Easter: Another chance to screw up religious freedom

It's Easter weekend which in political terms means there is going to be some government body that attempts to put up religious symbols on public property and some outside group that says those symbols are unconstitutional. This year those roles will be played by Stratton, Ohio Mayor John Abdalla and Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The US has a long and glorious legal history when it comes to religious displays on public property. Regardless of the argument, it has been determined that such displays are unconstitutional and this is likely the outcome in the Stratton, Ohio case as well. This happens because no matter what you believe the founding fathers wanted everyone to have the right to practice whatever religion they want without being influenced by the state. When the government uses a symbol from one faction without corresponding symbols from other religions, it has the look of the state choosing one religion over the others.

Regardless of this reality many Christians still believe that this somehow infringes upon their religion freedom.

If an atheist politician hung a "There's probably no God" sign in the capitol building would Christian groups be OK with such a display? Probably not. If a local government spent money supporting abortion would anti-abortion groups sit idly by and let it happen? Probably not. If a state placed rainbow stickers on all state vehicles would the family values crowd not fight tooth and nail to have them removed? Probably not. If the President used the public school system to push the Affordable Care Act would Republicans not scream foul? Probably not.

When it comes to religion there have been plenty of debate already. Warren Michigan Christian Mayor, Jim Fouts, refused to allow an atheist group to set up a "Reason Station" in an area typically reserved for nativity scenes and other religious symbols. A Satanist group designed a Satanic statue that they have requested be placed outside of the Oklahoma capitol building. Connecticut politician and Protestant, Lee Whitnum, sued to stop a Bar Mitzvah from taking place at a local town hall. The Florida capitol building has among other religious symbols, a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" on display.

The problem is that either you demand that religious symbols are allowed on public property and accept that all religious groups no matter how far fetched or obscure be allowed space to exhibit their symbols or you accept that the state and religion should not be mixed.

Of course since this topic was decided constitutionally long ago the question becomes why do people continue forcing religion and religious symbols on the general public. What purpose does this serve? You are free to dress yourself from head to toe in religious paraphernalia. Is that not enough religious freedom? You can talk in public to anyone you want about your beliefs. Is that not enough free speech? You can design every structure on your property with a religious motif. Do you really need to usurp public buildings too?

Property owners are free to express nearly any opinion on their land. In the case of public property it is not that no one owns these entities but rather that everyone owns these entities. So either everyone is free to plaster government buildings with their symbols or no one is. Anything less would be a slap in the face to the fundamental ideas that this country was founded on.

Republicans struggling in fight against Obamacare

Conservative organizations and Republican candidates are convinced that attacking Democrats for their support of the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) is the ticket to winning this fall.

The Senate race in Michigan for example has a group called American's for Prosperity dropping millions of dollars on Ads attacking Democratic candidate Gary Peters for his support of the ACA. So far this has been done using two anecdotal cases to suggest that the ACA is not affordable. In one case the family in question, who not coincidentally were once delegates for the Republican Party, could have saved money using the ACA but instead chose to pay more. The second case of a Dexter, Michigan woman has been widely debated for its accuracy as well.

The question that voters should be asking is if the ACA is so awful and unaffordable then why is a conservative organization, that spent over $36 million in the 2012 election cycle, having so much trouble finding one person in the state of Michigan that, without question, has been negatively impacted by the ACA?

Perhaps the problem is that the ACA just isn't as bad as these groups made it out to be. After all these are the same people who said the ACA would never enroll 7 million people by the deadline. The same people that claimed the ACA contained death panels. The same people who said "I don’t think it’s ever going to work" due to the initial website issues. The same people that predicted a massive shift to part time employment as companies attempted to avoid the impact of the ACA. The same people that forecast a big win for Republicans in 2012 based on belief that people hate the ACA. And the same people who are now claiming the worst is yet to come despite news to the contrary.

When it comes to the ACA, these groups have been very good at fear mongering but very bad at accurately projecting the results.

Of course that isn't the only thing they have been very bad at when it comes to the ACA.

While many of these organizations and candidates have spent a lot of time on errant prognostications and spreading the sky is falling rhetoric they have spent almost no time coming up with a solution. Sure you can find a two page outline here or there from a couple a Republicans but you aren't going to replace 2,700 pages of legislation with a two page outline.

The problem is this legislation already contains a lot of Republican ideas. Market competition, the individual mandate, a payment advisory board, and Medicare cuts were all Republican ideas that eventually ended up in the ACA. Then there are the things that Republicans act like the ACA doesn't include but it actually does like fraud reduction, wellness programs, IT solutions to help eliminate errors, pooling risk, and rewarding quality.

Of course there are also a bunch of things in the ACA that people really like that Republicans would need to include in any alternative plan such as tax credits for small business, preventing people from losing insurance from pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents insurance till age 26, closing the donut hole, the expansion of Medicaid, and health care exchanges.

Most of these groups and candidates are well aware of how little ammo they really have against the ACA and they are trying to obfuscate this reality from voters. This means they are stuck discussing fringe rhetoric and pretending a couple handpicked individuals, represent millions of Americans.

While this tactic works well for television commercials, at some point these candidates are going to have to debate their opponent. These debates will expose the void of ideas Republican candidates have to offer so top Republicans have decided to coalesce around some very basic ideas that boil down to trusting the private sector instead of the public sector.

Republicans had four years to craft an answer to the "worst thing since slavery" and the best they could come up with is "private sector good - public sector bad"? That meme has been the Republican calling card for decades. If "privatize it" represents "new ideas" it’s no wonder Republicans have been forced to resort to half truths to fight this legislation.

Unfortunately even this idea has been proven to be more wishful thinking than fact. Outside of the colossal failures of privatized prisons, and school services a study by the Project on Government Oversight found that in 33 of 35 occupations tax payers spend more, not less to use private companies.

In the end voters should demand that we do better when it comes to providing all Americans with high quality, affordable health care but at this point only one party seems concerned with this objective. Ironically it’s not the party that has made the ACA the basis of their campaigns.

Terri Lynn Land campaign is a "silly sideshow"

Earlier this month my colleague Josh Pugh wrote a piece which talked about a questionable political Ad aimed at Democratic Senate hopeful Gary Peters. Josh believes that Gary Peters' opponent Terri Lynn Land should denounce the Ad given that it included an attack on Peters' daughters.

Anytime the media is going to give a politician a platform you can expect to see some poll tested talking points. For Terri Lynn Land that meant suggesting "This campaign is going to be about the issues that matter most in Michigan - creating jobs, providing workers and struggling students with a fair shot, and making sure that our elected officials don’t make promises that they can’t keep, such as ‘if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’"

Yes, number three on the list of most important things that Terri Lynn Land wants to accomplish if elected to the most powerful legislative body in the United States of America is to make sure elected officials don't make promises they can't keep.

You have to wonder if Terri gets irony of this statement. If you follow Terri on Facebook or Twitter you would see that repealing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) has been a goal for hers for many years. It turns out this has also been a goal of many other Republicans as well. They have tried and failed numerous times to repeal this legislation. No political promise has been broken more often than this one yet it appears to be the basis for her campaign.

If elected Terri Lynn Land would end up reneging on this promise because unlike the House, the Senate is more than a dog and pony show so a vote like this requires way more thought then 'giving new members a chance to put their vote on record'. While repeal may be an easy applause line among low information voters, the ACA contains a lot of good things that people like. This means Terri needs more than just a talking point to address the problems with the ACA and unfortunately, four years in, Republicans have put far less time into fixing the law then they have in opposing it.

