Republicans wouldn't like a government run like a business

A common talking point in today's political discussions is the belief that the government should be run like a business. While this is a really awful idea, there are certainly those who believe in this nostrum.

So how exactly would a company run the government? Well the Chamber of Commerce whose tag line is "Standing Up for American Enterprise" has a few items on their wish list and who better to tell us how a business would run the government than a group described as an "organization of businesses whose goal is to further the interests of businesses".

On that list would be an increase in the Federal fuel tax. Yes, a tax at the federal level which would affect hundreds of millions of Americans is deemed important and necessary by the Chamber of Commerce. Such a tax would not be popular with the vast majority of tax payers however what business takes a poll of likely buyers to determine if they are going to increase the cost of their products?

Also on that list is immigration reform. They believe that the idea that immigrants are stealing our jobs is a myth. They also feel that immigrants are important for job creation. Perhaps they didn't get the memo about how damaging immigrants are to the economy because of all their freeloading.

Additionally the Chamber of Commerce supports common core for education, has "advocated vociferously for increased use of renewable energy and renewable energy technologies", was against the government shutdown and would like to change policy to make sure it doesn't happen again, and has championed various increases in sales tax across the country.

But perhaps most interesting is how the largest organization of businesses would proceed when it comes to health care reform. The rhetoric from many who claim to support running the country like a business suggests that the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) is incompatible with their beliefs and thus should be discarded completely.

However it should be noted that the Chamber of Commerce does not argue for repealing the ACA. Instead they are for "promoting strategies and solutions to encourage health care reform that lowers cost, improves quality, expands access to health care, and protects American jobs". Essentially the chamber would like to use the ACA as a starting point and enact changes to improve it.

Those changes would include attacking "Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse" which happens to already be part of the ACA. Improve health and productivity with wellness programs which is also already part of the ACA. "Foster the use of health care IT to improve efficiency, lower costs, and reduce medical errors" which is of course already part of the ACA. "Pool risk and purchase coverage at an affordable price" which everyone knows is already part of the ACA. "Reward providers for quality" which, you guessed it, is part of the ACA.

In essence if we ran the country like a business the ACA would be the type of health care reform we could expect.

The problem is that many believe this logic to be apodictic and never consider the yin and yang relationship between the public and private sector that propelled the US to prominence in the first place. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the government to cut wasteful spending or exhibit fiscal prudence but the reality is that the purpose of government is antithetical to that of a business and wanting government to run like a business is just a poorly constructed analogy fraught with unsagacious thinking.

Obama should adopt tort reform

Republicans, while opposed to the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare), have spent a lot of time trying to devise and alternative plan. The problem is so much of what makes up the ACA was originated by conservatives and Republicans that they are struggling to come up with a plan that they like that also is significantly different from the ACA.

Having said that, there are a few ideas that don't have Obama-cooties which Republicans continue to offer as the health care catholicon.

The most prominent of these ideas is tort reform. The argument goes that the price of health care is so high because doctors practice "defensive medicine" by ordering unnecessary tests and procedures to avoid litigation. Given their recent history we can assume that as soon as Democrats, and in particular Barack Obama, embrace tort reform, Republicans will turn against it.

The first problem with tort reform that will cause Republicans to turn against it is the fact that it is just more job killing regulations. How many lawyers have to lose their jobs before we stop the madness? Not only does tort reform mean more regulations but it also interferes in the natural order of things - also known as the free market. If there are doctors who are bad at their jobs they should be sued and hospitals should fire them. Free market style natural selection. Do we really want the government telling us what we can and cannot sue for? Every Republican knows that this will cost us our freedom on the eventual path to complete and total socialism.

Beyond that, tort reform removes the personal responsibility of Doctors. If they aren't held accountable for their actions what incentive will they have to improve their performance. Just imagine if car companies had negotiated a tort reform deal with the government. Consider the case of the Ford Pinto. In the 70's the car had a defect that caused it to burst into flames in a rear collision due to poor placement of the gas tank. Ford did the math and decided that around 180 people might die and another 180 would have serious burns. They calculated the cost of settling these suits to be less than half of the cost of fixing the problem. To no one's surprise Ford chose to save money over saving lives. It wasn't until the court system awarded a victim of a Pinto fire more than 10 times what Ford had anticipated that they were really compelled to act. Losing millions is a powerful motivator to improve your product or service.

If we just look the other way and don't require Doctors to be responsible for their own actions doesn't that essentially make us just like Nazi Germany? - is what Ted Cruz would probably say after Democrats adopt tort reform.

Of course holding doctors responsible means some are going to be fired. The good news is this will help stamp out another couple systems that Republicans hate - unions and quotas. The American Medical Association union of doctors convinced congress to set a quota for the number of residents that are created each year. By artificially lowering the number of individuals in these programs the AMA is able to manipulate the supply and demand curve which nets their members a premium for their services. This "doctor quota" will certainly lead to health care rationing and no one wants that. What will these lazy union workers demand next - end of life counseling, so they can kill grandma and save a few bucks?

Having the Democrat stamp of approval will also help Republicans find data that shows tort reform doesn't work and perhaps most damning the courts have determined it to be unconstitutional. Many Republicans believe the ACA is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court said otherwise. Just imagine how mad they will be to find out that tort reform actually is unconstitutional?

It is also important to remember that ACORN has most likely been linked to tort reform as evidenced by the photo below.



