unions using cleverly manipulated statistics, yet when comparing apples to apples the cost of employees for USPS are similar to that of USP and FedEx. Additionally it should be noted that the employees at UPS are also unionized and FedEx claims that the wages and benefits they offer are competitive with UPS.
Given this, it seems like a stretch to place the blame for the postal service’s troubles at the feet of unions. While the cost of employees tends to be similar across these organizations there is one thing holding back the USPS that doesn’t affect UPS and FedEx – their management.
If UPS or FedEx wants to raise the rates on their services they simply raise their rates without any government involvement. The USPS on the other hand can only raise rates if Congress gives them the green light to do so.
If you take a look at the costs to ship the USPS wins hands down. It doesn’t matter is you ship overnight or standard ground, USPS wins - often times charging half of what it would take to ship using their competitors.
So perhaps the real problem here is Congress. While the Post Office should certainly be examining changes they can make to streamline their service and cut costs, it will all be for naught unless Congress lets the USPS compete in the free market. Otherwise the blood for the death of the post office falls squarely on the hands of our elected officials not postal employees.
Many Republicans conveniently place the blame for the USPS’s financial troubles at the feet of unions using cleverly manipulated statistics, yet when comparing apples to apples the cost of employees for USPS are similar to that of USP and FedEx. Additionally it should be noted that the employees at UPS are also unionized and FedEx claims that the wages and benefits they offer are competitive with UPS.
Given this, it seems like a stretch to place the blame for the postal service’s troubles at the feet of unions. While the cost of employees tends to be similar across these organizations there is one thing holding back the USPS that doesn’t affect UPS and FedEx – their management.
If UPS or FedEx wants to raise the rates on their services they simply raise their rates without any government involvement. The USPS on the other hand can only raise rates if Congress gives them the green light to do so.
If you take a look at the costs to ship the USPS wins hands down. It doesn’t matter is you ship overnight or standard ground, USPS wins - often times charging half of what it would take to ship using their competitors.
So perhaps the real problem here is Congress. While the Post Office should certainly be examining changes they can make to streamline their service and cut costs, it will all be for naught unless Congress lets the USPS compete in the free market. Otherwise the blood for the death of the post office falls squarely on the hands of our elected officials not postal employees.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Better education requires smarter politicians
When it comes to education the goal for changes we make to the system should be based on improvement. Unfortunately the Republican solutions seem to value privatization over all else.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter school perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
Having said that, one of the topics typically left out of this discussion is the leeway given to Charter schools and their teachers. Leeway that is not available to public schools. Since government has set up a system to standardize public schools which limits innovation, it is not an apples to apples comparison. If innovation is the key driver behind improved performance at some Charter schools then perhaps the answer is less government involvement in the class room not more Charter schools.
For some Republicans having equivalent outcomes is better because they have been told that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure and 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
While the added protections of tenure do require school systems to provide reason behind their release, preventing some of the questionable firings that you are seeing today, it is hardly the guaranteed "job for life" opponents make it out it be. The reality is that the turnover rate for educators is higher than the national average because many of the lowest performing teachers leave voluntarily.
And while the belief that teachers are overpaid is popular among reformist it should be noted that our stagnation of educational outcomes tracks closely with the drop in pay for teachers when compared with other similarly educated Americans. The data also shows that many of the countries that we trail in educational achievement place a higher value on their educators than America does.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
In state after state Republican legislators claim that public education is broken yet rather than looking at the fact based data that shows the best methods for improving performance they insist on changes that don't improve education but rather changes that address their political donor's priorities.
The main Republican education solutions tend to be more Charter schools, end unions, and fire more teachers. Luckily by now there is enough data to show the false promise of these "solutions".
First it should be noted that while some Charter schools outperform their public school counterparts, there are also a lot of Charter schools that underperform compared to public schools. In fact 15% of all Charter schools have been closed because of their dismal results. On average Charter school perform no better than public schools so if public schools are broken then so are the Republican solution.
Having said that, one of the topics typically left out of this discussion is the leeway given to Charter schools and their teachers. Leeway that is not available to public schools. Since government has set up a system to standardize public schools which limits innovation, it is not an apples to apples comparison. If innovation is the key driver behind improved performance at some Charter schools then perhaps the answer is less government involvement in the class room not more Charter schools.
For some Republicans having equivalent outcomes is better because they have been told that Charter schools cost less. Of course this is a prevalent fallacy among conservatives. While some Charter schools do cost less than public schools, others cost more. But if you analyze the data you will see the smoke and mirrors required to achieve this savings. For example Charter schools serve less of the costliest and neediest students, they hire younger teachers with lower qualifications, and they have fewer restrictions when it comes to removing the most time consuming and disruptive students.
Another perceived value of Charter schools is the belief that they are free to fire all of the bad teachers that have infested our public schools yet data shows that Charter schools don't tend to fire more teachers than public schools. While prevalent, this idea that you can't fire bad teachers is inaccurate. Opponents often quote statistics regarding the low number of tenured teachers who get released. The reality is that many of the mythical "bad" teachers are weeded out before they reach tenure and 46% of educators leave the profession in the first five years. The majority of those left have been thoroughly vetted and are dedicated to helping America's children.
While the added protections of tenure do require school systems to provide reason behind their release, preventing some of the questionable firings that you are seeing today, it is hardly the guaranteed "job for life" opponents make it out it be. The reality is that the turnover rate for educators is higher than the national average because many of the lowest performing teachers leave voluntarily.
And while the belief that teachers are overpaid is popular among reformist it should be noted that our stagnation of educational outcomes tracks closely with the drop in pay for teachers when compared with other similarly educated Americans. The data also shows that many of the countries that we trail in educational achievement place a higher value on their educators than America does.