Having said that if the Terri Lynn Land for Senate campaign believes that a line like "if you like your doctor" represents "issues that matter" then they should be prepared to explain why Terri supported shutting down the government as a way to address government spending. A move that cost tax payers $24 billion.

It would also be interesting to find out why Michigan was one of the easiest places to get a fraudulent ID under Terri Lynn Land.

Perhaps they would rather talk about how their candidate went from wanting a full repeal of the ACA to later stating "we're past that". Seems like that could be seen as someone making a promise they realize they can't keep.

Maybe the campaign would like to discuss their literature and others suggesting Terri is a small businesswoman. Clearly they believe this plays well with their base but if you read Terri's own words you will see that the business was a family thing and that her passion was for public service. She even touts that "she was one of the youngest attendees at the Republican State Convention in Michigan." She began running for office just after college at age 23, choosing to focus on education instead of business. In fact her business roots are apparently so important to her that they don't even appear on her LinkedIn page.

And what would her campaign think if the opposition made an Ad using Terri's words from 2005 when discussing a possible run for Senate or Governor saying at the time "I have to do what's best for the party". Does Terri actually believe that the desires of her party are more important than the wishes of her constituents? If not shouldn't the statement be "I have to do what's best for the people of Michigan"?

Of course, Gary Peters never said you could keep your doctor. He voted for the law but those are not his words. So if Terri Lynn Land is being honest when she says "Michigan families deserve a spirited campaign focused on the issues....not these silly sideshows" then what is her plan to address the problem of people losing their doctor? Does she have a plan to help the 5 million Americans that have no health insurance because Republican governors refuse to expand Medicare? Do the people who lost their health insurance at the whim of the insurance companies under the old system matter less than the people who are left to find new insurance now? Does she have a plan that cuts into the 131 percent increase in the cost of health care that we experienced the decade before the ACA?

If Terri Lynn Land wants to rise above the "silly sideshows" she can start by eliminating "if you like your doctor", "we have to pass the bill", and "the bill is 2,700 pages" from all future arguments because as a legislator she's going to have to do a lot more than just complain about what doesn't work and fringe rhetoric. She'll have to work with individuals who have different opinions to create policies.

Josh Pugh asked Terri Lynn Land if she would disavow any peripheral hyperbole and focus on what makes her the best candidate for the job. Her response suggests the answer is no.

Education reform is dumb

Over the past few years government officials from the President down to local school boards have been discussing ways to improve education. The focus of these discussions typically starts with the belief that American schools are failing. Reformers use this belief to argue for any number of changes.

Even though unions represent only 38% of America's teachers many say unions are ruining education. Even though they are not necessarily cheaper to run and don't have better outcomes some argue for more charter schools. Even though there is no data to suggest the Common Core standards are better than the current standards most states are making the change.

But perhaps the most peculiar talking point that reformers discuss is money in education. You would be hard pressed to find data that shows less money in education leads to better results but you can easily find people who complain that we spend too much on education. Of course if you believe we spend too much on education then you are either willing to accept worse outcomes to fix our financial issues or you believe that spending less can somehow have a positive result.

Typically this argument manifests itself with something like "Detroit spends more per pupil yet gets some of the worst results". While both of these things may be true this is a complete perversion of what people are discussing when they talk about money for education. For example if we really spent too much on education then why would any charter school ever spend more than a public school?

Also does anyone believe that the amount of money a school spends on administrators has greater correlation to student achievement than the amount spent on teachers? Because by comparison charter schools spend more on administrative staff and less on educators than public schools.

Of course beyond this if the education spending by cities like Detroit was meant as a serious discussion piece in determining the value of money in education it would require way more in depth analysis than simply "spending high + outcomes bad = more money doesn't work". If these armchair experts looked at where the money goes they would see that while Detroit Public Schools have 32nd highest per pupil rate in Michigan they are at the bottom of the list when it comes to "Average Teacher Salary" and spending on "Basic Programs". Unfortunately DPS spends around $4,500 per student or nearly 1/3 of their budget on "Added Needs" and another $2,100 on "Adult Education".

Given that a good teacher can have a lifelong impact on a student and that data shows higher teacher salaries correlate to better educational outcomes the fact that DPS teacher salaries rank at the bottom of all Michigan schools probably explains why the student achievement level is lower than other school districts. The reality is that per pupil spending represents hundreds of different smaller budgetary decisions for each school district so suggesting this data alone represents anything more than a surface level talking point is a massively uninformed position.

While cherry picking a few schools across the nation and ignoring the budgetary details is one popular method people offer as proof that more money doesn't lead to better outcomes another tactic often used is to suggest that we spend more on education now than ever before. The data shows that this trend has reversed itself recently but overall it is certainly true that the amount spent on education has been steadily increasing. The question then becomes what is too much?

The data shows that over the past 20 years spending on education has risen by 25% over inflation.

Defense spending over that same time frame increased by 83% over inflation.

The price of gasoline has risen by around 105% over inflation the past two decades.

Health Care costs have jumped by 79% over inflation during this 20 year period.

The cost of a college education has gone up by around 66% over inflation over the past 20 years.

CEO pay has increased by as much as 725% over inflation the last 30 years by some estimates.

To some extent those who argue for cuts to education have largely ignored or argued against cuts to these ever increasing numbers. Why then is education spending so different, especially since it has increased at a much lower rate than these other entities.

Unfortunately to the diehard reformer none of this makes any difference. They believe in their hearts that education is broken and needs to be fixed. The good news for these people is that data shows there is a simple solution that has the potential to make the US number 1 in the world in education. All the government needs to do is reduce the poverty rate in America because if you equalize results based on poverty rates the US is already the world leader in education.

Ironically the fact that so many people insist on improving education using methods that don't actually improve education suggests there is a problem. It's just not with the public school system.

Do religious people really have better morals?

Last week I wrote a piece discussing Christianity and morality based on some comments God's Not Dead actor Kevin Sorbo made about Bill Maher. Not surprisingly Mr. Sorbo did not agree with my thoughts on the topic and took to twitter to tell me why.



Clearly calling God a "psychotic mass murder" could offend people and I have no doubt that Kevin Sorbo was indeed offended by this characterization. Having said that what Bill Maher was referring to was the Biblical story of Noah in which God floods the earth killing nearly every man, woman and child. Rather than discussing how this should not be considered murder Mr. Sorbo decided to call Bill Maher a "very angry, lonely man".

It seems that this was not an instance where Kevin Sorbo felt he could turn the other cheek. Bill Maher's passionate non-belief has no bearing on Kevin Sorbo's passion for this faith. They are both free to have their opinion without their being one side that is good and one side that is evil.

Having said that, the statement that I found more interesting was when Kevin Sorbo said that “morals are declining, the country is going under.” I found statistics that show crime rates, abortions, teen pregnancy and divorce rates have all fallen over the past few decades. So my question for Mr. Sorbo was what metric is he using when he comes to this conclusion?

Perhaps given this belief Kevin Sorbo feels that slight drop in church attendance over the past decade is proof of declining morals. Perhaps the increase in those who describe themselves as Atheist and Agnostic suggests that moral values are being lost. Or perhaps the possible bible defying sin of marriage equality suggests the US has lost its moral compass.

Unfortunately instead of offering some examples Mr. Sorbo chose to take a shot at Detroit.



