Polls show that if you don't believe in global warming, odds are you are a Republican. So it comes as no surprise that discussions about reducing Carbon Dioxide pollution, that may cause as many as 2 million deaths per year, and mitigate its impact, often rub conservatives the wrong way.
In isolation their resistance makes some sense. It checks off many of their talking points - Big government overreach, Job killing regulations, and Free market superiority. But in the big picture, selecting recent CO2 regulations on the coal industry or incentives for products like the Chevy Volt, for extra scrutiny seems disingenuous.
The reality is the US has a long and glorious history of using tax dollars to promote changes under the guise of "public good". In the mid to early part of the 20th century the US spent around $157 billion to win the space race because it was "seen as necessary for national security and symbolic of technological and ideological superiority". The fact that it was the government, using tax dollars, that delivered this win didn't matter.
Without government involvement the cost to research and develop the technology necessary for the moon landing was out of reach for even the largest private sector companies. The same has been true for nearly a century in the energy sector. When oil was first being developed as an energy source for widespread use in America, the government provided subsidies to help ameliorate the exorbitant costs. As a matter of fact in the first fifteen years of oil production in the US the average government subsidy was $4.86 billion in 2009 dollars or over thirteen times more than the $0.37 billion of support provided to renewable energy in its first fifteen years. This is also the case with Nuclear energy and biofuels that received an average of $3.5 and $1.08 billion respectively.
We also have a history in the US of regulating industry either as a way to reduce energy use or to improve the environment.
- Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to regulate contamination in the food supply.
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 to regulate the use of pesticides.
- Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to regulate the use of Nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste.
- Clean Air Act of 1970 to regulate air quality and control air pollution.
- Clean Water Act of 1972 to set standards for water quality and purity.
- Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 to regulate our drinking water.
- Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to regulate the coal mining industry and prevent damage to the public and the environment.
- Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 to require companies to disclose information regarding chemical they release.
- National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 that set standards for energy efficiency of household appliances.
- Montreal Protocol of 1989 to regulate the use of ozone depleting chemicals.
Unlike today, concern for public safety and the environment held no political affiliation. This list contains legislation signed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. And while many companies and industries were adversely affected, protecting the public and the environment were given a higher priority than corporate profits.
Additionally, while regulations have been one form of government involvement in shaping individual and corporate actions, incentives offer another shining example. The home mortgage deduction, the capital gains tax rate, tax deferred retirement savings, and charitable deductions all serve to increase a certain behavior by rewarding it monetarily, with a nice tax deduction. Even the bastion of conservative policy, Texas, makes extensive use of government incentives - giving out nearly 25% of all government incentives offered by states and as much as the next four states combined.
The truth is that many of America's greatest inventions and products exist because of the unique symbiotic relationship the public and private sector have. Personal opinions on global warming and climate change have no bearing on the value of energy independence and the economic potential that renewable energy offers. Developing new products that help the US maintain technological superiority and protecting American citizens are part of the American fabric. Pretending that support for renewable energy is somehow unpatriotic ignores history and threatens a system that spawned a super power.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Friday, August 2, 2013
Ignorance and pride - the tenets of racism
Since the George Zimmerman acquittal there has been a lot of discussion on this blog an elsewhere on the topic of race. Given the tragic nature of this event these discussions about race and racism in the US offer a silver lining to a particularly stormy cloud.
Unfortunately rather than having a dialogue that leads to greater understanding many double down on their previously held bias. For example even though Republicans are two and a half times more likely to exhibit explicit racism such as portraying blacks as being more criminal with stats like 50% of all murders are committed by African Americans. While this statistic is true its use is inherently racist since multiple studies have shown that the disproportionality in murder rates are "entirely accounted for by differences in socioeconomic status" - meaning the color of one's skin has a correlation but not causation.
The problem is that most people don't recognize their own racism so while a majority of Americans harbor some racist views only one in eight is willing to admit they are racist. Of course it should come as no surprise that rather than accepting and addressing their own failures people are much more likely deflect and blame others. A recent example of this can be found in the comments made by Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn. Mr. Arnn believes the Michigan Department of Education sent representatives to his campus to count the number of black students. The MDE says such claims are untrue. Regardless in a hearing in Lansing Larry Arnn used the term "dark ones" to describe African Americans.
Even though he later apologized he used the term multiple times which suggests he is unaware of how anyone might take offense to such a term. Additionally the apology issued on Larry Arnn's behalf suggests that the school - termed the "citadel of American conservatism" by the National Review - has fully embraced the belief that racism is a liberal media fallacy by stating "No offense was intended by the use of that term except to the offending bureaucrats. Dr. Arnn is sorry if such offense was honestly taken."
So Larry Arnn assumed he was being targeted for racism and then made insensitive comments to defend against these perceived claims of racism and topped it off by having the school issue his apology just in case anyone was possibly "honestly" offended by being referred to as "dark ones".
Fortunately very few people are willing to defend racist terms like the one Dr. Arnn used however they are more than happy to deflect attention by suggesting the only people who really care about racism are those who profit from perpetuating it. In conservative circles this means Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal media. Of course if these people were being truly honest in their criticism they would point out the Fox News and other conservative media outlets benefit from race pimping just as often. Cases like that of George Zimmerman, Shirley Sherrod, ACORN, the Black Panthers, and Reverend Wright were staples of the conservative media over the past few years. These examples are offered to enrage not engage by supplying examples of supposedly racist blacks all for the sake of ratings.
Another example of this pseudo concern is the "N" word. Some people whine that it is unfair that blacks can use this term while whites cannot. The reality is that there is no law against the "N" word. Feel free to use it as often as you like. But be prepared for the consequences because regardless of your skin color there are a number of people who will be offended when you use the "N" word in most settings. Does anyone seriously think the President could step to the podium and drop a few "N" bombs without any repercussions? The truth is that contrary to the popular narrative very few people - black or white - make the "N" word a common part of their vernacular. Of course it should be noted that people of all colors and creeds refer to their friends using words and phrases that they would consider offensive coming from strangers or in a professional setting.
Having said that, I imagine nearly every African American person in the US would happily trade in the use of the "N" word for equal treatment in every other area of society.
But that's where the problem comes from. We have a conservative media that asks "why does everything always have to be about race" and then they hypocritically devote their entire program to discussing race. The people on the right doing the race pimping don't get that they are race pimping. They truly believe that they are just defending themselves.
In the end if legitimate concerns are always dismissed as race baiting and the echo chamber justifies your racism instead of questioning how these words could be perceived as offensive we will be doomed to repeat this divisive pattern for years to come.
Unfortunately rather than having a dialogue that leads to greater understanding many double down on their previously held bias. For example even though Republicans are two and a half times more likely to exhibit explicit racism such as portraying blacks as being more criminal with stats like 50% of all murders are committed by African Americans. While this statistic is true its use is inherently racist since multiple studies have shown that the disproportionality in murder rates are "entirely accounted for by differences in socioeconomic status" - meaning the color of one's skin has a correlation but not causation.
The problem is that most people don't recognize their own racism so while a majority of Americans harbor some racist views only one in eight is willing to admit they are racist. Of course it should come as no surprise that rather than accepting and addressing their own failures people are much more likely deflect and blame others. A recent example of this can be found in the comments made by Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn. Mr. Arnn believes the Michigan Department of Education sent representatives to his campus to count the number of black students. The MDE says such claims are untrue. Regardless in a hearing in Lansing Larry Arnn used the term "dark ones" to describe African Americans.
Even though he later apologized he used the term multiple times which suggests he is unaware of how anyone might take offense to such a term. Additionally the apology issued on Larry Arnn's behalf suggests that the school - termed the "citadel of American conservatism" by the National Review - has fully embraced the belief that racism is a liberal media fallacy by stating "No offense was intended by the use of that term except to the offending bureaucrats. Dr. Arnn is sorry if such offense was honestly taken."
So Larry Arnn assumed he was being targeted for racism and then made insensitive comments to defend against these perceived claims of racism and topped it off by having the school issue his apology just in case anyone was possibly "honestly" offended by being referred to as "dark ones".
Fortunately very few people are willing to defend racist terms like the one Dr. Arnn used however they are more than happy to deflect attention by suggesting the only people who really care about racism are those who profit from perpetuating it. In conservative circles this means Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal media. Of course if these people were being truly honest in their criticism they would point out the Fox News and other conservative media outlets benefit from race pimping just as often. Cases like that of George Zimmerman, Shirley Sherrod, ACORN, the Black Panthers, and Reverend Wright were staples of the conservative media over the past few years. These examples are offered to enrage not engage by supplying examples of supposedly racist blacks all for the sake of ratings.
Another example of this pseudo concern is the "N" word. Some people whine that it is unfair that blacks can use this term while whites cannot. The reality is that there is no law against the "N" word. Feel free to use it as often as you like. But be prepared for the consequences because regardless of your skin color there are a number of people who will be offended when you use the "N" word in most settings. Does anyone seriously think the President could step to the podium and drop a few "N" bombs without any repercussions? The truth is that contrary to the popular narrative very few people - black or white - make the "N" word a common part of their vernacular. Of course it should be noted that people of all colors and creeds refer to their friends using words and phrases that they would consider offensive coming from strangers or in a professional setting.
Having said that, I imagine nearly every African American person in the US would happily trade in the use of the "N" word for equal treatment in every other area of society.
But that's where the problem comes from. We have a conservative media that asks "why does everything always have to be about race" and then they hypocritically devote their entire program to discussing race. The people on the right doing the race pimping don't get that they are race pimping. They truly believe that they are just defending themselves.
In the end if legitimate concerns are always dismissed as race baiting and the echo chamber justifies your racism instead of questioning how these words could be perceived as offensive we will be doomed to repeat this divisive pattern for years to come.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
The crisis culture of common core standards
There has been a lot of discussion recently surrounding the new standards for education known as common core. The goal of the common core state standards initiative is "to bring diverse state curricula into alignment with each other by following the principles of standards-based education reform".
President Obama and his Secretary of Education Arne Duncan support this is initiative so it should come as a surprise to no one that Republicans hate it. But while the president has made common core part of what is a truly disappointing education reform effort, it was the brain child of the bi-partisan National Governors Association. It is not some liberal union designed government takeover of education. As a matter of fact there are plenty of people in the education community that have concerns about these standards while others flatly oppose them.
The problem is that educators have heard this all before. There is always a new set of standards or a new method of teaching or a new model of instruction that will fix the crisis of education. Unfortunately as noted economist and mustache aficionado Friedrich Hayek said "'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded". This is especially true of education reform in Michigan where government has taken over school districts, changed tenure laws, created new state controlled districts, weakened unions, added teacher evaluation requirements, attempted to revive vouchers, and expanded charter schools all under the guise of a crisis in education.
But the reality is that there is no crisis in education. The only emergency in public education is the one drummed up by the corporations that are offering their books, their methods, and their publicly funded corporate schools as the solution. To gain access to the public piggy bank these corporations and the media, push a myth that the US was once number one in education and years of mismanagement have ruined a once proud institution. The truth is that since international testing started the US has always been in the middle of the pack.
And this fact is perhaps the single greatest indictment of the standardized tests that the common core relies on. After all, if for the past half century the US has had average results on these tests while becoming the greatest country in the world, isn't it possible that how we rank on some standardized test doesn't actually mean much? Isn't it possible that our failure to churn out the best test takers in the world says more about societal issues than the education system? Isn't it possible that teaching to the test drowns out the very creativity and innovation that makes America great?