Of course the problems with the Republicans "solutions" don't stop there. Contrary to their belief unionized teachers do not produce worse educational outcomes, nor do they cost more. Also for a group that is worried about where their tax dollars go and the alleged corruption of unions they seem to completely ignore the growing financial mismanagement among Charter schools or that fact that Charter schools pay their administrators more than public schools. And perhaps worst of all; these "buy American" anti-immigrant fanatics seem oblivious to the massive amounts of foreign funds that are flowing into Charter schools from other countries. Essentially your tax dollars are legally being funneled to foreigners through Republican sponsored Charter schools.
Rather than arbitrarily castigating public employees and peculating tax payer dollars under the false hope of privatization, legislators should focus on changes that actually improve outcomes for everyone like Reducing poverty, using evaluations as a means to identify educators deficiencies and enhance their performance instead of a means to fire, increase parent involvement, incentivize student achievement, increase recess time, and include teachers in the leadership role. Because until politicians educate themselves on what actually improves educational outcomes tax payers will continue to be the mark in this politically motivated game of Three card Monte.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Why "right to work" is wrong
Groups like the NFIB will tell anyone who will listen how awful they think unions are for businesses and why "right to work" legislation is so great. It should be noted however that the NFIB is a bias source. That doesn't mean their information is inherently wrong it just means it should certainly be questioned and when it comes to their stance on unions they are only giving you half of the story.
Contrary to what these groups would have you believe the formation of unions is not some Communist process. The members of a given organization must vote to become and union and that vote is majority rule just like the rest of our democracy. If the union is failing its members they can vote at anytime to decertify the union. Making a special exemption in democracy to allow some union members to receive all of the benefits of union representation without having to pay for it is not democratic.
Ironically Republicans can't stand when citizens "don't pay any taxes" while still receiving the benefits of roads, police, and military yet when it comes to getting higher pay, insurance, and a safe work place being a freeloader is just fine with them.
And while being "forced" to pay to work is clearly unconstitutional these same groups don't seem to care about being forced to pay to live where you want. If you live in a subdivision where you are forced to pay an "association due" in exchange for "services" you cannot refuse to pay simply because you "don't see any value in" the association.
Perhaps your dues are all being used properly or perhaps your home owners association is misusing the money like in California where association dues were giving to a political action committee against the wishes of the residents, or in North Carolina where friends of the some HOA board members were giving contracts that amounted to price gouging, or in Oregon where some $2 millions in dues went "missing".
Abuses like this are part of the rationale for ending the "forced" pay to unions so why should HOAs be exempt?
But this is always the problem with groups like the NFIB. They pretend that unions can do no right and businesses can do no wrong.
The truth is eliminating unions doesn't eliminate abuses, corruption or top officials living high on the hog. It just shifts the beneficiaries.
If the rhetoric from conservative is correct and union members earn more than their private sector counterparts then cases like school bus services, private prisons, and contracted TSA agents, that all cost more than their corresponding public sector entity, show that union leadership is taking less of the public's money than the top brass in the private sector.
And this is the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. They are all for fleecing US citizens if that money goes to private corporations who donate 15 times as much money to political campaigns as labor unions. Republicans continue to game the system and design special rules for unions not because they believe in choice, value propositions, or economic benefits. No, it is a scam to win elections and weaken the power of the working class further; concentrating the wealth of the nation under the fallacy of job creators.
The reality is unions are the best tool available to the working class to close the income gap while guaranteeing basic human needs of health and safety. Unions may not be perfect but the Republican "solution" of lowering working class wages and increasing tax payer costs to pad the pockets of top contributors is worse.
Contrary to what these groups would have you believe the formation of unions is not some Communist process. The members of a given organization must vote to become and union and that vote is majority rule just like the rest of our democracy. If the union is failing its members they can vote at anytime to decertify the union. Making a special exemption in democracy to allow some union members to receive all of the benefits of union representation without having to pay for it is not democratic.
Ironically Republicans can't stand when citizens "don't pay any taxes" while still receiving the benefits of roads, police, and military yet when it comes to getting higher pay, insurance, and a safe work place being a freeloader is just fine with them.
And while being "forced" to pay to work is clearly unconstitutional these same groups don't seem to care about being forced to pay to live where you want. If you live in a subdivision where you are forced to pay an "association due" in exchange for "services" you cannot refuse to pay simply because you "don't see any value in" the association.
Perhaps your dues are all being used properly or perhaps your home owners association is misusing the money like in California where association dues were giving to a political action committee against the wishes of the residents, or in North Carolina where friends of the some HOA board members were giving contracts that amounted to price gouging, or in Oregon where some $2 millions in dues went "missing".
Abuses like this are part of the rationale for ending the "forced" pay to unions so why should HOAs be exempt?
But this is always the problem with groups like the NFIB. They pretend that unions can do no right and businesses can do no wrong.
The truth is eliminating unions doesn't eliminate abuses, corruption or top officials living high on the hog. It just shifts the beneficiaries.
If the rhetoric from conservative is correct and union members earn more than their private sector counterparts then cases like school bus services, private prisons, and contracted TSA agents, that all cost more than their corresponding public sector entity, show that union leadership is taking less of the public's money than the top brass in the private sector.
And this is the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. They are all for fleecing US citizens if that money goes to private corporations who donate 15 times as much money to political campaigns as labor unions. Republicans continue to game the system and design special rules for unions not because they believe in choice, value propositions, or economic benefits. No, it is a scam to win elections and weaken the power of the working class further; concentrating the wealth of the nation under the fallacy of job creators.