It seems that Kevin Sorbo feels Detroit could have avoided a financial disaster had there just been greater religiosity in the city. This sort of fixing society through religion is common among believers. Many feel that if more people were religious, or Christian the world would be a better place. Obviously this makes sense for these people. If you are going to invest this much time and effort into something that you can't prove exists there should be a payoff for this devotion. There are also those who believe that being religious makes them a better person so if it works for them it should work for others as well.

Of course it would still be nice to have some hard data to support such a conclusion. A quick look at the number of religious people in a city and the crime rate in that city shows no real correlation as some very religious cities were near the top of the list for assault, rape and property crime. State teen pregnancy rates actually seem to increase for states with higher religious participation. The same is true of divorce rates.

Supporters of this meme could point to a study that found that communities with higher rates of religion had less violent crime. The study concludes that this occurs because these communities are "creating a moral climate that fosters respect among neighbors and by helping to form individual consciences of young adults."

Of course you don't have to worship God to foster respect and form an individual conscience, since non-believers are also capable of creating this sort of environment. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros have managed to donate billions of dollars over the years to non-religious charities that attempt to make the world a better place to live without using religion as the catalyst. The same is true of some US Presidents.

The problem is that "morality" is a very subjective measure. What is moral at one point in time or for one culture would be considered immoral elsewhere. If Kevin Sorbo believes being a Christian makes him a better person I imagine even Bill Maher would be happy for him. But belittling Bill Maher or Detroiters for having a different world view, certainly doesn't suggest Kevin Sorbo occupies the moral high ground he believes his faith creates. Luke 6:37

Great teachers have a great impact

Since the start of the Great Recession public employees have been the target of much disdain and many cuts. One of the sectors hardest hit from these cuts is public education where some 300,000 education jobs have been lost since 2008. These job losses have hurt economic activity far more than some of the other pet projects that politicians claim are jobs worth fighting for. But perhaps worse than the current economic activity is the affect these cuts will have on the future of this country.

A Harvard study shows that one good teacher has the ability to increase a child's lifetime earnings. With less money and stability in education fewer students will be compelled to pursue education as a profession. If the goal is to improve education then this study would suggest making schools the target of massive budget cuts is probably the wrong way to go about it.

The reality is that thanks to the realization from many politicians that attracting top talent to the education field requires a certain commitment from the government and local communities, school districts across the nation are filled with exceptional teachers that inspire students to achieve greatness. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who their favorite teacher was and you are likely to get a quick and passionate response.

Unfortunately for many teachers, students often don't recognize and appreciate how important a particular teacher was in their lives until they are much older. So while we are more than happy to talk with anyone who asks about the things that made a teacher our favorite, those teachers are often unaware of how influential they were.

But if you really want to see the value of a good teacher you need look no further than two Southeastern Michigan communities that lost extraordinary educators over the past few weeks. Linden, Michigan teacher Andy Kargel and Saline, Michigan educator Jim Letcher both passed away in March of this year. The outpouring from the students and parents in their school districts shows just how special both of these men were.

Friends of the Kargel family set up a website that people allows anyone to donate to the college fund for Andy's two young children. The goal of $50,000 was passed in under a week. While this shows how important Andy Kargel was to so many people, the comments attached to many of these donations are a true testament to the teacher that Andy was.

"Both of our kids were lucky enough to have Andy for years. Our youngest talked about him every day when I picked her up from school. He was a very special person, and none of us will ever forget him!"

"Thank you Mr. Kargel, for being the best teacher ever."

"3 of my 5 sons have had the pleasure of Mr. Kargel inspiring them through his teachings."

"Mr. Kargel left a lasting impression on our family, he was such an amazing teacher and person!"

The students and colleagues of Jim Letcher also took time to share stories about the profound impact Jim had on students and how he made each school he worked for a better place.

"He was by far the best teacher Gabby ever had. She grew so much this year because of him."

"Wonderful teacher! Rest in peace Mr. Letcher, you will be missed!"

"He was the charismatic soul of the building"

These words show that while both of these men were outstanding teachers they were even better people. Of course if you asked either of them if they were a great teacher they would humbly point to host of colleagues, educators and mentors that inspired them on a daily basis as those deserving of such a distinction. Because their goal was never to compete with other teachers for greater monetary rewards but instead to be part of the team that provided their students with the best possible education.

We never know when it will be our last chance to tell our favorite teachers how they made us a better person. How they inspired us. How they gave us the confidence to reach for our dreams. If you had a teacher that made a difference in your life like Andy and Jim did for thousands of Michigan students, today is as good a day as any to let them know you appreciate all their hard work and special attention. Just don't be surprised when they feel undeserving of these accolades because most great teachers do the job for the love of it.

Kevin Sorbo has no faith in Bill Maher

Last week Bill Maher made some statements on his HBO show Real Time that had the "War on Christianity" crowd up in arms. While most of these people will find any statement regarding religion from Bill Maher to be offensive, when he stated that God was a “psychotic mass murderer” for creating humans and subsequently flooding the world - killing nearly every man, woman, and child on the planet, in an attempt to start over - to many, this crossed a line.

Never wanting to let a possible controversy go to waste, the good folks in the conservative media found a way to turn this criticism into a full blown attack. While the opinions of celebrities are typically frowned upon by conservatives, noted Christian actor Kevin Sorbo happened to be out to promote his new film called "God's Not Dead". When asked about the comments made by Bill Maher, Sorbo described him as a "very angry and lonely man”.

This follows a religious meme that has been building for years where Christians in the US are being persecuted for their beliefs. Given that nearly 80% of the US population identifies themselves as Christian it seems this oppression is probably more myth than fact but the problem is, for most of these people, this is the first time they've experienced any systemic form of discrimination. Many of them have never experienced the inequality of the justice system. They are not stopped on the street and asked to prove they are US citizens. They've never been denied service for being who they are.

The biggest affront they often face is walking into a store in December and being greeted with "Happy Holidays". For them racism is fiction but religious intolerance is rampant plague ruining the country.

Of course if you actually watched the piece by Bill Maher you would see that his beef is not with religion per se but with the denial of science and adherence to the impossible for religious purposes. Asking someone to recognize that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally and used as a science book is a far cry from the "hate" that some have ascribed to it.

Having said that, if a Christian uses the Bible in an attempt to convert non-believes it's often referred to as spreading the word of God and thought of as holy mission. Bill Maher is simply using the Bible in an attempt to convert believers. Being passionate about this endeavor and putting his faith in science instead of religion doesn't make him angry or hateful.

While Bill Maher is being demonized for his attempts to change viewers minds no one seems at all concerned that after Kevin Sorbo's condemnation of Bill he continued to proselytize for Christianity.

Unfortunately rather than discuss the virtues of Christianity Sorbo took the low road of fear mongering to convince viewers of the need for more Christianity in the US, stating "Morals are declining, the country is going under". Like the denial of science this conclusion, that the US has lost its moral compass, almost never includes any empirical evidence.

What data is Kevin Sorbo looking at to make such a bold declaration? What time period was the peak of morality? When slavery ended? When interracial marriage was deemed legal? After releasing Japanese Americans from Internment Camps?

Are crime rates a proxy for morals? If so the rates of violent crime, simple assault, aggravated assault, rape, property crime and robbery have all dropped steadily for the past two decades.

Does the abortion rate correlate to morality? If so the number of abortions recently hit a 30 year low.

Is teen pregnancy and indicator of the country’s moral standing? If so teen pregnancy is down 42% since 1990.

How about the number of marriages that end in divorce each year? Does more divorce mean lower morals? If so in 2009 we hit a 40 year low in the divorce rate.

Perhaps Kevin Sorbo is referring to is the Biblical sin of gluttony when talking about declining morals. If that is the case the share of income going to the top 1% is at or near record highs.