So Mr. President I urge you to come out in support of tort reform as soon as possible. Conservatives already have plenty of reasons to hate this government overreach but much like immigration reform, cap and trade, the NSA spying program and the START treaty your approval will be the light they need to see the error of their ways.

Help Wanted: Republicans required to fix Obamacare

As the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) struggles to get off the ground, conservative's are showing that their devotion to making the president look bad far exceeds their interest in cutting deficits, curbing out of control spending, and eliminating the moochers. At this point they have become the ultimate Monday morning quarterbacks - in the past they clamored for market competition, an individual mandate, cuts to Medicare payments and an Independent Payment Advisory Board and now that their vision has become reality they hate it.

The problem is that as much as Republicans dislike the ACA, complain about where it falls short, and disavow any association with it - it can't be fixed, improved or changed in any fashion without Republican support. Even if every Democrat across the nation coalesced around a set of solutions absolutely nothing will happen if Republicans only participation involves "I told you so".

The ACA website has been a huge disappointment so far, and perhaps contractors need to be held accountable, or Kathleen Sebelius needs to be fired or the President needs to accept that getting elected trumped a successful launch, but none of that improves the functionality of the website. Watching the ACA flounder doesn't get it repealed, reduce premiums or get more people insured so rather than whining, now is the perfect time to step up and offer support in exchange for improvements - you know compromise.

At some point many of our nation’s critical systems are going to meet a similar fate as our health care system and need to be brought into the 21st century. The ACA provides politicians with a chance to learn from their mistakes so we don't repeat them when we attempt to modernize our electrical grid, the Federal Aviation Administration, or other public services.

The United Kingdom went through a similar transformation recently and found that with the proper investment not only do services improve but costs come down as well. The focus by conservatives on scoring political points in the short term puts us at odds with creating a government structure that not only helps us succeed with future IT projects but reestablishes the US as the technological leader in the long run.

Of course beyond the troubles with the ACA website there are far more important issues that the right is ignoring. For example the ACA doesn't cover all Americans. This means there are still people who will be forced to use the emergency room as their only doctors visits - a plan that has been shown to be costly for both the insured and uninsured as well as bad for individuals overall health. Who thinks this is a good idea? There are also a number of people who are being kicked off Medicaid because of the ACA's state Medicaid expansion. Unfortunately a number of states have decided to not participate, leaving millions of previously insured Americans uninsured. Are there no solutions better than punishing hard working people in favor of partisan posturing?

So while Republican leaders like John Boehner have spent much of the past few years suggesting that we need to have an "adult conversation", the conservative "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude of obstruct and complain hardly seems to exemplify the type of leadership they believe is missing in today's discourse. How many Republican votes the ACA received initially, doesn't absolve Republicans of their ongoing responsibility for this legislation. They won the House and should be expected to participate in democracy not retard it.

In the end, all of the complaints won't change the past. The ACA was passed and Barack Obama was reelected. Even our nation's most sacred document has been updated 27 times. Are we really supposed to believe that the ACA is an all or nothing proposition?

The reality is that for the entire 2012 election cycle Republicans begged for the power to change the ACA. Now that they have it they don't get to pretend there is nothing they can do.

Conservative's contribute to fallacy about union power

The recent strike by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has again put public sector unions squarely in the crosshairs of conservatives. While there is plenty of good debates to be had regarding these unions one of the weirdest talking points suggests that public sector unions have an unfair advantage since they negotiate with officials they may have helped get elected. The idea being that the money spent on these officials earns them political favors or better contracts in return.

If we are to assume that these elected officials are providing a return on investment for the unions, which certainly may be true, it is odd that conservatives main concern is how money from unions affects outcomes rather than questioning the entire system.

For example Businesses outspend labor unions by an astonishing 15 to 1 margin. Are we to believe that when a union helps get a person elected they receive favors while the same help from the business community is completely altruistic? Does anyone really think that the nearly $110 million in contributions the Pharmaceutical industry made over the last three election cycles had no impact on the Affordable Care Act? Would we really be as focused on the events in Israel were it not for the $67 million in contributions from Pro-Israeli groups?

If money in politics is a problem, then it is a system wide problem with the heaviest hitters coming from the business community.

Of course the complaint is that contributions from these industry sources have less impact since they aren't directly dealing with the decision makers. Yet it could easily be argued that the $209 million that lawyers and law firms contributed in the 2012 election cycle, of which it seems a significant portion went to getting local judges elected, would have a direct impact on the outcome of cases these lawyers bring before the judges they helped get elected.

It also wouldn't be a stretch to think that the $73 million in contributions from the oil industry in the last election cycle has something to do with the $4 billion in subsidies they receive even though they had around $120 billion in profits.

And who would be surprised to find out that some of the nearly $30 million in contributions from the Defense Industry influenced the outcomes of the government contracts that were awarded?

But even beyond that what proof do these conservatives offer that public sector unions are getting sweetheart deals in exchange for their contributions? Census data shows that between 2009 and 2011 in the 25 states controlled by Republicans, public sector jobs increased in 15 states. Conversely only 5 of the 18 states controlled by Democrats added public sector jobs. This means Republican held states were twice as likely to add public sector jobs as Democrat held states.

Additionally the states with the lowest percentage of union members happened to add more public sector jobs than the states with the highest union membership levels. If public unions were getting such a great deal on their contributions one would expect this data to skew in the opposite direction.