The reality is unions are the best tool available to the working class to close the income gap while guaranteeing basic human needs of health and safety. Unions may not be perfect but the Republican "solution" of lowering working class wages and increasing tax payer costs to pad the pockets of top contributors is worse.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
What Republicans could learn from Ronald Reagan
Since the 2012 presidential election Republicans have been spending a lot of time trying to figure out what went wrong and how they can fix those issues moving forward. Unfortunately all of their actions suggest they still don't get it.
A recent Fox News interview with Mitt Romney and his wife Ann give some insight into the thought process of many top Republican leaders. When talking about why he lost the election Mitt said "We weren’t effective taking our message to minority voters". But the reality is the message was received loud and clear, thanks to nearly $500 million in campaign spending, and minorities didn't like what they heard.
And when Ann discussed how she felt when they realized they had lost she said "It was a crushing disappointment. Not for us. Our lives are going to be fine. It's for the country." because Ann can't comprehend how anyone could view things differently. How could anyone not want the America that Mitt Romney envisioned?
The Romney's statements represent the core of the problem; the Republican message doesn't resonate with enough American's. But rather than accepting this lesson they continue to insist it is just an image problem.
So when a black man beats them for the President of the United States of America they go out and hire a black man to run the party. When women flock to the Democrat party Republicans tap a women for the Vice President position. And when they lose the Hispanic vote they thrust one of the few Hispanic voices in their party into the spotlight.
While the attempt to increase diversity in the Republican Party is a welcome sight, the message never changed. Having a black man as the head of the RNC didn't change the belief among Republicans that blacks were takers. Having a women as the VP candidate didn't stop the onslaught of attacks on women's rights. And pushing a Hispanic Senator to the fore hasn't changed the overall Republican opposition to immigration reform.
Right now the Republican "fix" to their lack of popularity is the ultimate in putting lipstick on the pig and this strategy only magnifies how little they understand the very people they are trying to court.
Picking minorities whose views are out of step with the bulk of voters in their given demographic simply because they are minorities will not make Republicans more attractive to these voters.
No the real answer for the solving the Republican popularity problem can be found in the teachings of Ronald Reagan. While many in the Republican Party claim to idolize the former president they seem to forget that his greatest accomplishment wasn't his policy but his accessibility.
If Republicans truly understood this lesson they would invite Chris Christie to be the key note speaker at C-PAC instead of ostracizing him. They would also drop the moniker RINO since it only serves to further constrict the reach of the party. As Jeb Bush and Michael Reagan both pointed out recently Ronald Reagan would be too moderate for today's Republican Party and that should be a giant red flag.
What Republicans need to do now is Fabreze the old man smell out of the congressional chambers and moderate. Keeping the same "stand for nothing" legislators in place while allowing the base to pull the Republican party further to the right only assures future failure.
A recent Fox News interview with Mitt Romney and his wife Ann give some insight into the thought process of many top Republican leaders. When talking about why he lost the election Mitt said "We weren’t effective taking our message to minority voters". But the reality is the message was received loud and clear, thanks to nearly $500 million in campaign spending, and minorities didn't like what they heard.
And when Ann discussed how she felt when they realized they had lost she said "It was a crushing disappointment. Not for us. Our lives are going to be fine. It's for the country." because Ann can't comprehend how anyone could view things differently. How could anyone not want the America that Mitt Romney envisioned?
The Romney's statements represent the core of the problem; the Republican message doesn't resonate with enough American's. But rather than accepting this lesson they continue to insist it is just an image problem.
So when a black man beats them for the President of the United States of America they go out and hire a black man to run the party. When women flock to the Democrat party Republicans tap a women for the Vice President position. And when they lose the Hispanic vote they thrust one of the few Hispanic voices in their party into the spotlight.
While the attempt to increase diversity in the Republican Party is a welcome sight, the message never changed. Having a black man as the head of the RNC didn't change the belief among Republicans that blacks were takers. Having a women as the VP candidate didn't stop the onslaught of attacks on women's rights. And pushing a Hispanic Senator to the fore hasn't changed the overall Republican opposition to immigration reform.
Right now the Republican "fix" to their lack of popularity is the ultimate in putting lipstick on the pig and this strategy only magnifies how little they understand the very people they are trying to court.
Picking minorities whose views are out of step with the bulk of voters in their given demographic simply because they are minorities will not make Republicans more attractive to these voters.
No the real answer for the solving the Republican popularity problem can be found in the teachings of Ronald Reagan. While many in the Republican Party claim to idolize the former president they seem to forget that his greatest accomplishment wasn't his policy but his accessibility.
If Republicans truly understood this lesson they would invite Chris Christie to be the key note speaker at C-PAC instead of ostracizing him. They would also drop the moniker RINO since it only serves to further constrict the reach of the party. As Jeb Bush and Michael Reagan both pointed out recently Ronald Reagan would be too moderate for today's Republican Party and that should be a giant red flag.
What Republicans need to do now is Fabreze the old man smell out of the congressional chambers and moderate. Keeping the same "stand for nothing" legislators in place while allowing the base to pull the Republican party further to the right only assures future failure.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Republicans casting stones over union extensions
Republicans seem to have a real problem with Democrats using constitutionally guaranteed loopholes to subvert the laws they worked so hard gerrymandering districts to secure.
The latest target of their hypocritical outrage involves Michigan unions that are working to extend their contracts in order to avoid the "right to work" law that Republicans snuck in the backdoor during last year’s lame duck session.