The goal of our education system should be to prepare students for the real world. While that includes rote learning that standardized tests can measure it also includes creative problem solving and critical thinking skills that are not nearly as easily measured. Making students into experts at test taking will not prepare them for a job market that according to a survey by the American Management Association values "critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity" in an employee
The reality is that common core is just the latest in a wave of corporate sponsored solutions to a completely manufactured "emergency of public education". In a vacuum, making sure that all students have a basic level of comprehension may seem paramount however in practice standards like the ones present in common core force a teaching to the test methodology that often ignores the type of varied education students truly need to be prepared for the ever changing job market. Because regardless of how well prepared students may be if their test scores don't meet a certain standard - the teachers, the administrators and the school systems will be branded as failures and politicians will again use the results a flawed standardized testing system as justification of further malinformed government intervention.
President Obama and his Secretary of Education Arne Duncan support this is initiative so it should come as a surprise to no one that Republicans hate it. But while the president has made common core part of what is a truly disappointing education reform effort, it was the brain child of the bi-partisan National Governors Association. It is not some liberal union designed government takeover of education. As a matter of fact there are plenty of people in the education community that have concerns about these standards while others flatly oppose them.
The problem is that educators have heard this all before. There is always a new set of standards or a new method of teaching or a new model of instruction that will fix the crisis of education. Unfortunately as noted economist and mustache aficionado Friedrich Hayek said "'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded". This is especially true of education reform in Michigan where government has taken over school districts, changed tenure laws, created new state controlled districts, weakened unions, added teacher evaluation requirements, attempted to revive vouchers, and expanded charter schools all under the guise of a crisis in education.
But the reality is that there is no crisis in education. The only emergency in public education is the one drummed up by the corporations that are offering their books, their methods, and their publicly funded corporate schools as the solution. To gain access to the public piggy bank these corporations and the media, push a myth that the US was once number one in education and years of mismanagement have ruined a once proud institution. The truth is that since international testing started the US has always been in the middle of the pack.
And this fact is perhaps the single greatest indictment of the standardized tests that the common core relies on. After all, if for the past half century the US has had average results on these tests while becoming the greatest country in the world, isn't it possible that how we rank on some standardized test doesn't actually mean much? Isn't it possible that our failure to churn out the best test takers in the world says more about societal issues than the education system? Isn't it possible that teaching to the test drowns out the very creativity and innovation that makes America great?
The goal of our education system should be to prepare students for the real world. While that includes rote learning that standardized tests can measure it also includes creative problem solving and critical thinking skills that are not nearly as easily measured. Making students into experts at test taking will not prepare them for a job market that according to a survey by the American Management Association values "critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity" in an employee
The reality is that common core is just the latest in a wave of corporate sponsored solutions to a completely manufactured "emergency of public education". In a vacuum, making sure that all students have a basic level of comprehension may seem paramount however in practice standards like the ones present in common core force a teaching to the test methodology that often ignores the type of varied education students truly need to be prepared for the ever changing job market. Because regardless of how well prepared students may be if their test scores don't meet a certain standard - the teachers, the administrators and the school systems will be branded as failures and politicians will again use the results a flawed standardized testing system as justification of further malinformed government intervention.
Friday, July 26, 2013
"Black on black crime": Conservative ethnocentrism
Recently I penned an article discussing the Bizarro World the conservative media has created where racism no longer exists in the US except in the case of black racism against whites. This was based on the conservative media response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman regarding the murder of Trayvon Martin. I started this post by stating "If there’s one thing conservatives hate, it’s when they are called out for being racist" and boy did the commenter's prove me right.
The tone was varied but the vitriol was obvious. My personal favorites were the suggestion that I "become an expat" and another calling me a "lying sack of (expletive)". While these are both eloquently stated solid arguments, they leave little in the way of substantive conversation. Having said that there were two points that did merit further discussion - Cherry picking data and "black on black crime".
First it should be noted that contrary to the conservative media spin on this case the national interest resulted from a young man being murdered and no one being charged for his death even though the murderer was still on the scene and admitted to pulling the trigger. If Trayvon Martin were your son or daughter wouldn't you want someone to be arrested for their death? Wouldn't you want a trial to determine if a jury believed the "stand your ground" defense holds up in court?
The attention for this case was not based on a "white" guy killing a "black" kid as many would have you believe. It was a commentary on the failure of the justice system and in particular how African Americans are often on the receiving end of these injustices.
Still some commenters took issue with my statistics. While true, they felt my application was insincere because I didn't present additional information - as though the conservative media they parrot is known for their thorough analysis of data.
For example in response to this case Ann Coulter stated "half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks" and then goes on to talk about how George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin because of burglaries in the area. By using the statistics for Murders and Robberies Ann is attempting to paint African Americans as inherently criminal because if she used the statistics regarding burglaries she would have had to state that whites not blacks commit the vast majority of burglaries.
But rather than question her manipulation of data the conservative media runs with the story and we get a new conservative talking point - "black on black crime".
Bill O'Reilly for example stated that 91% of homicides against African Americans were committed by other African Americans. He went on to say this number was "astronomical" and compared these killings to a "Holocaust". Of course it should also be noted that 85% of homicides against whites were committed by other whites. Odd that 91% is tantamount to genocide yet 85% isn't worth talking about.
The reality is the "black on black crime" is just a way for some people to justify their racism. If preventing murders had a singular universally accepted solution then murder rates would be a relevant stat. Unfortunately the murder rate is the result of a litany of circumstances which means improvements in this statistic will require an array of changes. For instance;
- According to a study by the Ohio State University "The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities."
- Blacks are the victims of nonfatal violent crime at nearly the same rate as whites.
- African Americans represent half of those falsely convicted of a crime.
- Blacks were more likely to report a non fatal violent crime to police than whites.
- Large cities experience twice as much crime as rural areas - 52% of the black population resides in inner cities as opposed to 21% of whites.
- Higher income inequality leads to more crime - whites have 22 times more wealth than black.
- According to a study by Cal Berkley, "schooling significantly reduces criminal activity." - blacks are 2.2 times more likely to drop out of high school.
- The Heritage Foundation reports that higher instances of single parent homes lead to higher juvenile crime rates - blacks are 2.7 times more likely to be brought up in a single parent household.
So while conservatives sit around and whine that black leaders aren't addressing the "black on black crime" issue the reality is that black leaders have been pounding the pavement for years talking to anyone who will listen about improving the circumstances for the African American community which would ameliorate the crime statistics conservatives claim black leaders are ignoring.
If conservative America truly wants to put claims of racism in the rear view mirror they have to stop having conversations that begin with "I'm not racist, but blacks are criminals" and start considering the plight of African Americans even when whites aren't involved.
The tone was varied but the vitriol was obvious. My personal favorites were the suggestion that I "become an expat" and another calling me a "lying sack of (expletive)". While these are both eloquently stated solid arguments, they leave little in the way of substantive conversation. Having said that there were two points that did merit further discussion - Cherry picking data and "black on black crime".
First it should be noted that contrary to the conservative media spin on this case the national interest resulted from a young man being murdered and no one being charged for his death even though the murderer was still on the scene and admitted to pulling the trigger. If Trayvon Martin were your son or daughter wouldn't you want someone to be arrested for their death? Wouldn't you want a trial to determine if a jury believed the "stand your ground" defense holds up in court?
The attention for this case was not based on a "white" guy killing a "black" kid as many would have you believe. It was a commentary on the failure of the justice system and in particular how African Americans are often on the receiving end of these injustices.
Still some commenters took issue with my statistics. While true, they felt my application was insincere because I didn't present additional information - as though the conservative media they parrot is known for their thorough analysis of data.
For example in response to this case Ann Coulter stated "half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks" and then goes on to talk about how George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin because of burglaries in the area. By using the statistics for Murders and Robberies Ann is attempting to paint African Americans as inherently criminal because if she used the statistics regarding burglaries she would have had to state that whites not blacks commit the vast majority of burglaries.
But rather than question her manipulation of data the conservative media runs with the story and we get a new conservative talking point - "black on black crime".
Bill O'Reilly for example stated that 91% of homicides against African Americans were committed by other African Americans. He went on to say this number was "astronomical" and compared these killings to a "Holocaust". Of course it should also be noted that 85% of homicides against whites were committed by other whites. Odd that 91% is tantamount to genocide yet 85% isn't worth talking about.
The reality is the "black on black crime" is just a way for some people to justify their racism. If preventing murders had a singular universally accepted solution then murder rates would be a relevant stat. Unfortunately the murder rate is the result of a litany of circumstances which means improvements in this statistic will require an array of changes. For instance;
- According to a study by the Ohio State University "The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities."
- Blacks are the victims of nonfatal violent crime at nearly the same rate as whites.
- African Americans represent half of those falsely convicted of a crime.
- Blacks were more likely to report a non fatal violent crime to police than whites.
- Large cities experience twice as much crime as rural areas - 52% of the black population resides in inner cities as opposed to 21% of whites.
- Higher income inequality leads to more crime - whites have 22 times more wealth than black.
- According to a study by Cal Berkley, "schooling significantly reduces criminal activity." - blacks are 2.2 times more likely to drop out of high school.
- The Heritage Foundation reports that higher instances of single parent homes lead to higher juvenile crime rates - blacks are 2.7 times more likely to be brought up in a single parent household.
So while conservatives sit around and whine that black leaders aren't addressing the "black on black crime" issue the reality is that black leaders have been pounding the pavement for years talking to anyone who will listen about improving the circumstances for the African American community which would ameliorate the crime statistics conservatives claim black leaders are ignoring.
If conservative America truly wants to put claims of racism in the rear view mirror they have to stop having conversations that begin with "I'm not racist, but blacks are criminals" and start considering the plight of African Americans even when whites aren't involved.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Detroit: Rick Snyder's greatest failure
In the run up to the 2010 elections Michigan voters were led to believe that Rick Snyder could fix our problems because as one of his campaign ads stated "He's the only businessman running so he's the only one that even knows what he's doing". In light of the chapter 9 bankruptcy filing by Detroit yesterday many have to be wondering where was all this business wisdom two and a half years ago when "one tough nerd" took office.
Shortly after his election Rick Snyder said "Michigan cannot be a great state until Detroit is on the path to being a great city". Such language suggests that Rick Snyder's number one priority would be fixing the financial issues with Detroit because in his own words anything less means, making Michigan a great state, was not his primary goal. Yet when listing his accomplishments for the past two years none of them address the obvious problems that according to the governor he was uniquely qualified to solve.