Political parties and their corporate sponsors have made unsubstantiated hysteria the new norm in political discourse. Unfortunately this means that we get entire groups of people devoted to a narrative that is not supported by data. The reality is that the election buying freedom killing power of unions pales considerably in comparison with their corporate counterparts and while money in politics is probably a bad thing, making unions the basis for this argument shows just how disingenuous some conservatives are in their supposed concern.

When it comes to Michigan job creation, Rick Snyder is “One Lucky Nerd”.

Rick Snyder recently released is first re-election ad touting him as "One Successful Nerd" after just 33 months on the job. Additionally his most recent email blast cleverly implies that he has added 220,000 jobs in Michigan. Unfortunately for the governor, a portion of that job growth happened before he ever took office. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics there has only been 132,000 jobs created since the governors first day on the job. The reality is that Michigan's economy was improving long before the governor arrived.

Of course if we are to believe that the governor is responsible for this job creation he should be able to identify specific legislative actions taken that resulted in this improvement, otherwise the governor is just taking credit for the work of his predecessor.

When discussing the number of jobs that would be created from his tax cut plan the governor stated “Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it’s going to happen.” If the governor had looked into the real world results he would see that the corporate taxes cuts he championed have at best a questionable impact. Ironically, while the governor was uncomfortable making any predictions about the potential success of his tax cuts on job growth, he seems more than happy to attribute any and all job growth to his policies.

It should also be noted that the tax cuts that the governor is claiming helped create jobs didn't even take effect until 2012 so even if this legislation started generating jobs on day one, the governor would only be able to attribute around 64,000 jobs to this tax cut with Michigan actually losing jobs for five straight months after the implementation of these cuts.

The governor also felt that changing Michigan to a "right to work" state would be good for jobs, yet according to the Christian Science Monitor seven of the nine states with zero or negative growth rates are "right to work" states, while three of the top five highest growth states are pro union states. If "right to work" was the panacea of job creation one would expect much different results.

But even if you are so generous as to attribute every job created since January 1st 2011 to Rick Snyder, there are no indications that Michigan is outpacing other states in job creation.

Since 2011 every state has created jobs so the fact that Rick Snyder hasn't made things worse, as every other state improves, is not a glowing endorsement. It seems more likely that the governor is just the beneficiary of a general economic improvement. For instance automobile sales are set to increase for the fifth straight year - a feet only done once since WWII - and Michigan has by far the most automotive jobs of any state in the US.

As a matter of fact when discussing the reasons they are adding jobs Ford suggested it had to do with increased demand for products, higher costs of outsourcing work to foreign countries, and higher quality workers in the US. Tax cuts and "right to work" were not part of their rationale.

So while Rick Snyder will spend the next thirteen months using donations from many of the big corporations that he just gave $1.7 billion in tax cuts, claiming to be Michigan's magic job creator what he won't do is supply any proof that his key legislative actions are even remotely correlated with the growth Michigan has experienced. Perhaps the governor would be better served admitting that when it comes to job creation in Michigan he is just "One Lucky Nerd".

Conservative media's Obamacare glitch

Since its launch much has been written about the problems with the Affordable Care Act (ACA - affectionately known as Obamacare). Even the staunchest supporters would admit that they have been disappointed with the problems many have experienced as this system opened to the public. Of course never missing a chance to pounce, the conservative media have taken to pretending that these failures and glitches are reason to eliminate the ACA altogether.

And while a majority of Americans would like to see changes made to the ACA - few would argue against creating a system that provides coverage for as many Americans as possible and reduces costs in the mean time. Perhaps the ACA is this system or perhaps it's not but conservatives had plenty of chances to make suggestions for how to improve the system. Unfortunately rather than making any attempt to pull in the same direction, for the good of the country, conservatives have used nearly 100% of their political capital to divide the country and undermine the program.

The good news is that one the biggest reasons that the US is the envy of the world is our stubborn persistence. For example the Wright Brothers failed nearly a thousand times before eventually achieving flight. They didn't run at the first sign of trouble. Instead they learned for their failures and improved their next design until they finally succeeded.

If Americans simply folded up their tents and went home at the first sign of trouble the House of Representatives wouldn't have managed to vote to repeal the ACA 42 separate times without actually offering a single improvement. Regardless of their repeated and unquestioned failure they were steadfast in their resolve.

And while the ACA exchange system costs something like $500 million dollars and barely works, that is nothing compared to the $472 billion we have spend on the Lockheed Martin F-35 or the $54 billion we have spent on the V-22 Osprey. Neither of which represent the blueprint for how to launch a new product.

Also consider the Iraq War where the president declared "Mission Accomplished" less than two months into what would become a nearly decade long conflict. Things went so well in fact that four years in it was decided that we needed to double down on our initial investment with "the surge".

Of course this sort of success out of the box is not isolated to the public sector. No, Apple, Microsoft and Intel also introduced products that failed initially.

Even entities like the Dow Jones and NASDAQ have proven to be prone to software failure that ends up costs millions and most every automotive company has had to issue a recall due to unexpected problems with a new model.

The reality is that the public and private sectors are riddled with failed launches many of which conservatives were more than happy to stand by at the time. Suggesting that this one poor performance is grounds for dismissal ignores the vast number of government websites that function perfectly fine as well as all of the instances where products rolled up unprepared only to be improved upon later.