According to State Representative Bill Rogers this action by the unions is "unconscionable". Merriam Webster defines unconscionable as "shockingly unfair". It should be noted that the Federal Constitution is the basis for the union’s ability to avoid the “right to work” law that many would consider a shockingly unfair overreach by the Michigan legislature.
And in response to the union’s actions Greg McNeilly of the Michigan Freedom Fund says they will consider lawsuits against the unions and board members as well as recall campaigns. Yes for acting within the scope of the US Constitution Mr. McNeilly thinks that anyone agreeing to a contract that he dislikes should be punished to the fullest extent.
While the objections of both Mr. McNeilly and Representative Rogers are understandable the furor they are exhibiting seems unjust given their past actions.
Mr. McNeilly for example took a short break from his time as the Executive Director of the Michigan Republican party to support independent candidate Ralph Nader during the 2004 presidential election because everyone knows how closely Ralph Nader's views parallel that of an ardent Republican like Greg McNeilly - clearly no ill intentions here.
Bill Rogers on the other hand is so devoted to the sanctity of the democratic process that he never complained when his chamber of the legislature ingnored the states constitutional "immediate effect" roll call voting rules.
Representative Rogers also doesn't seem to find anything unconscionable about changing the Electoral College process for Michigan - a process that has been in place for nearly 200 years. And the sole purpose of these changes is to game the system to give Republicans a better shot at the White House.
Nor was he outraged when he voted to reinstate the Emergency Law that the people of Michigan had repealed just a month earlier which now includes a small appropriation thus avoiding any possible referendum in the future. Yes thumbing you nose at the will of the people and then intentionally removing their voice from the process moving forward is completely fine with Rep. Rogers.
Of course there is also the law that Representative Rogers introduced that was later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and the law he supported, which has been found unconstitutional elsewhere, to prevent Federal laws regarding any potential gun restriction from affecting Michigan. But perhaps the slimiest manipulation that Bill Rogers has pulled off was during his time as the Livingston County Commissioner when he gave construction companies in his county a sweetheart deal at the expense of tax payers. A deal that is still costing residents today. A deal with the potential to benefit his family’s construction business based in the area.
Perhaps the actions some unions around the state are taking seem in poor taste to Republicans but having two man who have tried to rig the outcome of elections, ignored the State and Federal Constitutions, and used the power of public office to possibly help the family business boost profits as your spokesmen is brazenly ironic and embarrassingly self serving.
The latest target of their hypocritical outrage involves Michigan unions that are working to extend their contracts in order to avoid the "right to work" law that Republicans snuck in the backdoor during last year’s lame duck session.
According to State Representative Bill Rogers this action by the unions is "unconscionable". Merriam Webster defines unconscionable as "shockingly unfair". It should be noted that the Federal Constitution is the basis for the union’s ability to avoid the “right to work” law that many would consider a shockingly unfair overreach by the Michigan legislature.
And in response to the union’s actions Greg McNeilly of the Michigan Freedom Fund says they will consider lawsuits against the unions and board members as well as recall campaigns. Yes for acting within the scope of the US Constitution Mr. McNeilly thinks that anyone agreeing to a contract that he dislikes should be punished to the fullest extent.
While the objections of both Mr. McNeilly and Representative Rogers are understandable the furor they are exhibiting seems unjust given their past actions.
Mr. McNeilly for example took a short break from his time as the Executive Director of the Michigan Republican party to support independent candidate Ralph Nader during the 2004 presidential election because everyone knows how closely Ralph Nader's views parallel that of an ardent Republican like Greg McNeilly - clearly no ill intentions here.
Bill Rogers on the other hand is so devoted to the sanctity of the democratic process that he never complained when his chamber of the legislature ingnored the states constitutional "immediate effect" roll call voting rules.
Representative Rogers also doesn't seem to find anything unconscionable about changing the Electoral College process for Michigan - a process that has been in place for nearly 200 years. And the sole purpose of these changes is to game the system to give Republicans a better shot at the White House.
Nor was he outraged when he voted to reinstate the Emergency Law that the people of Michigan had repealed just a month earlier which now includes a small appropriation thus avoiding any possible referendum in the future. Yes thumbing you nose at the will of the people and then intentionally removing their voice from the process moving forward is completely fine with Rep. Rogers.
Of course there is also the law that Representative Rogers introduced that was later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and the law he supported, which has been found unconstitutional elsewhere, to prevent Federal laws regarding any potential gun restriction from affecting Michigan. But perhaps the slimiest manipulation that Bill Rogers has pulled off was during his time as the Livingston County Commissioner when he gave construction companies in his county a sweetheart deal at the expense of tax payers. A deal that is still costing residents today. A deal with the potential to benefit his family’s construction business based in the area.
Perhaps the actions some unions around the state are taking seem in poor taste to Republicans but having two man who have tried to rig the outcome of elections, ignored the State and Federal Constitutions, and used the power of public office to possibly help the family business boost profits as your spokesmen is brazenly ironic and embarrassingly self serving.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Public employees are not the enemy
Voters have come to expect politicians to "frame" arguments in a way that supports their position. Unfortunately too many politicians are very generous with their definition of an "honest" discussion.
A recent example of this can be found on Tim Walberg’s twitter feed where he stated:
Today I voted to stop @whitehouse's executive action to raise Congressional pay. Washington doesn't need a pay raise
In these difficult economic times most would probably agree with his statement that congress doesn't need (deserve) a pay raise.
Of course if Representative Walberg was being completely honest he would have also mentioned in this tweet that the executive action from the White House was for all civil federal employees and that Congress could have easily excluded themselves from the deal while leaving the raise for the other 2 million federal employees.