The reality is that religious convictions and how people choose to observe them is a deeply personal matter that even most atheist respect the sanctity of. The validity of Bible based hyperbole used to counter science and data however is fair game for debate.

If you don't like what Bill Maher has to say about the Bible, the answer is simple - shut him up by using science to prove him wrong. Otherwise accept that his "intolerance" of your views is only matched by your intolerance of his.

Abortion: Murder or medical procedure?

Even among those who are not political junkies, discussing a women's right to have an abortion elicits a strong response. I recently penned an article discussing the Republican hypocrisy regarding keeping government out of people's private lives. In the article I talked about the threats from the Tennessee's Republican led legislature towards Volkswagen employees considering unionizing, the Republican push to use the power of government to ban same sex couples from the benefits of marriage, as well as the insistence by many Republicans to include creationism in public school science classes even though there is no science in this belief.

There was certainly more than enough red meat for conservatives to chew on but the line that received the biggest response by far was the line where I suggested that women, not Republican legislatures, should be allowed to decide what collection of cells to remove from their body. My colleague, blogging pioneer and fellow patriot Jason Vines said this "was perhaps the vilest thing that has ever appeared on this site".

Luckily unlike Jason's thoughts on the topic a women's right to an abortion is not subjective - it is constitutionally guaranteed.

Hyperbole aside, the dividing line when it comes to abortion is your view of the zygote, embryo, and fetus. We all start as a collection of cells which divide repeatedly to form skin, limbs, organs and a brain.

The question then becomes when does this collection of cells obtain rights? The pro-life camp tends to believe life begins at conception so ever abortion is murder. The pro-choice camp tends to think personhood isn't achieved till much later so an abortion is a medical procedure to remove unwanted cells. Neither side is willing to back down from their stance, but the highest court in the land has thus far sided with those in the pro-choice camp.

There are of course many people who fall somewhere in between. Some are against abortion but OK in the case or rape or incest. Some feel an abortion is justified if the life of the mother is in danger. Others believe an abortion is justified if the fetus has defects that would affect the quality of life.

Then there are also those that feel that the legality of an abortion corresponds to a certain time frame - once there's a heartbeat, once there are brain waves, or no later than 20 weeks. If you take all of these variations into account only 20% of the population believes an abortion is murder starting at conception. It should also be noted that if 20 weeks is an acceptable cut off only 1% of all abortions occur after 20 weeks.

Regardless, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, no one wants more abortions to occur each year. Unfortunately the methods each side supports for how we achieve that goal are dramatically different. Pro-life organizations have worked diligently to make getting an abortion more and more difficult hoping to eventually make all abortions illegal. Given the results of government crack downs in other areas such as prohibition and the war on drugs it seems unlikely that making abortion illegal will actually reduce the number of abortions per year. Instead it will just make abortions more dangerous and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

Pro-Choice groups on the other hand would prefer to use the power of education to reduce the number of abortions with information. Instead of attempting and failing to rewire the brains of teenagers with abstinence only education pro-choice groups would prefer to explain what happens during sex, how to prevent pregnancy, and give people all the information necessary to help them make better choices.

Unfortunately to many, the effectiveness of the methods isn’t important. If having sex results in a pregnancy, then you must see that pregnancy through. Purposely removing those cells is murder even though the law says otherwise.

Of course if all human life was as sacrosanct to conservatives as a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus you might expect them to act differently in other situations.

For instance Republicans are twice as likely as a Democrat to support the death penalty.

Over 30,000 Americans die every year from guns yet Republicans overwhelming oppose restricting or reducing gun rights.

Republicans support drone strikes at significantly greater levels than Democrats even though these drone kill hundreds of civilians each year.

Republican legislators oppose many of the efforts of the EPA aimed at reducing air pollution even though some 200,000 Americans die every year from poor air quality.

Heart disease kills some 600,000 Americans per year yet attempts to curb the availability of foods that lead to heart disease are often rebuffed as government overreach.

Just like abortion statistics these numbers don't prove one side right or the other side wrong. What they do show is that one person's "murder" is another person’s "choice". So the opinion of my colleague or the one he assumes I must have, given that we have never had the opportunity to discuss this topic, are completely irrelevant. In the end these decisions rest with solely with nine judges in Washington DC. But don't let that reality get in the way of a good take down piece.

"Choice": Another Republican lie

Republican lead legislatures across the nation are making controversial changes to many laws under the guise of "choice". Charter schools give families a "choice" of where to send their children. Right to work gives workers a "choice" to join a union. Repealing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) gives individuals a "choice" of health care.

The truth is "choice" is a red herring in these political discussions.

In 2013 only 11.3% of workers belonged to a union. This means that around 90% of jobs don't require employees to be a union member. Additionally there are some 4 million jobs that are currently unfilled. Are there really no choices available for anti-union workers? Are they somehow being forced to accept union jobs because no other jobs exist?

Additionally, the formation of a union is a constitutional protected right that requires a majority vote. In the public sector this is often referred to as the democratic process or part of what makes America the greatest country on earth. Right to work allows individuals to opt out of this democratic process.

If allowing individuals to vacate their union membership is the Republican's idea of "choice" and true choice actually matters to Republicans then they should also allow any number of individuals to organize a union instead of requiring a majority vote. If right to work represented a genuine choice the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee would have a union of 626 employees right now. But when Republicans say they want "choice" they only mean a choice to ignore things they oppose.

The same is true of charter schools. When Republicans discuss having a choice among schools they are talking about turning children into a commodity that their donors can profit from. Because the majority of charter schools are in locations that serve families that nearly every other Republican policy harms. "Choice" is just a catch phrase Republicans use to make this money grab politically palatable.

If choice were really a concern then the board of trustees would be elected by and answer to the parents of the students instead of the charter school owner. After all shouldn't parents get a choice in how the school is run? Some schools require a certain level of parent involvement. Parent involvement is clearly a good thing for students but think of the outrage from Republicans if their local public school required parents to pledge 5 hours a week of their time to the school. Republicans built and entire political party on fighting the ACA's individual mandate - just imagine the response to being forced to spend time with their kids.

To advertise their product one charter school said "A charter school is an independently run public school granted greater flexibility in its operations". This loosely translates to "no one tells us what to do". This "flexibility" exists because charter schools don't have to meet many of the same standards or teacher the same ridged curriculum that states have imposed on public schools.

If choice is the impetus for changing education in the US why wouldn't Republicans just follow their own talking point and get government out of the education process. Instead of coming up with a whole new system, just allow schools to choose for themselves the best method of teaching children. If parents didn't like the direction the school was taking they could always choose different school board members.

Of course these changes all revolve around the belief that somehow the free market offers choice where government doesn't. In their mind choosing to give their business to a company is choice, but participating in democracy is not.

So if you don't like big oil the Republican answer is simple - don't use oil. On the surface this is a completely reasonable idea. But if you think about it at all you realize just how little choice you really have. Sure you can buy a hybrid car, walk to work, or take a bike but the hybrid car still has plastic and rubber components that are made from oil. The same is true of the bike and shoes.

Beyond that, imagine trying to eliminate all oil products from your house. Carpets, appliances, technology, and food packing all contain oil. Even the every day products you buy from the store required oil to produce and ship to market.

Could you choose to not have any of your money go to big oil? It's possible, but it would also take such a ridiculous level of commitment that even the most ardent conservative would have to admit this hardly qualifies as a choice.