As of today we have a law on the books that expands health care and attempts to address the out of control health care costs - costs that easily rank us number one in the world, while only returning middling results in most instances.

As a country 18% of our spending goes towards healthcare which is twice as much as is spent on all government food assistance programs, six times as much as we spend on social security, and over four times as much as we spend on defense. If conservatives are truly concerned about "out of control spending" then fixing health care should be a top priority. So to paraphrase George W. Bush "You're either with us, or you're against us". Standing on the sideline yelling "you suck" may win political points but it doesn't address a single problem. As glitchy and unpalatable as the ACA may be its' the only game in town. Perhaps instead of finding every possible way to tear the system down conservatives can offer some solutions - any solutions - that could make the ACA a law that at least 51% of Americans could be proud of.

President's voting record has nothing to do with debt ceiling debate

As we approach the debate over the debt ceiling and continue discussions about the Affordable Care Act both sides are trying to set a narrative for the public to follow. My colleague Jason Vines offers an example of the type of posturing we can expect, with his recent gotcha post pointing out that as a Senator, Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, thus exposing his hypocrisy.

Of course there is certainly more to the then Senators words and subsequent vote than Jason would have you believe. The point Barack Obama was making was that our increasing national debt is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Not acting on this problem was a "failure of leadership" according to Mr. Obama.

And true to his word the president has overseen the first decrease in government spending since 1961. Additionally Barack Obama has the second lowest increase in the national debt of any president over the past 30 years. Were it not for the nihilism of congressional Republicans that number too could have been much lower as the president offered many opportunities to increase government revenue. Instead this president has been saddled with the four lowest government revenue producing years out of the past sixty-two years.

It should also be noted that there was no meat to the Senator's opposition. The bill passed when it could have been easily filibustered. A rookie Senator grandstanding is hardly comparable to actually shutting down the government.

Having said that, it was a silly vote to cast. A mistake he has clearly learned from.

Of course if we really want to set hypocrisy as the measuring stick for how these debates are to be judged there is plenty of incongruent rhetoric coming from the right as well.

- Republicans have blocked nearly every offer from the president to increase revenue - revenue which could have made a vote over raising the debt ceiling non-existent.

- 104 of the current Republicans threatening to vote against raising the debt ceiling now previously voted to raise the debt ceiling under George W. Bush.

- Conservative media celebrates the shutdown as a way to shrink the government yet they complain about every government function that has been shuttered.

- Republicans claim the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is too expensive yet the only solution they have offered would be more costly.

- Conservative media is up in arms when it is suggested that the tactics of the current Republicans controlled house are tantamount to terrorism yet when conservative media icons like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck suggest Barack Obama and other democrats are terrorists they are silent.

- Republicans say the ACA is unpopular yet they passed on background checks, increasing taxes on the rich, and immigration reform all of which have much higher support than their only legislative priority - repealing the ACA.

- Conservatives media touts the shutdown as a "slim down" yet in the end all Republicans have done is created a jobs bank for government employees while simultaneously increasing the bill for taxpayers.

- Republican legislators have consistently voted for less funding for programs they are now arguing that we must fully pay for via piecemeal funding.

- Republican legislators say we need to cut the budget yet they have supported bills that increase spending without any corresponding budget cuts.

It's fine to say that Barack Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to raising the debt ceiling however that doesn't mean Republican legislators or their supporters do either.

But in the end the decision to raise the debt ceiling should be about what is best for the country. Pretending that the presidents voting record is a valuable part of that discussion is partisan hackery that shows just how serious Republicans are about addressing the countries
problems.

Republican's kill compromise - continue to offer nothing.

Republicans are adamant - the shutdown is all the Democrats fault. The only reason the government is shut down - which Republicans love, except when it politically convenient to hate it - is because the Democrats won't negotiate or compromise.

This is a great talking point except that it isn’t true. John Boehner and Harry Reid agreed to a compromise weeks ago to keep the government open and reduce spending. Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn - who govtrack.us ranks as "a far-right Republican" based on the bills he has sponsored - said "It is a concession, I acknowledge that." and "I was glad to see that lower number".

And what did John Boehner do with this compromise - the compromise that far right Republicans acknowledge is democrats reaching across the aisle? They said "I know we agreed to not shut down the government in exchange for cuts to spending but we've changed our minds". "Now you must repeal the ACA if you want to keep the government open".

It's hard to compromise with someone who won't honor his commitment. So the whining from John Boehner claiming that Democrats are saying it's "my way or the highway" seems brazenly hypocritical given John Boehner's "I'm taking my ball and going home if Democrats don't play by my ever changing rules" attitude.

The problem for Democrats like the president and Harry Reid is that they continue to be Charlie Brown to the Republicans Lucy. At some point you just can't work with someone who continues to yank the ball away after promising this time will be different.

But even if Democrats were to fall for the Republicans guerrilla tactics again, what compromise are the Republicans actually offering? They claim it is unfair that certain groups get to avoid the ACA for a year while others do not. They are asking that the law be delayed for everyone for that same time period.

Which sounds perfectly reasonable until you consider that Republicans will not be offering anything in return. Will they agree to stop their feeble attempts to repeal and defund the ACA as a condition for this delay? No. Will they agree to abide by a super-committee decision for how to improve the ACA? No. Will they agree to raise taxes or close tax loopholes to help some of the people who will struggle to pay for health care? No.