The representative could have also included a few other relevant facts that would have made his "courageous" position seem a little less patriotic such as the fact that the pay for these federal employees has been frozen for the past two years and that the raise in question was only 0.5% compared to a nearly 2% annual increase in the private sector pay rate and a 3.6% cost of living increase for Social Security recipients.
Additionally it should be noted that this incremental increase would only cost the government $10 billion over 10 years while eliminating the capital gains tax - a move Tim Walberg supports and made an integral part of his election campaign - would cost 100 times as much or 1 trillion over the same time frame.
Both ideas accomplish the same goal of getting additional money into the hands of taxpayers who will theoretically spend it. The big difference is Tim Walberg supports $1 trillion dollars in lost revenue if it benefits the very rich while he opposes a fraction of that government spending if members of the working class are the main beneficiaries.
If Representative Walberg doesn't think 2 million working class American deserve a few hundred dollars in their pay checks this year that's fine and he should tweet that for all to see but in these tough economic times we should expect better from our elected officials than such dishonest campaign style rhetoric attacking our civil servants.
A recent example of this can be found on Tim Walberg’s twitter feed where he stated:
Today I voted to stop @whitehouse's executive action to raise Congressional pay. Washington doesn't need a pay raise
In these difficult economic times most would probably agree with his statement that congress doesn't need (deserve) a pay raise.
Of course if Representative Walberg was being completely honest he would have also mentioned in this tweet that the executive action from the White House was for all civil federal employees and that Congress could have easily excluded themselves from the deal while leaving the raise for the other 2 million federal employees.
The representative could have also included a few other relevant facts that would have made his "courageous" position seem a little less patriotic such as the fact that the pay for these federal employees has been frozen for the past two years and that the raise in question was only 0.5% compared to a nearly 2% annual increase in the private sector pay rate and a 3.6% cost of living increase for Social Security recipients.
Additionally it should be noted that this incremental increase would only cost the government $10 billion over 10 years while eliminating the capital gains tax - a move Tim Walberg supports and made an integral part of his election campaign - would cost 100 times as much or 1 trillion over the same time frame.
Both ideas accomplish the same goal of getting additional money into the hands of taxpayers who will theoretically spend it. The big difference is Tim Walberg supports $1 trillion dollars in lost revenue if it benefits the very rich while he opposes a fraction of that government spending if members of the working class are the main beneficiaries.
If Representative Walberg doesn't think 2 million working class American deserve a few hundred dollars in their pay checks this year that's fine and he should tweet that for all to see but in these tough economic times we should expect better from our elected officials than such dishonest campaign style rhetoric attacking our civil servants.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Business case for Climate Change
Regardless of the science behind it Climate Change is still a hotly debated topic. And this debate has far reaching implications that most don't consider. For example when parents deny the science of climate change or evolution and offer only their unprofessional opinion as proof they are teaching their kids that scientific methodologies that brought us a cure for Polio, that landed a man on the moon, and that lead to nuclear power are debatable.
And while many of these people will be the first to complain about the performance of our kids in school their arrogance could very well be the cause. After all if kids are constantly hearing that science is hokum then why would anyone want to become a scientist and if educators who teach evolution are "liars" why would kids treat them with respect. If parents are role models then these science denying parents are essentially telling kids that a layman’s understanding of the world is all you need and that professionals are not to be trusted.
Of course there are some who "believe" Climate Change is real they just don't think humans are responsible. But regardless of who is "responsible", Climate Change has a serious impact on all of us and we have a duty to find solutions. If a meteor were headed for the US we wouldn't just ignore it and say "well humans didn't create this problem". We would work together to prevent the devastating affects.
There is also a group that believes in Climate Change and thinks humans are responsible but think the solutions are "too expensive". While pervasive, this mentality couldn't be more wrong. As the old adage goes a stitch in time saves nine. The costs of Climate Change are not decreasing as the years go by. They are getting worse and failure to act now could have dire economic impacts later.
A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that as the temperature rises from Climate Change work production is lost. While some of that can be mitigated with air conditioners it should be noted that operating air conditioners has a cost as well. We are also losing out on the jobs that are created by accepting the reality of Climate Change and working to slow its progress, such as solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing because we have placed the concern over higher energy costs above that over job creation.
There is also the costs from events like Superstorm Sandy and the extreme drought that we experienced this year. Even the bastions of Republican ideology - corporations and the US military - agree that Climate Change represents a significant threat to America and the burden of the costs of these events will again fall on the American consumer.
Denying Climate Change may gain votes and sell ad time but like it or not the costs and catastrophes associated with it are real. However facts and data are not really being debated here. No, this debate exists because a segment of the population denies that the experts in the military, the science community and affected industries know more than they do. Until we fix the problem of unjustified ego and information deficit this country is currently experiencing - tackling a complex issue like Climate Change will be nearly impossible.
And while many of these people will be the first to complain about the performance of our kids in school their arrogance could very well be the cause. After all if kids are constantly hearing that science is hokum then why would anyone want to become a scientist and if educators who teach evolution are "liars" why would kids treat them with respect. If parents are role models then these science denying parents are essentially telling kids that a layman’s understanding of the world is all you need and that professionals are not to be trusted.
Of course there are some who "believe" Climate Change is real they just don't think humans are responsible. But regardless of who is "responsible", Climate Change has a serious impact on all of us and we have a duty to find solutions. If a meteor were headed for the US we wouldn't just ignore it and say "well humans didn't create this problem". We would work together to prevent the devastating affects.
There is also a group that believes in Climate Change and thinks humans are responsible but think the solutions are "too expensive". While pervasive, this mentality couldn't be more wrong. As the old adage goes a stitch in time saves nine. The costs of Climate Change are not decreasing as the years go by. They are getting worse and failure to act now could have dire economic impacts later.