This free market choice also assumes all of the information you need to make these decisions is readily available. Thanks to Republicans, corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts money to causes you may or may not support and this can all be done in a completely anonymous way. Maybe they spend money to support gun rights, abortion rights, or the ACA. Under the current rules consumers won't even know if the companies they frequent have an agenda that they agree with. The companies have a choice but the public does not.

The reality is that when Republicans say they support "choice" they really only mean choices that benefit big business. If it happens to help someone else that's fine, but a choice that hurts a company is something Republicans will ironically use every government power at their disposal to stop.

How a black president made racism acceptable

Earlier this year the Civil Rights divisions of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (DOE) put out a letter to help public schools navigate the complicated issue of racial inequality in public school discipline.

Of course the Obama administration can't do anything without conservatives claiming the sky is falling so it should come as no surprise that the government's attempt to help schools abide by the 1964 Civil Rights Act would turn into cries of "quotas" and "manifestos".

While the actual letter is far from a manifestos the bias from the right is clear. Detroit News Editorial writer Ingrid Jacques stated "What the letter overlooks is the possibility that the numbers are higher for these (black) students because they actually misbehave more."

If you recall this was a popular meme not too long ago with gun violence when "black on black crime" became a common talking point for Fox News and other conservative echo chambers. Rather than addressing how racism affects the country and having a serious conversation about how to address it many conservatives have adopted the Ann Coulter line of thinking that racism doesn't exist anymore. In this world being ignorant clearly trumps accepting one's own flaws and attempting to become a better person.

It should be noted that Civil Rights include more than the rights of African Americans. They are there to prevent the government and private organizations from discriminating against anyone, be it for the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their sex, or their sexual orientation.

In this instance the DOJ and DOE present data that suggests there is a systemic problem with discrimination in the education system. Conservatives look at these stats and believe they prove that black students are inherently more disruptive and need to be censured more often. In the past these sorts of beliefs would quickly be identified as racist however hypersensitivity from the right over putting a label on their bigotry prevents people from calling a spade a spade anymore.

But imagine if instead of black students it was discovered that devoutly religious students were twice as likely to be disciplined as their non religious counterparts. Would those in the religious community not seek a change in how punishment was doled out? Would they be comfortable with an atheist writer suggesting that religious students are inherently more disruptive? Would they not cry that these students Civil Rights were being ignored?

While it may be a great comfort for some white folks to believe that African Americans are just more violent and unruly than their white peers, the data tells a different story.

Even though black and white kids use marijuana at similar rates, black youth were four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.

While the media would have you believe black on black crime is a problem it occurs at an almost identical rate as white on white crime. The same is also true of violent crime rates where socioeconomic status not skin color determined the likelihood of being a victim.

In New York 83% of the people who were stopped and frisked were black or Hispanic yet they only represent around half of the population.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth shows the US is a deeply racist country with African Americans being perceived as the most lawless.

The reality is that for many whites this bias is a self fulfilling prophecy. They only accept the information that matches their prejudice and never consider how their views and actions exacerbate the problem. Perhaps nothing proves that more than this belief that a black president asking public schools to consider the Civil Rights of all students is somehow a socialist affront to whites yet when the white president says "Strong civil rights enforcement will be a cornerstone of my administration" it is an applause line.

Unfortunately having a black president didn't end racism. Instead racists pretend things have changed and use political debate as cover to rationalize their bigoted talking points.

Republicans are thugs

For decades one of the core principles of the Republican Party was that the government should be less involved in making decision for the populace. Unfortunately the actions of Republican legislators suggest that this meme only applies when Democrats are the ones making the rules.

If you are a woman and you would like to remove a collection of cells from your body the Republican Party feels they should have more control over your body than you do and have spent the past few years putting in rule after rule that puts politicians squarely between a woman and her doctor.

In North Carolina the government repeatedly blocked lawsuits against a massive energy company for damage to the environment and instead assessed a minor fine without ever requiring the company to fix the problems that were creating the environmental damage.

If you are gay the Republican Party has been shamed into reluctantly accepting you as citizens however they have altered state constitutions across the nation to ban same sex couples from being married.

Republicans in some Southern states are forcing students to learn creationism in science class even though there is no actual science involved.

But perhaps Republican's most duplicitous action so far was perpetrated in Tennessee where Republicans lied to and threatened Volkswagen employees regarding the potential results of their pending UAW vote.

Outside of the fact that these actions are the complete antithesis of what Republicans claim to support, Volkswagen actually would like the employees to have some form of representation to work with management. Given the results of the recent UAW vote, the Tennessee Volkswagen plant is now the only Volkswagen plant without a works council. According to a representative from the Volkswagen works council in Germany, the failure to form a representative body may cause the manufacturer to look to more union friendly location in the future.

One big question none of these politicians have ever answered is why they are so ardently against Volkswagen employees forming a union. The constitution allows for collective bargaining. The union voting was a democratic process. For the "buy American" crowd, the additional wages union employees make, helps keep more money in the US instead of letting it trickle down in Germany. Plus, Tennessee is already a right to work state which allows employees to opt out.

If Republicans were true to their word they would concede like former conservative hero turned union member Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher "It's an American worker's right to unionize" and that "the employees voted to have it that way and in America that's the way it is".

In the end getting the government out of your private life is just another false meme politicians sell to an under informed electorate to elicit hate and fear for political gain because even for the representatives of the "values voters" the ends justify the means regardless of how immoral their actions may be.

Political fiction is what really kills jobs

In politics the line between reality and fantasy is often hard to decipher. The recent ruling by a Nebraska court regarding the Keystone XL pipeline offers another example of this situation.

The ruling voided a law the Nebraska legislature had enacted that approved the pipeline. This means more legal action will soon follow and the decision on the pipeline will be delay by several months. This is also another occasion for conservatives to talk up the benefits of the project.

The first argument they make is that the Keystone pipeline creates jobs. Data shows that the construction will create thousands of temporary jobs but in the end the pipeline will only create35 long term jobs. It should be noted that during the debate over the 2009 stimulus package Republicans clearly were not in favor of creating what they called "menial and temporary" jobs.

The second claim they like to make is that the Keystone pipeline will reduce gas prices. Unfortunately even the company arguing for the project was only willing to say that the pipeline "could" reduce prices. The reality is that standard free market principles still apply. So while much of this oil will be sold outside of the US, the portion that does remain within our borders will be subject to global oil pricing. In order for the new pipeline to actually lower prices it would have to generate a significant additional supply which lowers the demand. Given that this project will only produce at maximum 830,000 barrels per day or less than 1% of the daily world total a noticeable drop seems unlikely.

Finally, they also claim that the Keystone pipeline will lead to energy independence for the US. Outside of the fact that much of this oil will not be used domestically the US is already on the way to energy independence thanks to lower usage rates and a boom in production for domestic energy sources. In fact under Barack Obama the US is on pace to produce record setting amounts of domestic crude.

Of course the Keystone pipeline isn't the only topic that conservatives debate from within their political bubble.

The head of the NRA stated, and many conservatives believe, that the president wants to take away your guns rights even though the only legislation he has signed regarding guns have expanded gun rights.

Even though the stock market hit record highs, companies are making record profits, the top 1% is taking home more money than ever, and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash Republican insist that Barack Obama is "anti business".

A majority of Republicans believe the president is not a US citizen. No amount of logic or documentation will convince them otherwise even though everyone in the know abandoned this conspiracy theory long ago.

Many conservatives believe that as president Barack Obama has raised taxes yet the actual data shows the US tax burden fell to its lowest point since 1958 under Obama.