No, the Republicans only offer is to reopen the government and debate this topic again next year. And who doesn't want the threat of another government shutdown hanging over our fragile economic recovery for yet another year? Will Republicans suddenly like the ACA in a year? Beyond that, since when did funding a functioning government become a Democrat only principle? Having a working government that protects the people is not something you win in negotiations. It is a baseline expectation. Acting like each side is getting something with this offer is asinine and insulting.

We have the most expensive health care system in the world and we cover less of the population than any other industrialized nation. Are we really supposed to believe that between the 279 Republicans in congress they can't offer one improvement? They can't provide even one tweak to the ACA that keeps all of the things people like but makes it better? The only possible option is a complete repeal? Talk about uncompromising.

But if John Boehner really wants a compromise how about we just agree that the Senate votes on the House's funding bill and the House votes and the Senate's funding bill. Best man wins. Deal?

Republicans say they're not to blame for shutdown - except they really are.

The Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA - affectionately known as Obamacare) is starting to look at lot like the Occupy Wall Street movement. They have a whole bunch of complaints but no one idea that really resonates with people and no suggestions for fixing the problem.

They say it kills jobs - except it really doesn't.

They say it was rammed through with no discussion - except it really wasn't.

They say the president won't compromise - except he definitely has.

They say American's don't like it - except they sort of do.

They say it costs too much - except it doesn't.

They say it has death panels - except that's not true.

They say unions want it repealed - except they actually don't.

They say it increases premiums - except it really doesn't.

They say it compares to Nazi Germany - except it most certainly does not.

They say the shutdown is Obama's fault - except that it isn't.

They say they want a compromise - except they don't even know what that is.

They say Obama will negotiate with Iran but not Republicans - except we don't negotiate with terrorist.

So the reason that the government shutdown and Republicans are taking the blame for it doesn't have to do with some mythological liberal media bias or how the ACA was passed or any of the other non-stories Republicans are throwing at the wall like spaghetti hoping that something - anything - will stick. No, the reason Republicans are taking the blame is that they say they want to compromise yet the only compromise they offered before the 11th hour was 42 separate votes to repeal the ACA.

Suggesting we are in a shutdown because the Democrats won't compromise ignores the rhetoric from Republicans over the past few years threatening to shut down the government, it ignores that complete lack of ideas coming from the Republican party to fix an imperfect law, and it ignores the reality that American's don't like to be held hostage by the people elected to solve problems - not create them.

There are not two equal sides to this debate. Republicans have been hell bent on eliminating the ACA since before it was enacted. If they had fully participated in a compromise before the bill became law instead of waiting three years, we could have easily avoided all of this silly political posturing - posturing that they say affects millions of Americans - except those that were elected to Congress.

No justification for shutting down the government

Outside of Ron Paul few politicians are known for being ideologically consistent and as we inch closer to a government shutdown Republican legislators are offering another shining example how maddeningly capricious most politicians are.

For instance to offer support for the union restrictions implemented by Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio, Republicans quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt who stated that a strike by public sector employees "manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied." Yet here we sit within hours of the government being shut down because Republicans are obstructing until their demands are satisfied.

Additionally, while debating the Farm Bill, Republican Representative Marlin Stutzman - a staunch proponent of separating the agriculture and food policy portion - stated: "Congress must remove welfare provisions from the farm bill and give taxpayers the honest debate they deserve on both. It’s simple: food stamp policy isn’t farm policy" and "Separate consideration of these policies will allow us to forge ahead with real solutions and reform instead of repeating the mistakes of the past."

Well, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) isn't the Federal Budget and Americans deserve and honest debate on both instead of repeating the same mistake 42 times. Because if Republicans are serious about the effects of the ACA on the Federal Budget they would recognize that repeal would actually increase the deficit.

There has also been much consternation of how the ACA was passed with errant suggestions that the method of passage was unprecedented. And while this talk is purely rhetorical, if historical norms are important then the fact that Republicans have voted 42 times to repeal the same bill and are content to shutter the government rather than offer a single change, certainly seem like an out of the ordinary way to jam something through the legislature.

There is plenty to dislike and discuss about the ACA but the hypocrisy over how the Republicans are handling what should be a valuable debate is astounding. Perhaps instead of worrying about how the ACA polls, congress should take a look in the mirror and recognize that these sort of inconsistencies are part of the reason that congress has an approval rating slightly higher than North Korea, Lindsay Lohan, and gonorrhea.

ObamaCare is making Republicans sick

As we creep ever closer to a government shut down over the Affordable Care Act (ACA - affectionately known as ObamaCare) Republicans and Democrats alike are pressing their version of events hoping to shift public opinion. Michigan Representative Mike Rogers recently used the Detroit News Opinion section to assert the Republican case.

His narrative hits upon familiar themes - the legislation was jammed though congress, people don't like it, the implementation is not going well, and of course it kills jobs. It should be noted that Republicans have jammed though plenty of legislation using the reconciliation process- which is credited for the "jamming" of the ACA - 14 times including the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. And while the ACA may have a slightly unfavorable rating it polls better than shutting down the government to defund it, which all but one House Republican voted to do.

It can certainly be argued that the implementation has not gone as planned however there are plenty of individual items within the ACA that poll very well. At this point the House has attempted to repeal the ACA 42 times however they have not voted once on fixing the bill to keep the parts that people like and make the implementation process easier.