A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that as the temperature rises from Climate Change work production is lost. While some of that can be mitigated with air conditioners it should be noted that operating air conditioners has a cost as well. We are also losing out on the jobs that are created by accepting the reality of Climate Change and working to slow its progress, such as solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing because we have placed the concern over higher energy costs above that over job creation.
There is also the costs from events like Superstorm Sandy and the extreme drought that we experienced this year. Even the bastions of Republican ideology - corporations and the US military - agree that Climate Change represents a significant threat to America and the burden of the costs of these events will again fall on the American consumer.
Denying Climate Change may gain votes and sell ad time but like it or not the costs and catastrophes associated with it are real. However facts and data are not really being debated here. No, this debate exists because a segment of the population denies that the experts in the military, the science community and affected industries know more than they do. Until we fix the problem of unjustified ego and information deficit this country is currently experiencing - tackling a complex issue like Climate Change will be nearly impossible.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Criminals will still get guns myth
One of the silliest arguments coming from gun advocates is that we don't need more gun controls since criminals will always find a way to get guns. Having said that this argument is used often enough that it seems some people truly believe this logic is a valid rationale for rebuking any further gun control measures.
While I'm inclined to think this is more of an excuse than credible justification perhaps Republicans are right. Perhaps we should get the government out of areas where individuals are likely to act regardless of laws or regulations. We could start by removing any and all government involvement in abortions - after all even if you make abortions illegal people are still going to get abortions and gun advocate logic tells us that given this reality the best course of action is to remove government completely.
We could do the same for illegal drugs. There is pretty strong data that shows even with increased volumes of laws, regulations and enforcement drugs are still being purchased and used at an alarming rate. Next we could eliminate border patrol. If we can't prevent 100% of illegal immigrants from piercing the veil of the moral utopia we call the United States of America then why bother stopping any. We could also do away with the puerile obsession with voter registration laws. Even the most ardent supporter will admit such laws are not perfect and if our congress has taught us anything over the past two years it's that the perfect is absolutely the enemy of the good - an enemy that must be defeated at all costs. And what are we really preventing with all of these laws against gay marriage. Homosexual Americans are still living together, raising kids and being intimate. Excluding them from tax breaks and visitation rights hasn't prevented a single person from being gay so why waste so much time and tax payer dollars to fight it?
But this is the problem with illogical logic. Its application defies reason. Gun advocates don't care about personal liberties, the constitution, or freedom anymore than gun control advocates. They disagree on the acceptable levels of government involvement and those levels change based on the topic.
If these advocates want to stick to their guns and insist that laws that don't prevent 100% of the crimes they are tasked with preventing aren't worth pursing they must also accept sweeping changes to a litany of other laws that are bound to change if crafting an infallible law is the new standard that government must meet or admit that they are complete hypocrites.
While I'm inclined to think this is more of an excuse than credible justification perhaps Republicans are right. Perhaps we should get the government out of areas where individuals are likely to act regardless of laws or regulations. We could start by removing any and all government involvement in abortions - after all even if you make abortions illegal people are still going to get abortions and gun advocate logic tells us that given this reality the best course of action is to remove government completely.
We could do the same for illegal drugs. There is pretty strong data that shows even with increased volumes of laws, regulations and enforcement drugs are still being purchased and used at an alarming rate. Next we could eliminate border patrol. If we can't prevent 100% of illegal immigrants from piercing the veil of the moral utopia we call the United States of America then why bother stopping any. We could also do away with the puerile obsession with voter registration laws. Even the most ardent supporter will admit such laws are not perfect and if our congress has taught us anything over the past two years it's that the perfect is absolutely the enemy of the good - an enemy that must be defeated at all costs. And what are we really preventing with all of these laws against gay marriage. Homosexual Americans are still living together, raising kids and being intimate. Excluding them from tax breaks and visitation rights hasn't prevented a single person from being gay so why waste so much time and tax payer dollars to fight it?
But this is the problem with illogical logic. Its application defies reason. Gun advocates don't care about personal liberties, the constitution, or freedom anymore than gun control advocates. They disagree on the acceptable levels of government involvement and those levels change based on the topic.
If these advocates want to stick to their guns and insist that laws that don't prevent 100% of the crimes they are tasked with preventing aren't worth pursing they must also accept sweeping changes to a litany of other laws that are bound to change if crafting an infallible law is the new standard that government must meet or admit that they are complete hypocrites.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Republicans whining over minimum wage
The response could easily have been predicted. As soon as President Obama mentioned raising the federal minimum wage there was a corresponding raise in conservative ideologue's blood pressure.
Unfortunately rather than resulting in a rational reasoned debate we get Republican commentators making outrageous accusations like incremental increases in minimum wage could result in federal maximum wage restrictions or suggesting that this is a slippery slope leading to exponential increases in the minimum wage.
There is plenty of data to suggest that raising the minimum wage could cost jobs and it could be argured that a good portion of the people making minimum are single under 25 kids still working their way through school. Why we need to resort to "the sky is falling" tactics is beyond me.
Having said that the reason that minimum wage is on the table has less to do with its effectiveness than the ability to get it passed. Many economists would argue that a raise in the Earned Income Tax Credit is a better option for helping impoverish American's but thanks to the ignorance and obstinance of our current politicians doing what is good for the people has taken a back seat to what is politically palatable for re-election purposes.
The reality is that corporations are making record profits and the 99% would like to see a corresponding increase in their pay. These people are a cog in the machine that produces these profits and they deserve to enjoy some of the spoils as well. Instead we are seeing income inequality on the rise and politicians blocking any progress based on the "job creators" fallacy.