Republicans also insist that government spending is out of control under Barack Obama even though once you account for inflation and population change federal expenditures have fallen more during his presidency than any other president over the past four decades.

The reality is that voters can chastise congress and the president for failing to accomplish anything but as our system is currently configured there is absolutely no reason for the politicians to change their tactics unless the electorate stops accepting fiction as fact.

Minimum wage doesn't kill jobs - Politicians do.

This week the CBO released a report discussing the potential outcome of an increase in the federal minimum wage. While the proposal would pull nearly 1 million people out of poverty and increase wages for some 24 million American workers the only portion of the report Republicans would like to discuss is the possible 500,000 job losses.

Conservative voices like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin have suddenly found value in this CBO report which stands in stark contrast to their previous sentiment of this organization whose previous reports they said were just an "opinion", used "smoke and mirrors", and contained "budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline".

Apparently to these conservatives the CBO is a deeply biased political organization except when their findings conform to Republican talking points.

Of course rather than have substantive discussions on how we can increase wages for millions of hard working Americans without losing jobs, both sides will cherry pick the data they want to accentuate and dismiss the rest. This sort of tribal nature of politics is partly to blame for the lack of action in Washington these days.

All politicians should support getting working class Americans a larger share of the profits they helped create. Data shows that unions are a more effective method of achieving this result than minimum wage however just last week in Tennessee we had Republican politicians completely misinforming their constituents in an attempt to use the power of government to pick the winners and losers.

The reason unions are better at getting more appropriate pay and benefits for American workers than minimum wage requirements is because such requirements are a one size fits all solution to a very complicated capitalist system. The union’s goals are to help increase profitability for their company so that they can get higher pay and greater benefits for their members while simultaneously increasing their membership. This requires both sides to sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement.

As it is currently configured an increase in the minimum wage requires none of the analysis, discussions, or compromise that are at the core of a good union contract. Instead it will punish some companies that have low profit margins or are still pouring money back into the company to grow.

Perhaps what both sides should consider is a flexible minimum wage proposal - a system that uses the compensation for the members at the top of an organization to determine the minimum wage at the bottom. By tying the compensation of the management staff to that of the rest of the organization these companies could still pay their executives tens of millions of dollars each year however that level of compensation would trigger a minimum wage which would be significantly higher than that of a company that pays its top officials hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

With this sort of a system the smaller companies that can't afford to pay their employees above the current federal minimum wage could continue to keep wages low as long as they don't take massive salaries and benefits for themselves. After all, should a company with 30 employees, all making minimum wage, really have a CEO that is taking home millions in compensation?

Maybe a system like this could work or maybe it couldn't but when you have two parties that are more concerned about debunking the CBO and scoring political points than finding new ideas to solve age old issues, the electorate may be forced to make changes that we can all agree the politicians won't like.

Rick Snyder is working to destroy public schools

In his most recent budget offering Rick Snyder has requested an increase in education spending for Michigan schools. For years Republicans have argued that spending more money on education is a bad idea, but this is an election year and polls show that the public supports more spending on education so rather than attempting to make a case to back up their core beliefs conservative media outlets are trying to convince everyone that the governor has actually been a big spending education advocate.

As a result of this debate you can find quotes from the Mark Schauer, the Democrat running for governor, claiming that under Rick Snyder Michigan is spending $1 billion less on education as well as the corresponding assertion from the governor’s office that under his watch spending has increased by $660 per pupil.

Both sides continue to use slanted math to posture for position in the governor's race but let's imagine for a minute that the citizens in Michigan are more interested in the money going towards education than which candidate can manipulate information better.

In that case it should be noted that since 2007 spending on education in Michigan has failed to keep pace with inflation to the tune of around $1.5 billion. Additionally in 2003 total per pupil revenue in Michigan was 7.8% higher than the national average while it had dropped to 2.9% below the national average by 2010.

Of course it is also true that less money is going is making its way to the classroom then before. According to an article by Julie Mack of Mlive "In today's dollars, the per-pupil foundation allowance was worth $8,170 in 2003-04, the report says. Under the governor's proposed budget, its $5,932 in 2013-14".

Conservative will be quick to point out that this fall in classroom spending is largely due to the increased spending on the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSER). However it should be noted that a large portion of the additional funds being allocated to the MPSER program come directly from employees. It certainly doesn't suggest education is a priority for the governor if the only way he can show an increase in education spending is by taking money out of the pockets of Michigan educators and putting it back on the balance sheet as “spending”.

Perhaps more concerning then the half truths and number manipulation coming from Lansing is the use of MPSER as a tool to undermine public schools. One of the biggest reasons the retirement fund for teachers is underfunded is due to the ratio of people currently contributing to the number of people drawing from the fund. Over the past decade the ratio dropped from around 2.5 employees per retiree to 1.23. Obviously less money going in and more money going out will have a negative impact on longevity of the retirement funds.

Some of this occurred because of loss of students due to the recession but the Michigan legislature compounded this problem by offering early retirement to cut cost. While this helped in the short term it increased the number of retirees drawing from MPSER, making the fund less solvent moving forward. To make matters worse Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans continue to move students out of the public school system and into Charter schools. Unlike public schools, enrolment in MPSER is optional for these new entities.

Rick Snyder will happily continue to talk about education spending and tout his record because he realizes the unwinnable situation he has set up for Michigan's public schools. He will claim public schools are inefficient and expensive and then offer Charter Schools as the solution.

Never mind that two decades worth of Charter Schools haven't proven to have better educational outcomes then public schools.

Never mind that many Charter Schools actually spend more than their public school counter parts.

Never mind that Charter Schools aren't subject to the same government regulation and oversight that are a burden on public schools.

Never mind that Charter Schools have more money going to administrator and less to educators than public schools.

Never mind that foreign investors make up and ever increasing portion of Charter School owners.

Never mind that Charter Schools offer less special education than public schools.

And never mind that Charter Schools end up being a way for politicians to reward big donors.

Regardless of all of these potential problem areas, Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans know that every school they deem failing will simply be converted to a Charter School which pulls more students out of public schools. This in turn mean less teachers contributing to the public retirement fund and with fewer teachers contributing it requires the state to kick in more. The perception then becomes that greedy teachers taking money out of the classroom and this means public schools are expensive and inefficient.

This is the self fulfilling prophecy that Republicans hope will be the undoing of public schools. The Republican solution to inefficient and expensive public schools makes public schools more inefficient and expensive requiring more of the Republican solution. It's a win - win for Republicans. They make public schools look bad while simultaneously putting more kids on the charter schools gravy train.

The question of money in education is important but when it comes to the Michigan governor’s race the better question should be what do we want our education system to look like in the future. Do we want schools that are subject to local checks and balances or a couple massive corporations that make their money based on quantity not quality? Because regardless of how much either candidate pledges to spend, their goals are profoundly different.

Republican rebranding a massive failure

After the worse than expected results of the last elections the Republican National Committee did an autopsy to find out where they were failing. While the answers to these questions were anything but surprising, the RNC have been working to rebrand the Republican Party as a kinder more inclusive organization.

The report suggested that their rebranding efforts need to focus on finding ways to connect with young voters, women, and minorities. The degree of success they have had is certainly debatable however RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is sticking to the rebranding strategy and has used stature as head of the image reclamation project to castigate MSNBC when their twitter account painted Republicans as being against interracial marriage.

Based on this comment and what Mr. Priebus suggests is a systemic issue at the network, the RNC banned all staff from appearing on MSNBC and asked "Republican surrogates and officials" to do the same.