But the most ironic argument against the ACA is the insistence that it kills jobs. While most Republicans would argue that the government can't create jobs apparently government can destroy them.

It is certainly true that austerity measures have cost nearly 600,000 public sector jobs which stands in stark contrast to the recessions under Regan, Clinton and George W. Bush where the public sector hiring helped stabilize the economy instead of creating a drag. According to the New York Times the US government employs around 22 million Americans or 7 out of every 100 people which is below the 7.3 per 100 that we have averaged since the late 80's.

Additionally, studies by Goldman Sachs and the CBO show the sequester will cost around 100,000 jobs this year with as many 750,000 fewer jobs being created than without the cuts.

So while the recession and the subsequent response certainly offers a glimpse of how the government can kill jobs and cost the economy nearly 2 million jobs the ACA will have very little impact on jobs. Data shows that of the companies that would be impacted by the ACA 95.7% already offer health care insurance. These companies will not suddenly face a new burden that will require drastic changes to their current systems.

On the other hand, the companies that are close to the 50 employee limit where cutting staff or pushing people to part time could help them avoid the ACA requirements, represent only 1% of job growth. The head of the right leaning Small Business Chamber of Commerce for South Carolina stated that the insistence that ObamaCare will negatively affect small business is "strictly a talking point by those who want to kill off the ACA".

If concern about government spending and jobs is truly the reason for a full repeal then one assumes congress could find better uses for the $1.45 million it costs per symbolic repeal vote or the $109 billion repeal would add to the deficit.

Is it possible that some companies will be negatively affected by the ACA? Sure it is. But anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a systemic problem.

No one is arguing for fewer jobs, so if there is a way to insure more American's, reduce the deficit and create jobs, Democrats would be more than happy to have those conversations. Unfortunately, at this point, Republican legislators would rather push the government to the brink in petulant gamesmanship than provide a single solution. Perhaps this is good for their position in the Republican Party but if any jobs are going to be lost due to ObamaCare it would be poetic justice if it was that of the congressman that put the will of their party ahead of the good of the people.

Republicans erroneous SNAP judgment

This week Republicans again exposed their true colors. They voted to cut nearly $40 billion dollars from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which helps 47 million Americans purchase food. The reason for these cuts according the Republican House member Mike Conaway of Texas is to "limit the public assistance program to those who qualify and close loopholes that have allowed people to game the system."

This fits with the Republican narrative that we are a nation of makers and takers however it should be noted that 84% of SNAP recipients are children, elderly or disabled. These are people who society does not expect to be full time participants in the work force. The program also shows an excellent return on investment resulting in $1.73 of economic activity for every dollar spent. And as a safety net program it should come as no surprise that SNAP increased spending as unemployment rose. That is what a safety net program is designed to do. Help people and subsequently the economy handle down times.

If you these Representatives really wanted to lower SNAP spending all they need to do is create jobs. But instead of serious discussions about how to get people back to work we are stuck with cuts to important programs for the poor, government shutdown over the debt ceiling and 41 separate votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

And while closing loopholes and eliminating cheaters seems to be a popular idea when it comes to the poor the same standards don't seem to exist for the rich. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, for example, recently voted 51-0 to make sure that Doctors wouldn't have to experience any cuts to the money they receive from Medicare. This change will cost $140 billion over the next 10 years and at this point there are no plans to make any offsetting cuts. Cutting half of the $60 billion a year in Medicare fraud, some of which is perpetrated by the very doctors and other medical professionals this committee is bending over backwards to protect, would be a nice way to pay for something by eliminated those who game the system.

Carl Levin has proposed changes to the tax code that would close some offshore tax loopholes and generate $220 billion in additional revenue for the Treasury over the next decade.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that in 2009 the Pentagon weapons projects were over budget by a total of $296 billion.

The carried interest loophole that allows private equity firms to report their wages as capital gains and thus pay a much lower tax rates costs the Treasury around $1.3 billion per year or about a third of cost of the cuts to SNAP over 10 years.

These are just a small sample of the other areas congress could focus on if they are really concerned about closing loopholes and eliminating those who game the system. But the reality is these Representatives don't care about cutting loopholes, they believe that the bulk of the people who get public assistance are lazy moochers and cutting off their funds will magically lead them to get jobs.

If the global downturn has taught us anything it's that focusing on government spending instead of job creation has dire results. This obsession over punishing the poor for being poor may play well with the base but turning our backs on millions of Americans in their time of need not only hurts the economy but it makes these Republican Representatives look like unpatriotic elitist bullies.

Syria and Republicans sudden concern over US role as world police

President Obama's recent request for military intervention in Syria brought about a curious response from a number of Republicans. Apparently some of them now feel that America should not be the world's police.

And while I imagine many would have agreed with this statement long before Barack Obama became president, the reality is that the US has military personnel in 148 countries and accounts for around 40% of the world's military spending - three times as much as the next country on the list and slightly more than the next 9 countries combined.

Additionally the US has somewhere around 700 foreign military bases which thoroughly dwarfs the rest of the world - combined.

The Republican stance on this spending and military proliferation has been fairly clear - not only is the money a good use of tax dollars but according to many we are actually under spending.

The problem then becomes if you spend like you expect to be the world police and if you establish bases around the globe to police the world, then - like it or not - you are the world police.

We also have a history of attempting to spread democracy, imposing our views on human rights, and combating terrorism across the world.