So rather than more government involvement we should demand less. We should let the free market operate and keep government out. The results of doing so could be much better than pursuing marginal increase in the minimum wage. For example if government didn't interfere in the free market negotiations of labor unions and corporations the working class would be allowed to increase their wages using capitalism instead of government. The data shows that as union membership increases income inequality decreases. The data also shows a strong correlation between the percentage of a state's population in a union and the percentage of the population earning minimum wage or less.
We could also help both corporation and low income earners by going to a single payer system for health care. Corporations are not in business to provide health care and our current system has proven to be woefully inadequate in providing health care to all Americans.
So while Republicans are more than happy to whine about the problems with increasing the minimum wage they are completely oblivious to the fact that this debate only exists because of their relentless pandering to the rich and to corporations. The way to end the minimum wage debate is to make employees a partner in the free market. Because minimum wage is just a bad solution to decades of bad Republican legislation.
Unfortunately rather than resulting in a rational reasoned debate we get Republican commentators making outrageous accusations like incremental increases in minimum wage could result in federal maximum wage restrictions or suggesting that this is a slippery slope leading to exponential increases in the minimum wage.
There is plenty of data to suggest that raising the minimum wage could cost jobs and it could be argured that a good portion of the people making minimum are single under 25 kids still working their way through school. Why we need to resort to "the sky is falling" tactics is beyond me.
Having said that the reason that minimum wage is on the table has less to do with its effectiveness than the ability to get it passed. Many economists would argue that a raise in the Earned Income Tax Credit is a better option for helping impoverish American's but thanks to the ignorance and obstinance of our current politicians doing what is good for the people has taken a back seat to what is politically palatable for re-election purposes.
The reality is that corporations are making record profits and the 99% would like to see a corresponding increase in their pay. These people are a cog in the machine that produces these profits and they deserve to enjoy some of the spoils as well. Instead we are seeing income inequality on the rise and politicians blocking any progress based on the "job creators" fallacy.
So rather than more government involvement we should demand less. We should let the free market operate and keep government out. The results of doing so could be much better than pursuing marginal increase in the minimum wage. For example if government didn't interfere in the free market negotiations of labor unions and corporations the working class would be allowed to increase their wages using capitalism instead of government. The data shows that as union membership increases income inequality decreases. The data also shows a strong correlation between the percentage of a state's population in a union and the percentage of the population earning minimum wage or less.
We could also help both corporation and low income earners by going to a single payer system for health care. Corporations are not in business to provide health care and our current system has proven to be woefully inadequate in providing health care to all Americans.
So while Republicans are more than happy to whine about the problems with increasing the minimum wage they are completely oblivious to the fact that this debate only exists because of their relentless pandering to the rich and to corporations. The way to end the minimum wage debate is to make employees a partner in the free market. Because minimum wage is just a bad solution to decades of bad Republican legislation.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Better pay equals better education
When it comes to education there is one thing that most Democrats and Republicans can agree on - improving outcomes. Unfortunately everything after that is up for debate.
The Cato Institute offers a good example of the standard Republican argument which basically boils down to we spend more money now than ever yet we get mediocre results. While both of these statements are true this is a massive oversimplification of the situation resulting in massively oversimplified and errant solutions.
For example the Cato Institute points out that per pupil spending his risen by 133% since 1970 and lays the blame for this increase at the feet of teachers unions. The reality however is much more complicated. First it should be noted that in Michigan the average teachers pay has decreased by 7.7% since 1999 while per pupil spending has increased by nearly 20%. Second the number of educators in unions has dropped from 84% in 1989 to 38% in 2010. This data does not support the Cato Institute's assertion.
Additionally the Cato Institute also completely ignores the fact that in 1975 Congress passed the "Education for All Handicapped Children Act which resulted in twice as many special education students for public education. At a cost two to three times that of students without disabilities the needs of special education figures prominently in the new education spending since 1970.
The Cato Institute also fails to mention that nearly twice as many Americans live in poverty now than they did in 1970 and as Education Secretary Arnie Duncan stated "Educators across the country understand that low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed."
So while the data points to education costs’ rising it doesn’t show that teachers are the cause or that higher paid teachers lead to worse outcomes. In fact quite the opposite is true. The data shows that states that spend more money on education tend to have better outcomes. More importantly the data in Michigan shows that the top performing schools spend a much greater percentage of their per pupil funding on teachers than the lowest performing schools. So rather than attacking teachers and their salary as the problem the data suggests that we need to look at teachers and competitive pay as the solution.
If education spending it out of control then we should look at where the money goes to and what can be changed. But those changes should be predicated on improving educational outcomes. Arbitrarily cutting teachers’ salaries and benefits even when the data suggests that doing so will result in worse educational outcomes is not a solution - it's a witch hunt and our children deserve better.
The Cato Institute offers a good example of the standard Republican argument which basically boils down to we spend more money now than ever yet we get mediocre results. While both of these statements are true this is a massive oversimplification of the situation resulting in massively oversimplified and errant solutions.
For example the Cato Institute points out that per pupil spending his risen by 133% since 1970 and lays the blame for this increase at the feet of teachers unions. The reality however is much more complicated. First it should be noted that in Michigan the average teachers pay has decreased by 7.7% since 1999 while per pupil spending has increased by nearly 20%. Second the number of educators in unions has dropped from 84% in 1989 to 38% in 2010. This data does not support the Cato Institute's assertion.
Additionally the Cato Institute also completely ignores the fact that in 1975 Congress passed the "Education for All Handicapped Children Act which resulted in twice as many special education students for public education. At a cost two to three times that of students without disabilities the needs of special education figures prominently in the new education spending since 1970.