Not too long ago a member of Duck Dynasty made some disparaging remarks that resulted in his suspension from the show by A&E. The outcry from the right was immediate. Conservative luminaries such as Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal suggested free speech was under attack while Fox News claimed in a headline "A&E declares war on 'Duck Dynasty's' Christian values".

Fast forward a few months and apparently free speech only applies to those with conservative values. The Fox News headline now reads "Reince Priebus stands up to MSNBC's offensive tweet".

Of course the reality is that all American's are free to express the opinions whenever and where ever they want and organizations like the RNC and A&E are free to respond however they see fit.

Having said that the problem that Republicans face runs deeper than how a biased news organization perceives their party. For example, only 40% of Mississippi Republicans believe interracial marriage should be legal. Reince Priebus can be offended all he wants but perhaps rather than going after MSNBC for furthering a stereotype the RNC would be better off informing their own party on how antiquated these views are and that they will not be tolerated.

The real problem here is that Republicans were so desperate to win elections they allowed fringe elements of the Republican party a voice because they needed voter enthusiasm to combat a shrinking base. Unfortunately by doing this they enfranchised a group of bigots who believe their beliefs have been validated.

So when Coke aired a super bowl advertisement that had "American the Beautiful" sung in multiple languages, conservative sites like Breitbart.com felt compelled to convince readers that such an act is un-American or as former Representative Allen West said about the ad - "This was a truly disturbing commercial for me". What was the RNC response to this?

Donald Trump made being a birther one of the main tenants of his short presidential bid playing to the Majority of Republicans who believe President Obama was born outside of the US. John McCain had the intestinal fortitude to tell his supporters that Barack Obama "is a decent family man - citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with". The RNC on the other hand was leading from behind on this issue stating "Trump and the candidates can talk about it all they want".

Multiple Republican candidates made ill informed statements about reproduction such as Todd Akin's comment on "legitimate rape", Joe Walsh denying abortions could ever save the life of the mother, and Richard Murdock who believes a baby conceived during rape is a "gift from God".

Representative Vance McAllister invited a member of the 'Duck Dynasty' clan to the State of the Union because he wanted to bring "some diversity to our nation's capitol." Yes, in a party that is represented by rich white guys, being a rich white guy with a beard apparently now represents diversity.

Reince Priebus can cut off contact with liberal media outlets to protest claims that he feels are unjust however if he is truly dedicated to reestablishing the Republican Party he could start by looking in the mirror first because as these examples show there is nothing the liberal media can say that will make Republicans look worse than their own actions do.

Are Republican's really interested in a balanced budget amendment?

Many Republicans have been concerned about the federal deficit since George W. Bush turned a surplus into a deficit with increased spending and tax cuts but as soon as Barack Obama was elected president this concern quickly transformed into an obsession.

To many, this has become such a dire situation that 20 states are now calling for a constitutional convention to include a balanced budget amendment into the US constitution. The most recent state to add fuel to this balanced budget fire is Michigan where Republican Governor Rick Snyder stated in his state of the state address "Hey we balance our budget at home, we balance our budget at work, why can't the federal government balance theirs?"

While most Republicans would probably agree with the governor's statement, the reality is this just isn't true. Companies and households do not balance their budgets. Of the 500 companies in the S&P 500 only 23 are debt free. The same is true of households, where 69 % hold some form of debt. So if the truth is that neither companies nor households balance their budgets then using the Republicans own logic it follows that the government doesn't need to either.

The real question shouldn't be about a balanced budget but rather how the money is spent. As the CNBC article on corporate debt explains "Wall Street doesn't seem to care if companies are carrying debt on their balance sheets – as long as they are putting that money to work." Smart companies will incur debt if that debt has a return on investment. This is also the case with the government.

In the 80's Ronald Reagan oversaw a 3.1 increase in government jobs which stands in stark contrast to the 2.7 reduction in government jobs under President Obama. Regan also increased the national debt by 186% which dwarfs the 44% increase by Barack Obama, the 101% increase by George W. Bush and the 32% increase by Bill Clinton.

What Reagan understood was that during down times investments in government jobs, even at the expense of the national debt, keeps more people working and spending money which prevents the private sector jobs losses that compound the problem.

Of course many Republicans act like there is only one side to the government balance sheet. Since 2000 real government revenues have fallen by $249 billion. Similarly since 2009 real government spending has fallen by $226 billion.

The data shows that the Bush tax cuts cost the government $2.8 trillion. Studies also show that tax cuts, not hikes, cause an increase in the size of government and the national debt. These real world realities run 100% counter to the talking point Republicans continue to try and sell year after year. Perhaps the real problem isn't the money the government spends but the lack of money the government collects.

Additionally, Republicans supported nearly unlimited funding to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any of the tax increases associated with past wars or spending cuts that they insist are required currently for any new spending. These wars have already cost US taxpayers $2 trillion and are expected to cost another $2 to $4 trillion.

Does anyone really think that a balanced budget amendment would have stopped George W. Bush from going to war? After all everyone seems to agree that "in case of emergency" the government could simply ignore the balanced budget requirement of any balanced budget amendment.

This possibility is one of the biggest problems with a balanced budget amendment. Republicans think we must have this amendment because we can't trust congress to act responsibly yet who are the architects of the balanced budget amendment that 20 states want enshrined into the constitution? The very same congress that can't be trusted in the first place. Also, does anyone seriously think that these big spending politicians with a 10% approval rating aren't going to find loopholes that will render this amendment moot?

No one argues that the government shouldn't be more prudent with its money, but a balanced budget amendment does almost nothing to address the underlying problems that lead to wasteful spending. Make an amendment that prevents the typical quid pro quo between politicians and large donors, keeps the military from paying $1,000 for a hammer, stops fraud in government services, cuts medical costs to match world norms, eliminates corporate welfare, and ends the billions in cost overruns.

Odds are, such an amendment still wouldn't pass since there is way too much money at stake, but the reality is that Republicans really don't want a balanced budget because if they couldn't feign concern for the national debt when Democrats were in charge they would be stuck talking about immigration, women's rights, marriage equality and a host of other topics that exposes the bigotry of their core values.

Can Michigan really trust Rick Snyder?

For two years Rick Snyder claimed "Right to work" legislation was too divisive and not on his agenda. Shortly after the 2012 elections Rick Snyder changed his mind. Given how divisive "Right to work" would be, it should come as no surprise that the governor would want to insulate Republican members of the state house and senate from taking a potentially damaging vote that would expose their true intentions shortly before an election. The governor however tells a different story.

In the governor's mind he was essentially forced to consider "Right to work" after unions attempted to enshrine their rights in the states constitution. Never mind that the measure was defeated which meant union rights in the state were no different than the previous two year when Rick Snyder was against "right to work". No, by even asking residents to consider a small measure of certainty for unions, Governor Snyder was required to retaliate. What other choice did he have?

So there you have it - if you mess with Rick Snyder there will be hell to pay. Either you work with the governor and bend to his will or he will forced to change his opinion in the name of retribution.

This means that anyone that pushed the voter ID law that the governor opposed is now on notice. So too are other groups like the NRA who attempted to get concealed weapons in schools even though Rick Snyder dismissed such a measure previously, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce who supported a bill that would make it harder for the Michigan treasury to collect unpaid business taxes, and the Moroun family, who own the Ambassador bridge and backed a proposal that would prevent the governor from building a second Detroit to Windsor bridge.