2011 Rick Snyder list of accomplishments.
1. Eliminated the Michigan Business Tax.
2. Taxed some pensions and cut personal income tax credits and deductions.
3. Signed a balanced budget three months ahead of the deadline.
4. Strengthened the position of emergency financial managers.
5. Required additional cost-sharing by public employees for health care and other benefits.
6. Revamped teacher tenure and linked evaluations partly to student performance.
7. Developed financial incentives for schools and communities to adopt cost-cutting "best practices."
8. Threw out Michigan's tax-credit strategy for economic development.
9. Lifted the cap on charter schools authorized by state universities.
10. Eliminated the state law requiring every item on a store shelf be individually marked.
11. Traveled to Asia to build relationships in hopes of attracting investment.
2012 Rick Snyder list of accomplishments.
1. Moving forward with the New International Trade Crossing, which will bring more and better jobs to Michigan.
2. Personal Property Tax reform
3. Eliminating regulations - 13 rules eliminated for every new rule we added
4. Pathways to Potential, a new initiative that puts social workers directly in schools. The program is in over 20 schools today with a focus on Flint, Pontiac, Saginaw and Detroit, and is expected to reach 120 schools by springtime
5. A conference on infant mortality, a conference on helping the disabled, and new legislation to assist families coping with autism
6. Efforts to revitalize cities across Michigan
7. Improving public safety, with one new trooper school graduated and another on the way
8. Efforts to revitalize Detroit, including a new authority to restore Detroit lighting
9. The creation of a Regional Transit Authority for southeast Michigan, an effort which took 40 years to achieve
10. The creation of Virtual Cities, which allows municipalities like Grand Rapids and Livonia to collaborate in order to save money
11. Blight removal, including tearing down blighted properties and improving others
12. Reform of the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System in order to ensure it's on a sustainable path for the future. Thanks to pension reform efforts, Michigan now has a plan to pay down $20 billion in liabilities.
13. Education reforms including dual enrollment, performance metrics for schools, and the creation of the Education Achievement Authority, which is helping 15 schools in Detroit
14. Pure Michigan's continued success
15. A series of “good government" initiatives to help strengthen communities and protect taxpayers
16. Improving state government with Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley's work on the Bureaucracy Busters program, a social media initiative that calls on state of Michigan employees to offer innovative ideas for enhancing efficiency, customer service and the workplace.
While improvements in public education and lighting in Detroit were nice window dressing, this is a man who ran and was conceivably elected on his business acumen. Neither of these "accomplishments" does anything to address the financial situation that brought down Detroit. But rather than lead the resurrection of the town that Rick Snyder himself designated as the key to Michigan's success the governor said "Right now, my role is to be a resource. When people say, ‘We need help,’ we are ready to assist.”
Where was this passive - "will of the people" - Rick Snyder when voters said no to emergency manager laws, or when the public and his own party opposed the new bridge to Canada? Where was the contact your representative passion the governor has exhibited for Medicare expansion when it came to the most important city in his state? And since when does leadership include watching people fail when you have the knowledge and the power to help.
Rick Snyder may not be to blame for Detroit's fall from grace but standing idly by while his greatest asset imploded is not the work of a great businessman or a great governor. It is the action of man who is out of his depth. And this failure to act could take decades for the state to recover from.
Shortly after his election Rick Snyder said "Michigan cannot be a great state until Detroit is on the path to being a great city". Such language suggests that Rick Snyder's number one priority would be fixing the financial issues with Detroit because in his own words anything less means, making Michigan a great state, was not his primary goal. Yet when listing his accomplishments for the past two years none of them address the obvious problems that according to the governor he was uniquely qualified to solve.
2011 Rick Snyder list of accomplishments.
1. Eliminated the Michigan Business Tax.
2. Taxed some pensions and cut personal income tax credits and deductions.
3. Signed a balanced budget three months ahead of the deadline.
4. Strengthened the position of emergency financial managers.
5. Required additional cost-sharing by public employees for health care and other benefits.
6. Revamped teacher tenure and linked evaluations partly to student performance.
7. Developed financial incentives for schools and communities to adopt cost-cutting "best practices."
8. Threw out Michigan's tax-credit strategy for economic development.
9. Lifted the cap on charter schools authorized by state universities.
10. Eliminated the state law requiring every item on a store shelf be individually marked.
11. Traveled to Asia to build relationships in hopes of attracting investment.
2012 Rick Snyder list of accomplishments.
1. Moving forward with the New International Trade Crossing, which will bring more and better jobs to Michigan.
2. Personal Property Tax reform
3. Eliminating regulations - 13 rules eliminated for every new rule we added
4. Pathways to Potential, a new initiative that puts social workers directly in schools. The program is in over 20 schools today with a focus on Flint, Pontiac, Saginaw and Detroit, and is expected to reach 120 schools by springtime
5. A conference on infant mortality, a conference on helping the disabled, and new legislation to assist families coping with autism
6. Efforts to revitalize cities across Michigan
7. Improving public safety, with one new trooper school graduated and another on the way
8. Efforts to revitalize Detroit, including a new authority to restore Detroit lighting
9. The creation of a Regional Transit Authority for southeast Michigan, an effort which took 40 years to achieve
10. The creation of Virtual Cities, which allows municipalities like Grand Rapids and Livonia to collaborate in order to save money
11. Blight removal, including tearing down blighted properties and improving others
12. Reform of the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System in order to ensure it's on a sustainable path for the future. Thanks to pension reform efforts, Michigan now has a plan to pay down $20 billion in liabilities.
13. Education reforms including dual enrollment, performance metrics for schools, and the creation of the Education Achievement Authority, which is helping 15 schools in Detroit
14. Pure Michigan's continued success
15. A series of “good government" initiatives to help strengthen communities and protect taxpayers
16. Improving state government with Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley's work on the Bureaucracy Busters program, a social media initiative that calls on state of Michigan employees to offer innovative ideas for enhancing efficiency, customer service and the workplace.
While improvements in public education and lighting in Detroit were nice window dressing, this is a man who ran and was conceivably elected on his business acumen. Neither of these "accomplishments" does anything to address the financial situation that brought down Detroit. But rather than lead the resurrection of the town that Rick Snyder himself designated as the key to Michigan's success the governor said "Right now, my role is to be a resource. When people say, ‘We need help,’ we are ready to assist.”
Where was this passive - "will of the people" - Rick Snyder when voters said no to emergency manager laws, or when the public and his own party opposed the new bridge to Canada? Where was the contact your representative passion the governor has exhibited for Medicare expansion when it came to the most important city in his state? And since when does leadership include watching people fail when you have the knowledge and the power to help.
Rick Snyder may not be to blame for Detroit's fall from grace but standing idly by while his greatest asset imploded is not the work of a great businessman or a great governor. It is the action of man who is out of his depth. And this failure to act could take decades for the state to recover from.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Race baiting from the right
If there's one thing conservatives hate it's when they are called out for being racist. But rather than accepting that everyone exhibits prejudice and trying to correct this irrational intolerance conservatives have created a world where whites are unfairly targeted. The recent trial of George Zimmerman offers a prime example of this phenomenon.
Across the board conservative media outlets have seized on the acquittal of Zimmerman to proclaim that the whole thing was a liberal media manufactured race bating witch hunt. Of course this clever misdirection really misses the point. The outrage that led to the media attention revolved around the fact that a young man was shot dead by another man and the shooter was never arrested. From the outside it seemed like the police had acted as judge and jury and acquitted George Zimmerman. Guilty or not, Trayvon Martin deserved his day in court.
But that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ignorance surrounding this and other racially charged cases. In isolation the racial claims may seem overblown when considering the information available but the US has a history of racial discrimination in the justice system. The audible cheers from the OJ Simpson verdict were a direct result of the perceived injustice of the acquittal of officers in the Rodney King trial. The actions of black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are public displays meant to force fair treatment of African Americans in the face of a system fraught with blatant discrimination.
The job of these activists is to draw attention to unfair practices affecting their community. Ironically, condemning these leaders for doing their job while simultaneously holding up leaders from the NRA, the coal industry or the tea party as "fighting the good fight", smacks of the very racism that forces Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to speak out in the first place.
This line of thinking also completely ignores how cases like this benefit the conservative media outlets as well. Fox News was not forced to report on the Trayvon Martin murder. The reality is that once this became a racial story it allowed them to push the new white conservative meme that the deck is stacked against whites.
And while they are quick to point out cases where whites were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion this obsession with playing the victim ignores instances such as Shirley Sherrod and ACORN where the conservative media fell all over themselves to prove their "black racism" talking point correct before all the facts were known.
The reality is that outside of a few anecdotal stories, African Americans face a stiff head wind in their fight for equal justice.
- According to FBI data burglaries, like the one George Zimmerman assumed Trayvon Martin was about to commit, are twice as likely to be perpetrated by whites as blacks.
- Whites were also found to be three times as likely to commit a "hate crime".
- 62% of those falsely convicted and exonerated by DNA evidence are African American.
- Nationwide, a white person shooting a black person was 10 times more likely to be deemed "justifiable" than when the roles were reversed.
- In LA when stopped on the street or ordered out of their car blacks were arrested 166% more than whites, 127% more likely to be frisked and subject to nonconsensual search 81% more often.
- White youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.
- Black youth were also twice as likely to be arrested on weapons charges and three times as likely to be arrested for assault despite reporting similar rates of fights and weapon possession as their white counterparts.
- Additionally studies show that blacks were overrepresented in media reports as suspects while being underrepresented as victims - perpetuating a stereotype that leads to whites falsely accusing blacks of committing crimes such as in the cases of Susan Smith, Bonnie Sweeten, Amanda Knox, Bethany Storro, and Ashley Todd.
And while these statistics represent a portion of the inherent bias of the justice system, racial inequality is certainly not limited to law enforcement. There is also great disparity on things like education, wages, job opportunities, and home ownership.
In the end if whites want to eliminate the "epidemic" of race baiting, getting into a pissing match over which race is more racist and whining that system favors blacks when the data clearly suggests the opposite, is the exact wrong way to go about fixing the problem. In actuality the problem is not Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or the mainstream media. They are the symptoms. The real problem is we have a system that forces minorities to examine every instance for inequality and a majority that is blissfully unaware of how oppressive the system can really be. Once you eliminate the disparity in the system, the activists will happily disappear.
Across the board conservative media outlets have seized on the acquittal of Zimmerman to proclaim that the whole thing was a liberal media manufactured race bating witch hunt. Of course this clever misdirection really misses the point. The outrage that led to the media attention revolved around the fact that a young man was shot dead by another man and the shooter was never arrested. From the outside it seemed like the police had acted as judge and jury and acquitted George Zimmerman. Guilty or not, Trayvon Martin deserved his day in court.
But that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ignorance surrounding this and other racially charged cases. In isolation the racial claims may seem overblown when considering the information available but the US has a history of racial discrimination in the justice system. The audible cheers from the OJ Simpson verdict were a direct result of the perceived injustice of the acquittal of officers in the Rodney King trial. The actions of black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are public displays meant to force fair treatment of African Americans in the face of a system fraught with blatant discrimination.
The job of these activists is to draw attention to unfair practices affecting their community. Ironically, condemning these leaders for doing their job while simultaneously holding up leaders from the NRA, the coal industry or the tea party as "fighting the good fight", smacks of the very racism that forces Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to speak out in the first place.
This line of thinking also completely ignores how cases like this benefit the conservative media outlets as well. Fox News was not forced to report on the Trayvon Martin murder. The reality is that once this became a racial story it allowed them to push the new white conservative meme that the deck is stacked against whites.
And while they are quick to point out cases where whites were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion this obsession with playing the victim ignores instances such as Shirley Sherrod and ACORN where the conservative media fell all over themselves to prove their "black racism" talking point correct before all the facts were known.
The reality is that outside of a few anecdotal stories, African Americans face a stiff head wind in their fight for equal justice.
- According to FBI data burglaries, like the one George Zimmerman assumed Trayvon Martin was about to commit, are twice as likely to be perpetrated by whites as blacks.
- Whites were also found to be three times as likely to commit a "hate crime".
- 62% of those falsely convicted and exonerated by DNA evidence are African American.
- Nationwide, a white person shooting a black person was 10 times more likely to be deemed "justifiable" than when the roles were reversed.