While an attack on Syria seems to have been averted for the time being the concern from the right lamenting our role as the world police while simultaneously advocating for more military might and influence is completely disingenuous.

God help the orphans

The Michigan House of Representatives is considering two bills that would allow religious based adoption agencies organizations to discriminate based on religious beliefs. My colleague Dan Calabrese wrote a piece discussing how the bills protect religious freedom and concludes that "discrimination in adoption is a good thing".

Never mind the constitutional questions surrounding tax exempt religious entities ability to discriminate, suggesting that religious based adoption agencies should use their religious beliefs to determine the placement of orphaned children has a number of other issues as well.

While there obviously needs to be a set of standards that individuals and couples must meet Dan and many other view this through a very narrow prism where Christians are the only group affected. Christians have been adamantly opposed to the creation of Islamic mosques across the country so just imagine the outrage when an Islamic adoption agency not only gets a tax exemption but then places children born to Christians in Islamic homes. Or race based agencies that refuse to let white couples adopt outside of their ethnic background.

Also where do we draw the line? Gay couples can't adopt but straight can? How about Jews? Can these agencies use their religious beliefs to deny adoptions to Asians, Hispanics and African Americans? Do you have to attend church a certain number of days to be deemed a suitable adoptive parent? If so, how many? What if you are overweight? That is a sin in the eyes of God. The same is true of adulterers and those who are greedy or too prideful. At what point does religious freedom become unquestioned bigotry?

But maybe more important to this debate is the fact that adoption agencies are intermediaries in this process. They do not own these children. They are not some "honk if you love Jesus" bumper sticker that act as an extension of the church. They are human beings who deserve better than being used as some sectarian pawn to catechize us on Christine doctrine.

Perhaps a couple who spends their Sunday morning reading the New York Times instead of going to church but devoted to giving their adopted Asian child a true sense of their heritage offer a superior upbringing for some children. Perhaps a child with Islamic roots would feel more at home in a Muslim household than a Christian one. Perhaps homosexual children would have a better upbringing in a home that doesn't tell them every day that God hates them. Perhaps it’s more important to protect the religious freedom of these children than those of an inanimate organization.

The goal of any adoption agency should be to place the children in homes that give them the best opportunity in life. I get that many Christians probably believe that, regardless of the child, being raised to embrace Jesus Christ as your lord and savior gives every person this opportunity, but assuming your organization's secular ideology sets the moral compass for every child smacks of the very sin of pride that might make you and unqualified adoptive parent under this legislation.

Awful arguments against green energy

For anyone who has ever read the Detroit News political blog you probably know that our editor - Henry Payne - hates green energy. And while there are plenty of good arguments about green energy Henry's most recent post entitled "Windmill eyesores" is an example of one of the worst.

The two key points of this argument are that windmills ruin an otherwise serene landscape and that birds are "shredded" due to these windmill farms. But if we're being honest I imagine even Henry would have to admit that this talking point only resonates with those who are already against green energy.

If the preservation of natural beauty were the primary argument for how we operate in America one would expect a lot more push back to things like:


Coal fired power plants,


Oil rigs,


Cell phone towers,


Nuclear power plants,


Garbage dumps,


the Highway system,


the Train system,


Ports,


Power lines,


the Logging industry,


Mountaintop coal mining,

I'm not sure anyone would suggest that these items enhance the natural beauty of the areas where they are located.

And as for the argument that the windmills kill birds, data shows that up to 40,000 birds die every year from windmills while as many as 174 million die each year from power lines. Of course if we can save some of the 13,000 people who die prematurely each year from poor air quality that would probably be advantageous as well.

The reality is that these types of arguments only prove how little the anti-green energy crowd understands the motives of green energy advocates and what they think is a clever exposure of hypocrisy is really just an example of ignorance.

Unions and Corporations: failing to unite, united to fail

Labor Day and the recent minimum wage demands by employees in the fast food sector have many talking about labor unions. With the drop in union membership and stagnant or dropping wages for 93% of Americans, now is the perfect time to discuss the role of unions moving forward.

Unfortunately rather than having substantive discussions about how effective unions actually make companies more profitable while rewarding employees with a greater share of record profits, we get mired in nugatory rhetoric such as the wages of union leaders.

The reason that those who oppose unions think the salary of top officials is important is first because they believe there is little to no return on investment for union members and second because they misunderstand the goals of union members.

Contrary to popular belief union members aren't communists who think everyone must make the same wages so the fact that a union leader like Jimmy Hoffa makes $300,000-400,000 a year to run an organization of with 1.3 million members, doesn't seem too exorbitant considering that this works out to $0.31 per year for each member. Especially considering the $10,000 or so per year advantage union members have over non-union workers.

Although some union bosses make 10 times as much as their average member that is small potatoes when compared with the average CEO who makes 273 times as much as the average worker. And when compared to the $131 million in compensation McKesson Corporation CEO John Hammergren made for company with 43,500 employees or $3,011 per employee, spending a few bucks a year to have an organization fighting for your piece of the pie doesn't seem so outrageous.

And while many question the value of labor unions those same question don't seem to exist when it comes to industry trade unions like the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute whose CEO's make $4.75 million and $6.4 million respectively. Their goals of "representing the interests" of their members and giving them a "voice" are no different than that of labor unions but since they represent businesses instead of the working class their contributions are somehow more meaningful.