While we can only assume the governor is taking his time to determine the proper punishment for these dissenters, the group that should really be most concerned about experiencing the wrath of Rick Snyder are Right to Life. Not only did they push for legislation that the governor eventually vetoed - they refused to accept the governor's decision and launched a petition drive to get new abortion restrictions put in place. After gathering signatures from only 3% of Michigan residents, RTL were able to bypass Rick Snyder and enact the very law the governor opposed.

If the disobedience of unions meant an immediate 180 degree change for the governor, one can only imagine the fire and brimstone that will soon shower Right to Life since not only did they disobey his wishes, but they also publicly embarrassed him by turning one tough nerd into one irrelevant bystander.

Of course it's possible that "Right to work" had nothing to do with Proposal 2 and that the governor was being disingenuous when he suggested this legislation was just a natural counteraction to the unions actions, but really, when has there ever been a powerful businessman that was willing to lie to get his way?

Military pension cuts prove hypocrisy of Republicans

Over the past few decades the attitude towards military personnel has shifted to the point where now individuals of all political ideologies consider our military personnel as inviolable. Polls show that the military favorability rating has nearly doubled compared to the last 30 years of the 20th century.

With this in mind it should come as no surprise that after learning the details of the new budget deal agreed to by congress Veterans groups as well as many politicians voiced their displeasure with the cuts to military pensions. While the concern from past and present service members is completely understandable the complaints from Republican legislators is peculiar.

Since the start of the great recession the public sector has taken pay cuts or had their pay frozen, asked to pay a higher portion of their retirement and health care costs, while also losing 750,000 jobs. Conversely military personnel have not been asked to take a pay cut, do not contribute to their pensions and have seen an increase in their numbers.

It should also be noted that one of the biggest complaints from conservatives about public sector jobs is that many require union membership. While the military is not officially a union it certainly operates an awful lot like a union. For example if you want to defend your country from bad guys the government has a monopoly on this work and regardless of how good you are at your job you will make no more or no less than your peers. The military also has a history of protecting their members, who have committed unlawful acts, from losing their jobs.

Additionally according to TodaysMilitary.com servicemen make as much if not more than their private sector counterparts while also being able to retire with only 20 years of service. This means you could be done working and receive retirement pay for life by age 38. Of course not only will they get paid for life they will also receive healthcare for life at absurdly low rates.

If not getting paid based on your abilities, having great benefits, and higher pay than the private sector are problems for public sector unions, why are they not also troubling when it comes to the military?

Most will justify these benefits by suggesting that military jobs are dangerous yet 91% of military jobs don't involved direct combat operations. There is no adjustment in retirement benefits based on the time spent in combat. All military personnel get the same package regardless of the risk associated with their position.

But even if danger was a reason for good pay, great benefits, and public adoration there are certainly other jobs, such as fishing and logging workers, that have higher mortality rates then the general service member. Where is the concern from congress for the wages and benefits of these professions?

We also have a number of public sector jobs, such as policemen and firefighters, where people risk their lives on a daily basis to protect the citizens of this country, yet their pay and benefits have not been shielded from the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric many politicians used to attack public sector workers.

The reality is most people would probably agree with the words of Senator Roger Wicker (R) of Mississippi when he said "It is unfair to make a promise to members of our military and then – after they have honorably fulfilled every part of their obligation – have their government fail to live up to its part of the bargain,". But the question the Republicans who are fighting to restore the cuts to military pensions really need to answer is what makes all of these other brave men and women that work for the government less deserving of good pay, great benefits, and public adoration?

The NSA is scary good

Since June of 2013 when Edward Snowden released government documents confirming the existence of various data gathering methods used by the NSA there has been a lot of discussions surrounding the value of these programs. Many of these same conversations also occurred in 2006 when it was reveled that the NSA was collecting data from billions of phone call made by normal citizens. Curiously the support for these programs seems to be very closely tied to the political leanings of the commander and chief. For example in 2006 with a Republican in office 71% of Republicans supported the actions of the NSA. Conversely with a Democrat in office Republican approval plummeted to 32%.

While bringing to light the nefarious actions of the NSA exposed the depth of partisan politics as well as the extent to which government officials value data over privacy it also unveiled the fallacy of a popular political meme.

For years now many have decried the incompetence of government entities. This perceived incompetence is often the rationale used by many political pundits and politicians advocate for converting public sector jobs to private sector functions. While studies have shown that for the vast majority of jobs the private sector actually costs more than the public sector the NSA scandal shows just how advanced our government can be.

The US has a long history of technological achievements which originated with the government. These inventions include microprocessors; RAM memory; hard disk drives; liquid-crystal displays; lithium batteries; the Internet; cellular technology and networks; global positioning system (GPS); multi-touch screens. Now we also find out that many of the bastions of technology in the private sector were unable to prevent the data mining activities of the government.

These companies had built up security to thwart the attacks of expert hackers and then doubled their efforts to protect against Chinese cyber espionage but they were oblivious to the backdoor access the US government had been exploiting as far back as 2008.

Perhaps the greatest trick our government ever pulled was convincing vast sums of Americans that they were incompetent. No matter how many examples that exist exposing this fallacy, having a faithful congregation devoted to this belief is paramount to the corporate elites who profit from such a meme.

Snowden proved just how scary good our government can be. But it's the people who chose to ignore that reality that pose the biggest danger.

Chris Christie unabridged and unpresidential

Not too long ago the right was up in arms over a scandal at the IRS. To them it exposed a litany of truths they had long believed about the Obama administration. It proved they would use the power of the office to punish the opposition. It proved they were arrogant. It proved they were Chicago style thugs. It proved that they were liars. And to some it proved Barack Obama was unfit to be president.

If conservatives find this type of behavior concerning they might want to take a closer look at the recent scandal surrounding the leading candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination for President, Chris Christie.

Apparently some of the governors top officials worked with a few close political allies at the port authority to shut down a number of access lanes for the George Washington bridge as political retribution. While the port authority employees involved resigned weeks ago Chris Christie and his staff continued to proclaim their innocence up until a few days ago when emails were released showing the involvement of some Christie staffers.

Using political power to punish the opposition - Check.

Arrogantly believing these indiscretions would never see the light of day - Check.

Acting like thugs - Check.

Lying - Check.

Many believed Barack Obama had ordered the additional scrutiny delivered by the IRS and found the presidents denials completely unbelievable. There were more than a few articles which claimed the president was either lying or incompetent. Obviously the same logic applies for Chris Christie. Are we supposed to believe he was completely unaware of the actions of his Deputy Chief of staff? Assuming he is not lying about his involvement there are litany of other questions that suggest incompetence on his part.

This incident occurred more than a month ago yet Chris Christie took no action until emails were released proving the involvement of his staff. Was he lying to protect his Deputy Chief of staff or was he that oblivious as to the actions of the person he hired as one of his top officials? Having that little control over his employees certainly wouldn't suggest Chris Christie is ready to be the leader of the free world.

While many will probably attempt to dismiss this scandal as the actions of one rogue or misguided staffer Erick Erickson of RedState.com wrote on Fox News that this sort of brazen political activity was not an anomaly for the Christie administration. In fact it could be considered the hallmark of his governing style.

The disappointing reality is that people in power do lots of unscrupulous things. Be it manipulating the mortgage market to increase profits or using political power to stay in power. The people deserve better. But perhaps more unfortunate is the fact that most of those who thought the IRS scandal proved Barack Obama was unfit to be president will find a way to dismiss the bridge scandal as an aberration while others will undoubtedly suggest that not only is this a non story but that it actually proves just how presidential Chris Christies is.