- In LA when stopped on the street or ordered out of their car blacks were arrested 166% more than whites, 127% more likely to be frisked and subject to nonconsensual search 81% more often.
- White youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.
- Black youth were also twice as likely to be arrested on weapons charges and three times as likely to be arrested for assault despite reporting similar rates of fights and weapon possession as their white counterparts.
- Additionally studies show that blacks were overrepresented in media reports as suspects while being underrepresented as victims - perpetuating a stereotype that leads to whites falsely accusing blacks of committing crimes such as in the cases of Susan Smith, Bonnie Sweeten, Amanda Knox, Bethany Storro, and Ashley Todd.
And while these statistics represent a portion of the inherent bias of the justice system, racial inequality is certainly not limited to law enforcement. There is also great disparity on things like education, wages, job opportunities, and home ownership.
In the end if whites want to eliminate the "epidemic" of race baiting, getting into a pissing match over which race is more racist and whining that system favors blacks when the data clearly suggests the opposite, is the exact wrong way to go about fixing the problem. In actuality the problem is not Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or the mainstream media. They are the symptoms. The real problem is we have a system that forces minorities to examine every instance for inequality and a majority that is blissfully unaware of how oppressive the system can really be. Once you eliminate the disparity in the system, the activists will happily disappear.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Sincerely held religious belief or discrimination?
In an effort to legitimize their religious bigotry aimed at homosexuals, also known as "religious freedom", some legislators have introduced bills that allow an individual to refuse service to someone based on "a sincerely held religious belief".
Outside of the obvious ambiguity of such a law there are a number of other issues with this line of thinking. First it is not religious freedom to arbitrarily exclude an entire group of people. As John 8:7 states "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her". Homosexuality is no more a sin than lust, greed, envy or pride. If we are going to refuse service for those in the LGBT community because of the bible then we must do the same of all sinners. Anything less does not show strict adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ but selective intolerance.
There is also a belief that somehow upholding the rights of the gay populace will lead to the government forcing all sorts of religious groups to do things that are against their beliefs. Examples of this include government forcing churches to marry gay couples or forcing a Muslim food service company to offer pork. Neither of these examples represents the case the LGBT is arguing in the numerous lawsuits across the country.
When talking about marriage equality no one is asking the florist or baker to provide a service that they don't already provide. They are asking them to provide that service to all customers equally. The product and the people are not the same. You can't require a vegan baker to provide a cake with eggs. It's not a product they serve. But you can require a vegan baker to provide their vegan cakes to all customers. Huge difference.
As far as church services are concerned there are a couple precedents that suggest fears over churches being forced to provide service are vastly overblown. First, most churches require one to be a member to receive services. Like many other organizations churches are allowed to deny membership often times regardless of discrimination laws such as the church that voted to refuse marriage services to interracial couples. Second a Supreme Court decision last year established "ministerial exception" which exempts churches from some anti-discrimination laws.
Having said that if these legislators are successful in cementing additional protections into law they should be prepared for the unintended consequences. What many of these people arguing for "religious freedom" fail to realize is that this freedom is a two way street. At some point a non-Christian will be in a position to deny service to a Christian customer because they have "a sincerely held religious belief" that is incompatible with that of a Christian. Once the shoe is on the other foot maybe these Christians will appreciate how one man's religious freedom can be another man's religious persecution.
Outside of the obvious ambiguity of such a law there are a number of other issues with this line of thinking. First it is not religious freedom to arbitrarily exclude an entire group of people. As John 8:7 states "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her". Homosexuality is no more a sin than lust, greed, envy or pride. If we are going to refuse service for those in the LGBT community because of the bible then we must do the same of all sinners. Anything less does not show strict adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ but selective intolerance.
There is also a belief that somehow upholding the rights of the gay populace will lead to the government forcing all sorts of religious groups to do things that are against their beliefs. Examples of this include government forcing churches to marry gay couples or forcing a Muslim food service company to offer pork. Neither of these examples represents the case the LGBT is arguing in the numerous lawsuits across the country.
When talking about marriage equality no one is asking the florist or baker to provide a service that they don't already provide. They are asking them to provide that service to all customers equally. The product and the people are not the same. You can't require a vegan baker to provide a cake with eggs. It's not a product they serve. But you can require a vegan baker to provide their vegan cakes to all customers. Huge difference.
As far as church services are concerned there are a couple precedents that suggest fears over churches being forced to provide service are vastly overblown. First, most churches require one to be a member to receive services. Like many other organizations churches are allowed to deny membership often times regardless of discrimination laws such as the church that voted to refuse marriage services to interracial couples. Second a Supreme Court decision last year established "ministerial exception" which exempts churches from some anti-discrimination laws.
Having said that if these legislators are successful in cementing additional protections into law they should be prepared for the unintended consequences. What many of these people arguing for "religious freedom" fail to realize is that this freedom is a two way street. At some point a non-Christian will be in a position to deny service to a Christian customer because they have "a sincerely held religious belief" that is incompatible with that of a Christian. Once the shoe is on the other foot maybe these Christians will appreciate how one man's religious freedom can be another man's religious persecution.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Regulating the rhetoric on job creation
Creating jobs is a major concern for all politicians. Subsequently, discussions regarding how to improve the job market are often a topic among those who follow politics. My colleague Charles Owens the director of the Michigan Branch of the National Federation for Independent Business (NFIB) recently penned an article discussing how the Federal regulatory environment affects small business.
To support his stance Charles supplies a number of statistics. Unfortunately many of those statistics are in error or are inconsistent. For example he states that small business creates two thirds of all new jobs - a claim that Mitt Romney made during his run for president. The reality is that small business actually only account for around 26% of new jobs.
Next Charles argues that the regulatory burden on small business is more than that of large companies. While this number is backed with actual data it is disingenuous to suggest that two-thirds of all jobs are created by small business and then imply that those companies incur more costs. The two-third claim is based on companies with 50 or less employees while the data surrounding the extra costs of regulations only includes companies with 20 or fewer employees. Perhaps the burden is equal among these two groups but the data set is different and implies a conclusion not stated by the report Charles quotes.
The final piece of data Charles uses to make is point is not surprisingly a poll conducted by the organization of which he is a ranking member. The claim is that "unreasonable government regulations" ranks as the fifth most concerning issue for small business. The real surprise is that the number is not higher after all who supports "unreasonable" regulations? Ask any of the supposed regulation loving Democrats you know if the regulations they support are "unreasonable" and the response will universally be no.
But even beyond this stacking the deck tactic this data is highly suspect given that the nearly 100% of the NFIB's political contributions in 2011-2012 went to support Republicans or attack Democrats. Additionally the NFIB represents around 350,000 businesses while the US currently contains 23 million small businesses. This means this poll represents a tiny portion of the overall small businesses and they're oversampling Republican lead companies.
Of course it should be noted that the NFIB isn't the only organization to poll small businesses. A Gallup poll found that small businesses number one reason for not hiring new employees was because they "Didn't need any additional employees at this time". For these companies it wouldn't matter how much regulations affected their business. They won't hire any way. As a matter of fact government regulations are sixth out of seven categories on why companies aren't hiring.
The reality is that business supports plenty of regulations. What one company may see as a burden another may see as leveling the playing field. If the goal is to remove regulations because the public and companies agree the regulation is unreasonable, most would support such a plan. But to attack regulations as some ubiquitous evil in the name of jobs is a massive oversimplification of the issue.
To support his stance Charles supplies a number of statistics. Unfortunately many of those statistics are in error or are inconsistent. For example he states that small business creates two thirds of all new jobs - a claim that Mitt Romney made during his run for president. The reality is that small business actually only account for around 26% of new jobs.
Next Charles argues that the regulatory burden on small business is more than that of large companies. While this number is backed with actual data it is disingenuous to suggest that two-thirds of all jobs are created by small business and then imply that those companies incur more costs. The two-third claim is based on companies with 50 or less employees while the data surrounding the extra costs of regulations only includes companies with 20 or fewer employees. Perhaps the burden is equal among these two groups but the data set is different and implies a conclusion not stated by the report Charles quotes.
The final piece of data Charles uses to make is point is not surprisingly a poll conducted by the organization of which he is a ranking member. The claim is that "unreasonable government regulations" ranks as the fifth most concerning issue for small business. The real surprise is that the number is not higher after all who supports "unreasonable" regulations? Ask any of the supposed regulation loving Democrats you know if the regulations they support are "unreasonable" and the response will universally be no.
But even beyond this stacking the deck tactic this data is highly suspect given that the nearly 100% of the NFIB's political contributions in 2011-2012 went to support Republicans or attack Democrats. Additionally the NFIB represents around 350,000 businesses while the US currently contains 23 million small businesses. This means this poll represents a tiny portion of the overall small businesses and they're oversampling Republican lead companies.
Of course it should be noted that the NFIB isn't the only organization to poll small businesses. A Gallup poll found that small businesses number one reason for not hiring new employees was because they "Didn't need any additional employees at this time". For these companies it wouldn't matter how much regulations affected their business. They won't hire any way. As a matter of fact government regulations are sixth out of seven categories on why companies aren't hiring.
The reality is that business supports plenty of regulations. What one company may see as a burden another may see as leveling the playing field. If the goal is to remove regulations because the public and companies agree the regulation is unreasonable, most would support such a plan. But to attack regulations as some ubiquitous evil in the name of jobs is a massive oversimplification of the issue.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Gay rights vs. religious freedom
With marriage equality being decided at the Federal level by the Supreme Court the focus of this debate now shifts to the states. And while it may be some time before the legal challenges to state laws banning marriage equality start making headlines, the battle for equal rights for the LGBT community is already underway.
Across the country a number of private businesses, mainly those associated with the wedding industry, contend they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This is not true in cases covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which includes discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, but the line is less clear when it comes to sexual preference. A number of states have already addressed this ambiguity with state laws against any arbitrary discrimination but many other states will have such decisions made for them through the court system.
In many of these cases religious beliefs are the justification for the discrimination. In the state of Washington, for example, a florist has refused to provide service to a gay couple stating "I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ". The florist also stated that this was the first time she had refused service in 37 years of business.
These two claims together are a giant red flag. The "sin" of homosexuality is no worse than any other sin discussed in the bible so the fact that this florist had never been compelled to refuse service to an obese person who could be suffering from the sin of gluttony or a person who is on their second or third marriage who may have been guilty of coveting thy neighbor's wife suggests that this is not a person with strong moral convictions but a person who arbitrarily hides behind their faith to discriminate.
No one is arguing that these business owners are not entitled to their religious freedom. The point is that as a business operating with the general public there must be a business case for denying service and the owners religious beliefs are not one of them.
Across the country a number of private businesses, mainly those associated with the wedding industry, contend they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This is not true in cases covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which includes discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, but the line is less clear when it comes to sexual preference. A number of states have already addressed this ambiguity with state laws against any arbitrary discrimination but many other states will have such decisions made for them through the court system.
In many of these cases religious beliefs are the justification for the discrimination. In the state of Washington, for example, a florist has refused to provide service to a gay couple stating "I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ". The florist also stated that this was the first time she had refused service in 37 years of business.
These two claims together are a giant red flag. The "sin" of homosexuality is no worse than any other sin discussed in the bible so the fact that this florist had never been compelled to refuse service to an obese person who could be suffering from the sin of gluttony or a person who is on their second or third marriage who may have been guilty of coveting thy neighbor's wife suggests that this is not a person with strong moral convictions but a person who arbitrarily hides behind their faith to discriminate.