Unfortunately both union leaders and corporate management have become too greedy. Rather than focusing on how they can work together to increase productivity, boost profits and expand the company they concern themselves with power and money. This obsession has many good CEO's cooking the books and ultimately destroying their companies all to appease stockholders. It also leads to a jobs bank program that pays employees not to work.

In an ideal world all companies would value their employees enough to create a safe workplace, provide good benefits and share in the success of the company. And unions would make the companies goals their goals. But rather than seeing the upside of cooperation both sides have turned the corporate / union relationship into an adversarial one. The truth is both entities want the companies to succeed and until we start seeing corporations and unions as two sides of the same coin we will continue to fight a completely useless rhetorical war where union leaders pay is inexplicably considered an important talking point.

The bumpy road to improving Michigan's economy

Republicans are always looking for ways to cut the tax burden because as they say they want "to make sure you keep more of your money". So when presented with the opportunity to save Michigan families an average of $1,000 per year, you would think Michigan Republicans would be falling all over themselves to make this happen. Unfortunately that is not the case.

According to the Michigan Section of the American Society for Civil Engineers, the current condition of Michigan's roads and bridges costs the average family over $1,000 per year. This is a direct result of the damage incurred by residents and companies who use these roads and bridges.

Reports show that the overall condition of Michigan's bridges ranks it as the 13th worst state in the nation with 13.1% of bridges being "structurally deficient" and a full 76 bridges closed due to lack of funds to fix them. Michigan also ranks 29th in urban interstate pavement condition and 43rd in rural pavement condition.

And while the governor has given a lot of lip service to creating an environment where companies can flourish the Republican controlled legislature has balked at any increase in spending to this point. But if these legislators did a little research they would find that good roads and bridges are one the biggest things states can do to attract business. Even the Republican bastion of tax policy, Texas, is considering raising taxes to pay for better roads that the state’s business community is demanding.

Of course the concern from Republicans is that fixing roads costs money. However outside of the $1,000 each Michigan family will save each year investing in infrastructure also creates construction jobs as well as supply chain jobs that Michigan could desperately use.

The reality is that if we expect to move Michigan to the top of the pack for job creation we have to make sure that the roads and bridges are able to move people to and from work, transport products from companies to market, and get consumers to the products and services they need. Insisting that the money isn’t available when the business case shows improving roads and bridges offers a better return on your investment than other government “solutions”, is an embarrassing example of officials cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Broken education, flawless Health Care: a Republican fallacy

When it comes to education, many Republicans like very little of the current system. They believe the system is broken and are using this belief to implement changes.

The changes most of these people would like to see include more charter schools, a merit pay based system of compensation, remove unions from education, reduce pay and benefits for teachers, change or eliminate tenure, offer vouchers, and set standards for achievement.

Unfortunately data shows that none of these ideas has a proven track record of improving our supposedly broken education system. These ideas do, however, conform to the Republicans free market ideology which says that anything the public sector can do; the private sector can do better.

And while Republicans seem perfectly willing to make drastic changes to education using the power of the government when you have this same sort of debate regarding our supposedly broken health care system - Republicans feel differently.

For example while some 80% of Republicans favor privatization of public education only 39% favor privatizing Medicare.

In response to the Independent Payment Advisory Board portion of the Affordable Care Act that sets standards for "best practices" Republicans like Mitt Romney said "Perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor" while when talking about setting similar standards for education Jeb Bush stated "I can’t accept the dumbed-down standards and expectations that exist in almost all of our schools today".

Our world rankings show that the US is in the middle of the pack when it comes to how students perform on international tests yet our health care outcomes are equally as bad, if not worse.

Many believe our education system fails students yet 25% of hospitalized patients are harmed by medical errors accounting for as many as 225,000 deaths per year. In education Republicans blame "bad teachers" and call for new rules and regulations however in the medical field Republicans call for tort reform to limit a doctor’s liability for being a bad doctor.

When it comes to money Republicans believe teachers are overpaid yet US teachers pay ranks 22nd out of 27 countries while medical professionals not only hold the top 8 positions in Forbes best paid jobs - beating out the number 10 ranked CEO's - but many also rank number one in the world when it comes to salary.

We spend over 50% more on health care than the next country on the list while we spend around 44% less on education than the highest spending country.

While many complain that teachers get too much time off the Wall Street Journal shows that US teachers spend more time instructing students than any other nation and log 1913 hours per year while the average family physician works 43 hours a week with 5 to 7 weeks of paid time off per year for a total of 1926 to 2025 worked per year.

Firing teachers, especially those with tenure, is considered impossible by many yet in states like Texas a tenured teacher is twice as likely to be fired as a physician is to lose his license. And while many complain that it is expensive and time consuming to fire a tenured teacher; according to the American Medical News firing a physician can "take six months and cost about $10,000, while others can take more than a decade and cost $10 million". Additionally the attrition rate for teachers (16.8%) is nearly three times as high as the attrition rate for physicians (6.1%).

Teachers unions are considered a major problem for improving education yet little is made of the fact that "15% of all hospital workers belong to a union" and union membership is increasing in the healthcare industry.

And even with all this information available that shows just how similar the two systems may be the vast majority of Republicans believe that our education system is broken while 68% of them believe that our healthcare system is the "best in the world". Ironically these two beliefs exist because of a lack of education.

US dominance - the true renewable energy incentive

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.

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.