The Cato Institute also fails to mention that nearly twice as many Americans live in poverty now than they did in 1970 and as Education Secretary Arnie Duncan stated "Educators across the country understand that low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed."
So while the data points to education costs’ rising it doesn’t show that teachers are the cause or that higher paid teachers lead to worse outcomes. In fact quite the opposite is true. The data shows that states that spend more money on education tend to have better outcomes. More importantly the data in Michigan shows that the top performing schools spend a much greater percentage of their per pupil funding on teachers than the lowest performing schools. So rather than attacking teachers and their salary as the problem the data suggests that we need to look at teachers and competitive pay as the solution.
If education spending it out of control then we should look at where the money goes to and what can be changed. But those changes should be predicated on improving educational outcomes. Arbitrarily cutting teachers’ salaries and benefits even when the data suggests that doing so will result in worse educational outcomes is not a solution - it's a witch hunt and our children deserve better.
Monday, February 4, 2013
The Republican case for unions
At the core of the American system of Democracy is the idea of checks and balances. This is why we have three different branches of government and it also manifests itself in the form of a two party system which forces both parties to compete for votes. This same idea is also at the core of labor unions. They act as a counterbalance to corporations and government entities.
Regardless of the many benefits of labor unions there are still those who would like to see them disappear. They claim that unions aren't needed anymore to protect workers since there are government regulations in place now to ensure worker safety. Unfortunately Republicans have proven that their number one priority is helping big business get bigger in spite of the affects on the working class and this servitude has lead to their current obsession with "job killing regulations". As soon as they can eradicate labor unions they will eradicate government worker protections under their oft used mantra that companies will self regulate.
This happens to be the same line of thinking that nearly sent the global economy into an all out depression. After 70 years on the books big banks asked for and congress obliged in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act because unlike the lead up to the great depression, this time, banks would act responsibly when given free reign. It turns out however, when left to their own devices; big business took less than 8 years to completely forget to the lessons of the past and nearly destroyed the world economy.
Regardless of the Republican selective memory when it comes to the dangers of trusting businesses to police themselves, the worst part of this fight from Republicans is how it undercuts their own ideals.
Here is a group who claims to hold up capitalism as the answer to all problems yet when it comes to labor unions they embrace the same bureaucracy they claim to despise. Labor unions are not a government entity. They are subject to the same demands of other capitalist organizations. If they fail to provide value they will disappear. The reason the US has seen its union workforce steadily decline over the past five decades has nothing to do with "right to work" legislation.
The reality is that labor unions have priced themselves out of the market in certain areas. If they want to survive they must adapt. The UAW, for example, in recent negotiations with Ford offered up significant cuts in exchange for 12,000 US jobs. This happens because companies like Ford have options on the world market not because of government intervention.
What should be concerning for fiscal conservatives is how quickly Republicans were to abandon the core values of capitalism. A true believer would never resort to using government to pick the winners and losers. If there are problems with union leaders, those problems should be addressed by those union's members. If there are issues with union contracts, those issues should be fixed at the negotiating table. And if there are union members who should be removed, that should be handled by the organizations involved.
In the end Republicans should demand a government that removes itself from capitalist interactions instead of a government that fights for lower wages, less protections, fewer benefits and less competition. Because labor unions are the free market check and balance of the working class and legislation like "right to work" is the tyrannical bureaucratic regulatory overreach that undermines American capitalism.
Regardless of the many benefits of labor unions there are still those who would like to see them disappear. They claim that unions aren't needed anymore to protect workers since there are government regulations in place now to ensure worker safety. Unfortunately Republicans have proven that their number one priority is helping big business get bigger in spite of the affects on the working class and this servitude has lead to their current obsession with "job killing regulations". As soon as they can eradicate labor unions they will eradicate government worker protections under their oft used mantra that companies will self regulate.
This happens to be the same line of thinking that nearly sent the global economy into an all out depression. After 70 years on the books big banks asked for and congress obliged in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act because unlike the lead up to the great depression, this time, banks would act responsibly when given free reign. It turns out however, when left to their own devices; big business took less than 8 years to completely forget to the lessons of the past and nearly destroyed the world economy.
Regardless of the Republican selective memory when it comes to the dangers of trusting businesses to police themselves, the worst part of this fight from Republicans is how it undercuts their own ideals.
Here is a group who claims to hold up capitalism as the answer to all problems yet when it comes to labor unions they embrace the same bureaucracy they claim to despise. Labor unions are not a government entity. They are subject to the same demands of other capitalist organizations. If they fail to provide value they will disappear. The reason the US has seen its union workforce steadily decline over the past five decades has nothing to do with "right to work" legislation.
The reality is that labor unions have priced themselves out of the market in certain areas. If they want to survive they must adapt. The UAW, for example, in recent negotiations with Ford offered up significant cuts in exchange for 12,000 US jobs. This happens because companies like Ford have options on the world market not because of government intervention.
What should be concerning for fiscal conservatives is how quickly Republicans were to abandon the core values of capitalism. A true believer would never resort to using government to pick the winners and losers. If there are problems with union leaders, those problems should be addressed by those union's members. If there are issues with union contracts, those issues should be fixed at the negotiating table. And if there are union members who should be removed, that should be handled by the organizations involved.
In the end Republicans should demand a government that removes itself from capitalist interactions instead of a government that fights for lower wages, less protections, fewer benefits and less competition. Because labor unions are the free market check and balance of the working class and legislation like "right to work" is the tyrannical bureaucratic regulatory overreach that undermines American capitalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