No one is arguing that these business owners are not entitled to their religious freedom. The point is that as a business operating with the general public there must be a business case for denying service and the owners religious beliefs are not one of them.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Republicans are dying for jobs
The response was predictable; as soon as word got out the president would be making a speech about reducing carbon pollution Republicans flipped back through their folder of poll tested pre-election talking points to "W" for "War on Coal". Update a few numbers and there you have it - President Obama is slowing ruining America and killing jobs with his obsession with having clean, breathable air.
Apparently to these Republicans nothing is more sacrosanct than jobs. And while lives trumped jobs back in the days of lead paint, mercury, and asbestos - at this point it seems the estimated 13,000 lives lost each year due to coal power are less important than the potential 16,000 jobs the president's new initiatives could eliminate.
Of course if Republicans are really serious about increasing employment regardless of the costs, there is plenty of good news available. Outside of passing the American Jobs Act that the president proposed the congress could also reverse the hiring trend in the public sector that has cost the economy over 600,000 jobs since 2009. Additionally it is estimated that the sequester cuts, which are starting to impact the employment status of many, especially those in the defense industry, will eliminate some 750,000 jobs this year.
But even beyond government jobs there are plenty of other opportunities to boost the economy that Republicans should support if jobs are our number one consideration. The recent gay marriage ruling by the Supreme Court for instance will induce hundreds of millions of dollars of new economic activity, as well as increasing tax revenue. Perhaps being gay is an abomination in the eyes of the lord but it still creates jobs.
Since 1982 the US has shut down over 1,000 abortion clinics. Obviously the closure of these facilities due to government regulations and red tape, restricting abortions across the country, have cost jobs which we could easily restore with some common sense changes that loosen government restrictions. This may lead to an increase in aborted fetuses but really what's more important here?
We should also consider ending the drug war. According to a report by the Cato Institute the legalization of cannabis alone would generate tens of billions of dollars in additional tax revenue for states. Maybe millions of people will become addicted to drugs they would have never had access to before but personal responsibility right?
And while it may lead to more crime and human trafficking, legalizing prostitution is certain to boost employment and add to government coffers. I think we can all agree that safety should take a back seat to jobs.
Clearly these are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to job creation but if we are serious about fixing the economy, the only possible way to accomplish this goal is to completely abandon the "good of the people" meme that our government operates under and expand job opportunities where ever possible. Otherwise we stand to lose valuable jobs like those in the coal industry that can't just be replaced by some free market clean energy solution.
Apparently to these Republicans nothing is more sacrosanct than jobs. And while lives trumped jobs back in the days of lead paint, mercury, and asbestos - at this point it seems the estimated 13,000 lives lost each year due to coal power are less important than the potential 16,000 jobs the president's new initiatives could eliminate.
Of course if Republicans are really serious about increasing employment regardless of the costs, there is plenty of good news available. Outside of passing the American Jobs Act that the president proposed the congress could also reverse the hiring trend in the public sector that has cost the economy over 600,000 jobs since 2009. Additionally it is estimated that the sequester cuts, which are starting to impact the employment status of many, especially those in the defense industry, will eliminate some 750,000 jobs this year.
But even beyond government jobs there are plenty of other opportunities to boost the economy that Republicans should support if jobs are our number one consideration. The recent gay marriage ruling by the Supreme Court for instance will induce hundreds of millions of dollars of new economic activity, as well as increasing tax revenue. Perhaps being gay is an abomination in the eyes of the lord but it still creates jobs.
Since 1982 the US has shut down over 1,000 abortion clinics. Obviously the closure of these facilities due to government regulations and red tape, restricting abortions across the country, have cost jobs which we could easily restore with some common sense changes that loosen government restrictions. This may lead to an increase in aborted fetuses but really what's more important here?
We should also consider ending the drug war. According to a report by the Cato Institute the legalization of cannabis alone would generate tens of billions of dollars in additional tax revenue for states. Maybe millions of people will become addicted to drugs they would have never had access to before but personal responsibility right?
And while it may lead to more crime and human trafficking, legalizing prostitution is certain to boost employment and add to government coffers. I think we can all agree that safety should take a back seat to jobs.
Clearly these are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to job creation but if we are serious about fixing the economy, the only possible way to accomplish this goal is to completely abandon the "good of the people" meme that our government operates under and expand job opportunities where ever possible. Otherwise we stand to lose valuable jobs like those in the coal industry that can't just be replaced by some free market clean energy solution.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Insuring corporate profits at the expense of consumers
Across the country as the economy took a turn for the worse in late 2007 many saw an opportunity to reduce the size of government, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut benefits for the most needy. And while these austerity measures were good at putting money in the hands of the rich and big corporations they hurt the middle class and the poor.
Continuing this trend, Michigan legislators are pandering to the auto insurance industry by considering a cap to the lifetime personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The idea is that capping these benefits will lead to lower rates for Michigan drivers. Given that Michigan drivers pay one if not the highest auto insurance rates in the nation reducing the costs would be a welcome change. However the resulting $125 per driver savings the governor is touting will have zero effect on our standing as the nation’s leader in auto insurance rate.
Additionally while Michigan residents do pay 5% more for their PIP benefits than the national average we also pay 13% more for comprehensive coverage and 30% more for collision.
This indicates that the motives for attacking the best PIP coverage in the nation has less to do with saving driver's money than appeasing the auto insurance industry who last year pulled in around $285 of profit per Michigan driver or over twice the savings of capping PIP.
But perhaps most disappointing is the governors statement that Michigan's PIP, which keeps many from having to declare bankruptcy simply to get the care they deserve, is too generous. This sets up a false choice of either expensive insurance or generous benefits. The reality is that there are a lot of things the government could do to affect auto insurance rates that wouldn't sacrifice benefits.
For example changing intersections to roundabouts has been shown to reduce injury accidents by 80% and all accidents by 40%. Obviously the less accidents drivers are involved in the less cost to insurance companies and the lower rates we should pay. The same is true of speed limits where the increased speed limits many states have adopted have lead to as much as a 9.1% increase in accidents.
And while "choice" has been the excuse to alter many of Michigan's long standing laws regardless of cost - such as in the case of the motorcycle helmet law repeal, where the decision to give riders a "choice" has resulted in a 34% increase in per accident costs - no such consideration has been given regarding PIP. Perhaps some consumers would choose to pay the additional $125 per year to have lifetime benefits while others would choose to reduce their rate and accept a lower level of coverage.
Additionally analysis shows that thanks to no fault insurance Michigan drivers are more likely to visit the hospital after an accident. These "extra" visits end up costing insurance companies regardless of how necessary the visit. Perhaps people should be given a choice to have a co-pay for these trips to the hospital. This should lower the rates of those who choose such an option.
Michigan legislators could also do other things like increase the number of police on the streets to cut down on auto theft, promote methods of reducing insurance fraud, and implement a system similar to the one in North Carolina that sets a state rate which is very difficult for insurance companies to increase. This system helps them to consistently offer some of the cheapest auto insurance rates in the nation.
Of course all of this assumes our insurance rates are even a real problem. According to the Insurance Institute of Michigan, most states start with a base rate and go up from there with various surcharges. In Michigan the base rates tend to be the top rates charged instead of the lowest, with discounts typically being offered. This means comparing base rates would not be a true apples to apples comparison.
In the end, of all the options available to the Michigan legislature, capping PIP may be the worst possible solution for consumers given the potential costs for such a small savings. Rather than again asking the poor and middle class to accept the bulk of the "shared sacrifice", perhaps it is time for legislators to start doing the job they are paid by Michigan tax payers to do and start looking for real solutions that benefit everyone instead of another corporate giveaway.
Continuing this trend, Michigan legislators are pandering to the auto insurance industry by considering a cap to the lifetime personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The idea is that capping these benefits will lead to lower rates for Michigan drivers. Given that Michigan drivers pay one if not the highest auto insurance rates in the nation reducing the costs would be a welcome change. However the resulting $125 per driver savings the governor is touting will have zero effect on our standing as the nation’s leader in auto insurance rate.
Additionally while Michigan residents do pay 5% more for their PIP benefits than the national average we also pay 13% more for comprehensive coverage and 30% more for collision.
This indicates that the motives for attacking the best PIP coverage in the nation has less to do with saving driver's money than appeasing the auto insurance industry who last year pulled in around $285 of profit per Michigan driver or over twice the savings of capping PIP.
But perhaps most disappointing is the governors statement that Michigan's PIP, which keeps many from having to declare bankruptcy simply to get the care they deserve, is too generous. This sets up a false choice of either expensive insurance or generous benefits. The reality is that there are a lot of things the government could do to affect auto insurance rates that wouldn't sacrifice benefits.
For example changing intersections to roundabouts has been shown to reduce injury accidents by 80% and all accidents by 40%. Obviously the less accidents drivers are involved in the less cost to insurance companies and the lower rates we should pay. The same is true of speed limits where the increased speed limits many states have adopted have lead to as much as a 9.1% increase in accidents.
And while "choice" has been the excuse to alter many of Michigan's long standing laws regardless of cost - such as in the case of the motorcycle helmet law repeal, where the decision to give riders a "choice" has resulted in a 34% increase in per accident costs - no such consideration has been given regarding PIP. Perhaps some consumers would choose to pay the additional $125 per year to have lifetime benefits while others would choose to reduce their rate and accept a lower level of coverage.
Additionally analysis shows that thanks to no fault insurance Michigan drivers are more likely to visit the hospital after an accident. These "extra" visits end up costing insurance companies regardless of how necessary the visit. Perhaps people should be given a choice to have a co-pay for these trips to the hospital. This should lower the rates of those who choose such an option.
Michigan legislators could also do other things like increase the number of police on the streets to cut down on auto theft, promote methods of reducing insurance fraud, and implement a system similar to the one in North Carolina that sets a state rate which is very difficult for insurance companies to increase. This system helps them to consistently offer some of the cheapest auto insurance rates in the nation.
Of course all of this assumes our insurance rates are even a real problem. According to the Insurance Institute of Michigan, most states start with a base rate and go up from there with various surcharges. In Michigan the base rates tend to be the top rates charged instead of the lowest, with discounts typically being offered. This means comparing base rates would not be a true apples to apples comparison.
In the end, of all the options available to the Michigan legislature, capping PIP may be the worst possible solution for consumers given the potential costs for such a small savings. Rather than again asking the poor and middle class to accept the bulk of the "shared sacrifice", perhaps it is time for legislators to start doing the job they are paid by Michigan tax payers to do and start looking for real solutions that benefit everyone instead of another corporate giveaway.
Broken bureaucracy bad for education
If you happen to be on Governor Snyder's email list you know he has been talking up his education policy recently. The most recent promotional item being offered up by the governor’s office is the claim that state education spending has increased each year of his term.
While it is true that "state" spending has increased each year total spending on education has not. To make his numbers work the governor co-opts funding that was previously supplied at the local level and now includes it in the state numbers.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan did thorough research on the topic and found that actual per pupil revenue for traditional K-12 education has fallen by 13.1% since 2004. Similarly the Michigan Senate report on per pupil spending shows that current spending is below the pre-Rick Snyder era levels. Additionally for the 2003-2004 school year Michigan's per pupil spending was 7.8% more than the US average while the 2009-2010 level is 2.9% below the US average.
Of course Rick Snyder is a politician and we all expect politicians to spin data to suit their needs. But who is Rick Snyder trying to impress here? Liberals and educators have followed the cuts to education spending far too closely to be deceived by political number manipulation. And Republicans and corporatist already think education spending is too high to laud what they see as yet more education spending.
But even if this is just deft political maneuvering by the governor, being lectured from a politician on improving education is an ironic situation. When discussing Michigan's education system Rick Snyder said "Our whole system in the United States is pretty broken".
Well perhaps the governor would be interested in knowing that according to polls 79% of parents give the school their child attends and "A or B" rating while only 40% of Michigan residents approve of the job the governor is doing. It should also be noted that according to a CNN poll, 86% of Americans say our system of government is broken.
The reality is that the meme that our education system is broken is politically motivated myth. So rather than spreading more hyperbole in an attempt to corporatize our children perhaps politicians should spend some time getting their own house in order instead of saddling hard working teachers with more uninformed bureaucracy.
While it is true that "state" spending has increased each year total spending on education has not. To make his numbers work the governor co-opts funding that was previously supplied at the local level and now includes it in the state numbers.
The Citizens Research Council of Michigan did thorough research on the topic and found that actual per pupil revenue for traditional K-12 education has fallen by 13.1% since 2004. Similarly the Michigan Senate report on per pupil spending shows that current spending is below the pre-Rick Snyder era levels. Additionally for the 2003-2004 school year Michigan's per pupil spending was 7.8% more than the US average while the 2009-2010 level is 2.9% below the US average.
Of course Rick Snyder is a politician and we all expect politicians to spin data to suit their needs. But who is Rick Snyder trying to impress here? Liberals and educators have followed the cuts to education spending far too closely to be deceived by political number manipulation. And Republicans and corporatist already think education spending is too high to laud what they see as yet more education spending.
But even if this is just deft political maneuvering by the governor, being lectured from a politician on improving education is an ironic situation. When discussing Michigan's education system Rick Snyder said "Our whole system in the United States is pretty broken".
Well perhaps the governor would be interested in knowing that according to polls 79% of parents give the school their child attends and "A or B" rating while only 40% of Michigan residents approve of the job the governor is doing. It should also be noted that according to a CNN poll, 86% of Americans say our system of government is broken.
The reality is that the meme that our education system is broken is politically motivated myth. So rather than spreading more hyperbole in an attempt to corporatize our children perhaps politicians should spend some time getting their own house in order instead of saddling hard working teachers with more uninformed bureaucracy.
Friday, June 14, 2013
The merit pay disconnect
Given that the Michigan legislature is considering merit pay for public teachers, conservatives are attempting to convince residents that this free market idea is essential to improving educational outcomes. Unfortunately these articles tend to be heavy on opinion and light on data showing that merit pay actually improves educational outcomes.
The most recent examples of the merit pay arguments have been offered up by Tom Gantert at Capital Confidential and Brittany Baldwin here at the Detroit News. In this iteration of the argument "Teacher of the year" recipient Gary Abud represents the anecdotal evidence that proves the need for merit pay.
The contention is that while Mr. Abud has been chosen as Michigan's best teacher he is not compensated accordingly because of evil union contracts that use degrees and years of service to determine his pay.
But here is where the supporters of merit pay make the giant leap of faith. Even without monetary incentives Gary Abud was motivated to become the best teacher in Michigan. Not only that, even when pushed on the topic Mr. Abud didn't argue for merit pay. At this point the only people really arguing for merit pay are the corporatists, who, regardless of data, believe in their hearts that merit pay works - you know the way all great business decisions are made - completely void of data and analysis.
And while conservatives will argue that "innovation" and "creative solutions" are key in education apparently that only applies to Charter schools since these very same conservatives are trying to standardize everything in public education and are ironically pretending that all Americans are motivated by the same thing - money.
Would a pastor inspire more good deeds if he was incentivized to do so? Would a Doctors without Borders doctor save more lives if there was a monetary reward for doing so? Would a fire fighter put out more fires if it increased his pay?
The reality is teachers are motivated by their students not by money. That doesn't mean they don't want to be compensated fairly but these people have many options and choose to teach knowing the pay going in. As a matter of fact Gary Abud was studying to be a physician before deciding his true calling was education. Any business will tell you that you can't design an effective incentive program is you don't understand what motives the employees and insisting that everyone values money in the same way is perhaps the biggest reason why merit pay consistently fails.
But even beyond this there is a massive disconnect at play in this argument. The criteria for determining the teacher of the year are "biographies and written essays that describe educational history, professional development activities, philosophy of teaching and thoughts on emerging education trends and issues." Conversely the criteria for determining merit pay bonuses currently being considered is student test scores. Perhaps Gary Abud's students routinely get the best test scores in his district or the state but those scores were never a consideration in how successful a teacher he is.
If Gary Abud is the poster boy for great teachers then design your merit pay program to match the skills measured for this honor, otherwise admit that your obsession with merit pay has more to do with your personal beliefs than some well thought out free market style analysis that results in a truly effective program.
The most recent examples of the merit pay arguments have been offered up by Tom Gantert at Capital Confidential and Brittany Baldwin here at the Detroit News. In this iteration of the argument "Teacher of the year" recipient Gary Abud represents the anecdotal evidence that proves the need for merit pay.
The contention is that while Mr. Abud has been chosen as Michigan's best teacher he is not compensated accordingly because of evil union contracts that use degrees and years of service to determine his pay.
But here is where the supporters of merit pay make the giant leap of faith. Even without monetary incentives Gary Abud was motivated to become the best teacher in Michigan. Not only that, even when pushed on the topic Mr. Abud didn't argue for merit pay. At this point the only people really arguing for merit pay are the corporatists, who, regardless of data, believe in their hearts that merit pay works - you know the way all great business decisions are made - completely void of data and analysis.
And while conservatives will argue that "innovation" and "creative solutions" are key in education apparently that only applies to Charter schools since these very same conservatives are trying to standardize everything in public education and are ironically pretending that all Americans are motivated by the same thing - money.
Would a pastor inspire more good deeds if he was incentivized to do so? Would a Doctors without Borders doctor save more lives if there was a monetary reward for doing so? Would a fire fighter put out more fires if it increased his pay?
The reality is teachers are motivated by their students not by money. That doesn't mean they don't want to be compensated fairly but these people have many options and choose to teach knowing the pay going in. As a matter of fact Gary Abud was studying to be a physician before deciding his true calling was education. Any business will tell you that you can't design an effective incentive program is you don't understand what motives the employees and insisting that everyone values money in the same way is perhaps the biggest reason why merit pay consistently fails.
But even beyond this there is a massive disconnect at play in this argument. The criteria for determining the teacher of the year are "biographies and written essays that describe educational history, professional development activities, philosophy of teaching and thoughts on emerging education trends and issues." Conversely the criteria for determining merit pay bonuses currently being considered is student test scores. Perhaps Gary Abud's students routinely get the best test scores in his district or the state but those scores were never a consideration in how successful a teacher he is.
If Gary Abud is the poster boy for great teachers then design your merit pay program to match the skills measured for this honor, otherwise admit that your obsession with merit pay has more to do with your personal beliefs than some well thought out free market style analysis that results in a truly effective program.
Monday, June 10, 2013
How to correct poltical correctness
Much has been made recently of the flippant statement Sergio Garcia made when discussing his squabble with Tiger Woods. While Sergio subsequently apologized for his remarks, the issue of political correctness is a source of much consternation for many conservatives.
Luckily Sergio discovered the error of his ways but his comments still received a troubling amount of positive responses. It seems that there is still a considerable portion of the population that is very concerned that their right to arbitrarily insult and belittle those not like them is being infringed upon. To these people the true injustice being perpetrated here is that they now have to hide their disdain for others or worse yet put themselves in someone else's shoes.
After all the "N" word is just African American's being too sensitive, complaints about entities profiting from the names and images of groups our fore fathers slaughtered just proves how thin skinned Native Americans can be, and concern over being asked to endure a more thorough examination at the airport is an example of Muslims being too touchy.
The reality is that to the person who is being insulted, asking others to recognize why certain words and phrases could be considered abhorrent isn't silly. And honoring that persons request to speak to them in a more respectful way doesn't mean you're weak or pandering.
Of course complaints from conservatives regarding political correctness are quite ironic given their response when the shoe is on the other foot. When a liberal group made an Ad comparing President Bush to Hitler conservatives were outraged. Jane Fonda's inconsiderate words and actions towards US military personnel serving in Vietnam, still bothers many veterans today. Use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you are likely to get an hour long special on Fox News. When Helen Thomas made insensitive remarks about Israelis, conservatives were quick to call for her dismissal. And perhaps nothing was more irritating to conservatives than when Michelle Obama said "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country".
The real problem here is not that we are too politically correct or too sensitive but that we don't really understand why someone might be offended by our words. So rather than listening, accepting that our statements might be hurtful and attempting to treat others as we would like to be treated - we pretend there is something wrong with everyone else and claim "political correctness is killing this country" to cover for our own ignorance.
Additionally there are many who believe our first amendment rights are being restricted with this new level of civility. But the truth is you are still just as free now as you ever were to say any bigoted idea that comes to your mind, the only difference is that now you are more likely to be publicly shamed for narrow minded views.
Having said that there is an easy way to keep the PC police from targeting you - take a little personal responsibility for what comes out of your mouth and stop making thoughtless insensitive comments - problem solved!
Luckily Sergio discovered the error of his ways but his comments still received a troubling amount of positive responses. It seems that there is still a considerable portion of the population that is very concerned that their right to arbitrarily insult and belittle those not like them is being infringed upon. To these people the true injustice being perpetrated here is that they now have to hide their disdain for others or worse yet put themselves in someone else's shoes.
After all the "N" word is just African American's being too sensitive, complaints about entities profiting from the names and images of groups our fore fathers slaughtered just proves how thin skinned Native Americans can be, and concern over being asked to endure a more thorough examination at the airport is an example of Muslims being too touchy.
The reality is that to the person who is being insulted, asking others to recognize why certain words and phrases could be considered abhorrent isn't silly. And honoring that persons request to speak to them in a more respectful way doesn't mean you're weak or pandering.
Of course complaints from conservatives regarding political correctness are quite ironic given their response when the shoe is on the other foot. When a liberal group made an Ad comparing President Bush to Hitler conservatives were outraged. Jane Fonda's inconsiderate words and actions towards US military personnel serving in Vietnam, still bothers many veterans today. Use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you are likely to get an hour long special on Fox News. When Helen Thomas made insensitive remarks about Israelis, conservatives were quick to call for her dismissal. And perhaps nothing was more irritating to conservatives than when Michelle Obama said "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country".
The real problem here is not that we are too politically correct or too sensitive but that we don't really understand why someone might be offended by our words. So rather than listening, accepting that our statements might be hurtful and attempting to treat others as we would like to be treated - we pretend there is something wrong with everyone else and claim "political correctness is killing this country" to cover for our own ignorance.
Additionally there are many who believe our first amendment rights are being restricted with this new level of civility. But the truth is you are still just as free now as you ever were to say any bigoted idea that comes to your mind, the only difference is that now you are more likely to be publicly shamed for narrow minded views.
Having said that there is an easy way to keep the PC police from targeting you - take a little personal responsibility for what comes out of your mouth and stop making thoughtless insensitive comments - problem solved!
Monday, June 3, 2013
Free market solutions do not equal better educational outcomes
Given the recent Mackinac Conference many people are talking about ways to improve education. My colleague Gary Wolfram took his usual economic view of politics to discuss the meme regarding more education spending leading to better educational outcomes.
It should be noted that this is a vast oversimplification of what people who believe our education system could use more money, me included, actually think. No one really believes that just throwing money at education will suddenly get results.
Having said that Gary makes a number of points that many probably agree with. First and most important Gary says "More money spent on government-produced education does not necessarily mean a better education for children." and "The children of Michigan deserve a quality education. This will only happen once we produce education through the market process rather than the same way the Soviets produced nails."
Unfortunately Gary draws a conclusion that is not supported by data. While there are certainly studies that show more money doesn't necessarily get better educational results there are others that show that the states that spend more on education tend to produce better outcomes. Regardless, concluding that the free market is the only way to improve education is a giant leap.
Of course not only is it a giant leap, it also isn't true. The reality is that the evidence shows the two biggest free market solutions Michigan Republicans have been pushing, Charter Schools and Merit Pay, do not necessarily mean a better education for children. If failing to show a correlation proves the "more money" supporters wrong then failing to show a correlation between free market solutions and better test scores similarly proves the "free market" supporters wrong.
So if free market solutions don't actually improve education then maybe the main goal of free market reformist is to reduce the costs. Unfortunately privatizing government services has a long but inglorious history when it comes to saving tax payers money. A study on the topic found that of 35 jobs offered out by the government, private contractors cost more in 33 of those jobs.
Beyond the privatization angle Gary also says "More money spent on education can simply mean higher salaries for teachers or administrators or non-educational personnel." yet the data shows that in Michigan the more per pupil money a school spends on their teachers the better the educational outcomes. This suggests that not only is higher pay for teachers not the problem with public education but that it could very well be the free market solution conservatives have been looking for. Additionally if higher salaries for administrators is detrimental to education then free market supporters should be against Charter schools since on average they spend $800 more per pupil on administrative costs than public schools
In the end no one is really arguing for a blank check to improve education in the US. They just don't believe you can cut your way to better education. The reality is that it costs money to hire good teachers, train older teachers in the newest techniques, build and maintain good facilities and provide cutting edge technology that prepares students for the ever changing world we live in.
Pretending that decades old free market solutions are the answer ignores mountains of data to the contrary and diverts time, money and resources from real changes that could actually improve educational outcomes.
It should be noted that this is a vast oversimplification of what people who believe our education system could use more money, me included, actually think. No one really believes that just throwing money at education will suddenly get results.
Having said that Gary makes a number of points that many probably agree with. First and most important Gary says "More money spent on government-produced education does not necessarily mean a better education for children." and "The children of Michigan deserve a quality education. This will only happen once we produce education through the market process rather than the same way the Soviets produced nails."
Unfortunately Gary draws a conclusion that is not supported by data. While there are certainly studies that show more money doesn't necessarily get better educational results there are others that show that the states that spend more on education tend to produce better outcomes. Regardless, concluding that the free market is the only way to improve education is a giant leap.
Of course not only is it a giant leap, it also isn't true. The reality is that the evidence shows the two biggest free market solutions Michigan Republicans have been pushing, Charter Schools and Merit Pay, do not necessarily mean a better education for children. If failing to show a correlation proves the "more money" supporters wrong then failing to show a correlation between free market solutions and better test scores similarly proves the "free market" supporters wrong.
So if free market solutions don't actually improve education then maybe the main goal of free market reformist is to reduce the costs. Unfortunately privatizing government services has a long but inglorious history when it comes to saving tax payers money. A study on the topic found that of 35 jobs offered out by the government, private contractors cost more in 33 of those jobs.
Beyond the privatization angle Gary also says "More money spent on education can simply mean higher salaries for teachers or administrators or non-educational personnel." yet the data shows that in Michigan the more per pupil money a school spends on their teachers the better the educational outcomes. This suggests that not only is higher pay for teachers not the problem with public education but that it could very well be the free market solution conservatives have been looking for. Additionally if higher salaries for administrators is detrimental to education then free market supporters should be against Charter schools since on average they spend $800 more per pupil on administrative costs than public schools
In the end no one is really arguing for a blank check to improve education in the US. They just don't believe you can cut your way to better education. The reality is that it costs money to hire good teachers, train older teachers in the newest techniques, build and maintain good facilities and provide cutting edge technology that prepares students for the ever changing world we live in.
Pretending that decades old free market solutions are the answer ignores mountains of data to the contrary and diverts time, money and resources from real changes that could actually improve educational outcomes.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
The Merit Pay double standard
Adding to an already impressive list of legislative "solutions" that don't actually solve any problems, Rick Snyder and the Michigan legislature have decided to consider "merit pay" for public educators.
Like many of their previous legislative priorities including corporate tax cuts, charter schools and right to work, Republicans seem more interested in placating their corporate sugar daddies than analyzing data. Because if Republicans took the time to review the many studies on the topic they would see that the type of merit pay they support doesn't actually improve educational outcomes.
The merit pay solution fails in part because it assumes all teachers are slackers and that their primary motivation is money. Contrary to what many Republican believe most teachers already give maximum effort because they have a passion for teaching and anything less than their best would negatively affect their students. Imagine using monetary incentives to motive a pastor or a charity worker to do good deeds and you can start to understand why this corporate strategy isn't applicable across all occupations. But even beyond this, this solution also presumes schools provide all the resources necessary to make significant strides, that the teachers have been given the proper tools and training to implement meaningful improvements and that the leadership will support innovative changes.
Maybe the Governor should listen to his own rhetoric which contradicts the very merit pay system he currently supports. When running for office Rick Snyder said "Government doesn’t create jobs, we create an environment where jobs can flourish." Well the same is true in education - teachers don't create good test scores, they create an environment where good test score can flourish.
Similarly when asked to estimate the number of jobs his new environment would create the Governor said "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it’s going to happen." So Rick Snyder sees no value in setting expectations for the changes that have occurred on his watch yet exceeding an arbitrary goal set by technocrats is a core aspect of how the governor plans on improving educational outcomes. Such hypocrisy represents a massive double standard.
Of course if Republican politicians truly believe that merit pay gets the best results then why have they never considered making a significant portion of their own pay merit based. They could earn extra pay for things like low unemployment numbers, budget surpluses, improved crime rates, greater energy independence, better health care outcomes, and of course student test scores.
But the reality is that using metrics to define success is something politicians reserve for others since their true goal of raising money and winning elections doesn't require tangible results. It only requires an illusion of success and when your voting bloc already disavows science, considers Benghazi the biggest scandal in US history, and believes disagreeing with a media source proves liberal bias, convincing them that hard data and peer reviewed studies are propaganda from liberal elites isn't much of a stretch.
Like many of their previous legislative priorities including corporate tax cuts, charter schools and right to work, Republicans seem more interested in placating their corporate sugar daddies than analyzing data. Because if Republicans took the time to review the many studies on the topic they would see that the type of merit pay they support doesn't actually improve educational outcomes.
The merit pay solution fails in part because it assumes all teachers are slackers and that their primary motivation is money. Contrary to what many Republican believe most teachers already give maximum effort because they have a passion for teaching and anything less than their best would negatively affect their students. Imagine using monetary incentives to motive a pastor or a charity worker to do good deeds and you can start to understand why this corporate strategy isn't applicable across all occupations. But even beyond this, this solution also presumes schools provide all the resources necessary to make significant strides, that the teachers have been given the proper tools and training to implement meaningful improvements and that the leadership will support innovative changes.
Maybe the Governor should listen to his own rhetoric which contradicts the very merit pay system he currently supports. When running for office Rick Snyder said "Government doesn’t create jobs, we create an environment where jobs can flourish." Well the same is true in education - teachers don't create good test scores, they create an environment where good test score can flourish.
Similarly when asked to estimate the number of jobs his new environment would create the Governor said "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it’s going to happen." So Rick Snyder sees no value in setting expectations for the changes that have occurred on his watch yet exceeding an arbitrary goal set by technocrats is a core aspect of how the governor plans on improving educational outcomes. Such hypocrisy represents a massive double standard.
Of course if Republican politicians truly believe that merit pay gets the best results then why have they never considered making a significant portion of their own pay merit based. They could earn extra pay for things like low unemployment numbers, budget surpluses, improved crime rates, greater energy independence, better health care outcomes, and of course student test scores.
But the reality is that using metrics to define success is something politicians reserve for others since their true goal of raising money and winning elections doesn't require tangible results. It only requires an illusion of success and when your voting bloc already disavows science, considers Benghazi the biggest scandal in US history, and believes disagreeing with a media source proves liberal bias, convincing them that hard data and peer reviewed studies are propaganda from liberal elites isn't much of a stretch.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Partisanship is unconstitutional
A lot of talk from conservatives especially those on this blog in recent days revolves around the belief that Republicans value the Constitution more than Democrats.
Such a belief requires an extraordinary combination of ignorance and hubris since the real difference here is perception not patriotism. Assuming that there is only one right interpretation of the constitution and it is the one you or your party subscribes to, is a mind numbingly ethnocentric view of such a complex document.
While such a simplistic view may be a good way to motivate the knuckle draggers it represents a very unpatriotic position since the right to freely disagree and debate our government is at the core of the very constitution these people claim to be building a bulwark to protect.
The reality is that Americans on nearly every side of any constitutional argument are ardent supports of the constitution. Whether you are a gun rights supporter or a gun control advocate, whether you are for prayer in school or separation of church and state, or whether you believe that corporations are people or just corporations - none of these positions embraces the constitution any more than any other.
But regardless of how insipid the debate over who loves the constitution more may be, the vapid arguments conservatives use to support these claims are worse.
Suggesting Democrats oppose the 4th amendment because of the AP scandal ignores when Republicans thumbed their nose at the 4th amendment with warrantless wiretaps.
Implying that the IRS scandal proves Democrats are against the 1st amendment ignores the profiling Republicans have been supporting for years.
Acting like Lois Lerner's use of the of the 5th amendment is an indictment on the Obama administration ignores that both Oliver North and John M. Poindexter pleaded the fifth during the Iran Contra hearings until they were given sweetheart deals.
And even beyond the hypocrisy Republicans exhibit regarding the constitution they often support an agenda that the courts have decided are unconstitutional. For example the courts have ruled multiple times that terminating a pregnancy is legal, yet Republicans continue that introduce unconstitutional legislation attempting to limit this right. In an overreaction to immigration, Republicans in Arizona passed a number of laws the courts deemed unconstitutional. And even after it was ruled unconstitutional, states like Michigan press forward with mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients.
In the end nothing is a more scathing indictment of the voting populace than this public chest thumping over who's adulation for the constitution is bigger. Such posturing solves no issues and exposes how little many Americans really understand their opposition. So next time you are inclined to proclaim constitutional superiority just realize this doesn't make you look like a virtuous patriot, it makes you self absorbed dolt.
Such a belief requires an extraordinary combination of ignorance and hubris since the real difference here is perception not patriotism. Assuming that there is only one right interpretation of the constitution and it is the one you or your party subscribes to, is a mind numbingly ethnocentric view of such a complex document.
While such a simplistic view may be a good way to motivate the knuckle draggers it represents a very unpatriotic position since the right to freely disagree and debate our government is at the core of the very constitution these people claim to be building a bulwark to protect.
The reality is that Americans on nearly every side of any constitutional argument are ardent supports of the constitution. Whether you are a gun rights supporter or a gun control advocate, whether you are for prayer in school or separation of church and state, or whether you believe that corporations are people or just corporations - none of these positions embraces the constitution any more than any other.
But regardless of how insipid the debate over who loves the constitution more may be, the vapid arguments conservatives use to support these claims are worse.
Suggesting Democrats oppose the 4th amendment because of the AP scandal ignores when Republicans thumbed their nose at the 4th amendment with warrantless wiretaps.
Implying that the IRS scandal proves Democrats are against the 1st amendment ignores the profiling Republicans have been supporting for years.
Acting like Lois Lerner's use of the of the 5th amendment is an indictment on the Obama administration ignores that both Oliver North and John M. Poindexter pleaded the fifth during the Iran Contra hearings until they were given sweetheart deals.
And even beyond the hypocrisy Republicans exhibit regarding the constitution they often support an agenda that the courts have decided are unconstitutional. For example the courts have ruled multiple times that terminating a pregnancy is legal, yet Republicans continue that introduce unconstitutional legislation attempting to limit this right. In an overreaction to immigration, Republicans in Arizona passed a number of laws the courts deemed unconstitutional. And even after it was ruled unconstitutional, states like Michigan press forward with mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients.
In the end nothing is a more scathing indictment of the voting populace than this public chest thumping over who's adulation for the constitution is bigger. Such posturing solves no issues and exposes how little many Americans really understand their opposition. So next time you are inclined to proclaim constitutional superiority just realize this doesn't make you look like a virtuous patriot, it makes you self absorbed dolt.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
More ammunition for the conspiracy theorist
Last month, around the same time the Senate was debating the immensely popular background check bill, Republicans took their "fear government" conspiracy theory to a new level. This conspiracy now has some believing that the government is buying large quantities of ammunition to keep it out of the hands of gun owners.
First it should be noted that the NRA estimates that 10 to 12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced and sold in the US each year with billions more being imported. Conversely the government request is for a mere 1.6 billion rounds over the next few years. This means, assuming the government was buying zero rounds previously, this new request only represents a 5% increase which seems unlikely to have much effect on the overall supply.
Second the amount of money spent on ammunition by gun owners has nearly tripled since the turn of the century. Given the massive amounts of rounds purchased by individuals perhaps the perceived shortage that gun advocates are concerned about is really just a self inflicted wound.
With that being said the idea that the government can choke the market seems like an ironic argument from Republicans given their blind faith in the free market. The reality is the free market should naturally respond to an increased demand with higher prices (which is not happening) or expanded production (which is happening and creating jobs).
Of course regardless of how irrational this arbitrary limit on ammunition purchases by the government may be and regardless of how this might negatively affect the government entity set up by Republicans to combat terrorism in the US that's not even the worst part of this new gun paranoia. No, the most disturbing meme at work here is the idea that people need to fear our democratically elected officials and arm the rebels. Because you can guarantee the guys holding the largest weapons cache are not the one's you want leading this country on the off change the conspiracy theorists are right.
First it should be noted that the NRA estimates that 10 to 12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced and sold in the US each year with billions more being imported. Conversely the government request is for a mere 1.6 billion rounds over the next few years. This means, assuming the government was buying zero rounds previously, this new request only represents a 5% increase which seems unlikely to have much effect on the overall supply.
Second the amount of money spent on ammunition by gun owners has nearly tripled since the turn of the century. Given the massive amounts of rounds purchased by individuals perhaps the perceived shortage that gun advocates are concerned about is really just a self inflicted wound.
With that being said the idea that the government can choke the market seems like an ironic argument from Republicans given their blind faith in the free market. The reality is the free market should naturally respond to an increased demand with higher prices (which is not happening) or expanded production (which is happening and creating jobs).
Of course regardless of how irrational this arbitrary limit on ammunition purchases by the government may be and regardless of how this might negatively affect the government entity set up by Republicans to combat terrorism in the US that's not even the worst part of this new gun paranoia. No, the most disturbing meme at work here is the idea that people need to fear our democratically elected officials and arm the rebels. Because you can guarantee the guys holding the largest weapons cache are not the one's you want leading this country on the off change the conspiracy theorists are right.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Benghazi, IRS and AP Oh My!
This week Republicans are frothing at the mouth over a number of government "scandals". Well, welcome to the party. Democrats have been outraged over these very same issues for years.
First there was Benghazi where four US citizens were killed as a result of a terrorist attack. While most would consider the lapse in security and loss of life the biggest concern Republican's seem more focused on how much the Obama administration knew about the circumstances of the attack. Yet it was found that Bush aides made 935 false statements following the worst terrorist attack against American citizens. Additionally there were seven attacks on US embassies on George W. Bush's watch.
Next came the revelation that the IRS targeted certain groups for extra scrutiny. Yet when it was discovered that Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities were being unfairly targeted by TSA agents there were no outcries from Tea Party members about the injustice being perpetrated against US citizens. Nor were their complaints from Republicans when it was revealed that minorities were more likely to get extra scrutiny from police during a traffic stop. Not to mention the photo ID voting laws that also disproportionately affect minorities.
And the final straw was the exposure of the Justice Departments phone record gathering activities. Yet when President Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping Republican Congressmen were there to cheer him on in the name of security. Republicans also lead the charge to pass the Patriot act which expanded the government's power to gather information on you from third party sources as well as search private property without notifying the owner.
Unfortunately today's political party's value power over patriotism so the ideologues defend these abuses when they are in control and lament the loss of civil liberties when they are in the minority. The reality is that this type of political corruption has been around for decades and pretending that these issues will somehow lead to the removal of Barack Obama as president exposes the selective memory syndrome associated with US politics.
Should we expect more from our government? Absolutely. But a government is a reflection of its voters so until the populous confronts its own hypocrisy and places a higher value on constitutional rights than partisanship this is the government we will get.
First there was Benghazi where four US citizens were killed as a result of a terrorist attack. While most would consider the lapse in security and loss of life the biggest concern Republican's seem more focused on how much the Obama administration knew about the circumstances of the attack. Yet it was found that Bush aides made 935 false statements following the worst terrorist attack against American citizens. Additionally there were seven attacks on US embassies on George W. Bush's watch.
Next came the revelation that the IRS targeted certain groups for extra scrutiny. Yet when it was discovered that Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities were being unfairly targeted by TSA agents there were no outcries from Tea Party members about the injustice being perpetrated against US citizens. Nor were their complaints from Republicans when it was revealed that minorities were more likely to get extra scrutiny from police during a traffic stop. Not to mention the photo ID voting laws that also disproportionately affect minorities.
And the final straw was the exposure of the Justice Departments phone record gathering activities. Yet when President Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping Republican Congressmen were there to cheer him on in the name of security. Republicans also lead the charge to pass the Patriot act which expanded the government's power to gather information on you from third party sources as well as search private property without notifying the owner.
Unfortunately today's political party's value power over patriotism so the ideologues defend these abuses when they are in control and lament the loss of civil liberties when they are in the minority. The reality is that this type of political corruption has been around for decades and pretending that these issues will somehow lead to the removal of Barack Obama as president exposes the selective memory syndrome associated with US politics.
Should we expect more from our government? Absolutely. But a government is a reflection of its voters so until the populous confronts its own hypocrisy and places a higher value on constitutional rights than partisanship this is the government we will get.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Republican's dying to kill abortion
Last year Mississippi passed new restrictions on institutions that preform abortions meant to shutter the only remaining abortion clinic in the state. The law requires that these clinics be required to get admitting privileges to a local hospital to keep their state certification.
The justification for such a requirement was explained by the bill's sponsor state representative Sam Mims:
"If something goes wrong, which it might -- we hope it doesn't, but it could -- that physician could follow the patient to a local hospital."
So Representative Mims isn't trying to restrict abortions he just wants to make sure that people, who he would consider murders, get the proper care.
Of course it should be noted that in the most recent data only 12 women died from complications from an abortion. It should also be noted that legislation the representative has previously sponsored indicates his concern for Mississippi's abortion patients is incongruous with his concern for the rest of Mississippi's citizens.
For example the representative sponsored legislation that repealed a law requiring weapon dealers to keep records of weapons sold even though US citizens are 1,000 times more likely to die from an illegal gun as they are from an abortion.
Representative Mims also seems comfortable giving government money to support the education of dentists in the state of Mississippi yet in 2011 eight children died from complications from a dentist visit. If protecting Mississippi citizens was truly important to Representative Mims why not require dentists to have admitting privileges since one is nearly is likely to die at their local dentist office as they are an abortion clinic?
Also as a gun rights supporter it can be assumed that Representative Mims is firmly against further gun restrictions since regardless of regulations bad guys will get guns yet the exact same logic applies to abortions. Prohibition will not eliminate abortions. It will just push them unground and contrary to the Representatives stated wishes, will actually make abortion patients less safe.
It should also be noted that the longer a woman waits to have this procedure the more likely there are to have complications so the extended wait times many Republicans are pushing for will be detrimental to the health of the very women they claim to be protecting.
Representative Mims in a nutshell symbolizes why American's are so disillusioned with politicians. He claims to be pro life yet his legislation is decidedly detrimental to human life. He claims to support the constitution yet his legislation is meant to undercut a constitutionally guaranteed right. He claims to want smaller government and less regulations yet his legislation adds government regulations and red tape to a private business.
It would be nice if politicians like Representative Mims would just admit that they think removing a collection of cells from a woman's uterus is murder even though the highest court in the land says they are wrong. At least then we could have an honest policy debate that doesn't make the politicians look like complete hypocrites.
The justification for such a requirement was explained by the bill's sponsor state representative Sam Mims:
"If something goes wrong, which it might -- we hope it doesn't, but it could -- that physician could follow the patient to a local hospital."
So Representative Mims isn't trying to restrict abortions he just wants to make sure that people, who he would consider murders, get the proper care.
Of course it should be noted that in the most recent data only 12 women died from complications from an abortion. It should also be noted that legislation the representative has previously sponsored indicates his concern for Mississippi's abortion patients is incongruous with his concern for the rest of Mississippi's citizens.
For example the representative sponsored legislation that repealed a law requiring weapon dealers to keep records of weapons sold even though US citizens are 1,000 times more likely to die from an illegal gun as they are from an abortion.
Representative Mims also seems comfortable giving government money to support the education of dentists in the state of Mississippi yet in 2011 eight children died from complications from a dentist visit. If protecting Mississippi citizens was truly important to Representative Mims why not require dentists to have admitting privileges since one is nearly is likely to die at their local dentist office as they are an abortion clinic?
Also as a gun rights supporter it can be assumed that Representative Mims is firmly against further gun restrictions since regardless of regulations bad guys will get guns yet the exact same logic applies to abortions. Prohibition will not eliminate abortions. It will just push them unground and contrary to the Representatives stated wishes, will actually make abortion patients less safe.
It should also be noted that the longer a woman waits to have this procedure the more likely there are to have complications so the extended wait times many Republicans are pushing for will be detrimental to the health of the very women they claim to be protecting.
Representative Mims in a nutshell symbolizes why American's are so disillusioned with politicians. He claims to be pro life yet his legislation is decidedly detrimental to human life. He claims to support the constitution yet his legislation is meant to undercut a constitutionally guaranteed right. He claims to want smaller government and less regulations yet his legislation adds government regulations and red tape to a private business.
It would be nice if politicians like Representative Mims would just admit that they think removing a collection of cells from a woman's uterus is murder even though the highest court in the land says they are wrong. At least then we could have an honest policy debate that doesn't make the politicians look like complete hypocrites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
